Does size matter at leisure complex?

Does size matter at leisure complex?

3 April 2013

WILL the new Down Leisure Centre be state-of-the-art, or state-of-the-art enough? And should proposed leisure facilities in other parts of the district be scaled back to fund an expansion?

These were some of the questions posed at a special council meeting this week, called by council chairman Mickey Coogan.

Councillor Coogan said he was concerned the building destined for Market Street in Downpatrick had been scaled too far back from their original vision to meet the £12.1m budget.

Plans previously presented to a council working group had exceeded the budget by £1m. Architects from Kennedy Fitzgerald told Friday’s meeting that in their latest version they had mainly compromised on corridor space and entrance hall space to bring the plans within budget.

Facilities at the new centre are due to include a spa and fitness suite overlooking Dunleath Park, and a six lane swimming pool.

Norman Hamilton, from Kennedy Fitzgerald architects, said they believed they had created a “very dramatic and visually interesting” building the district could be “very proud of” at the gateway to Downpatrick.

Councillor Coogan said he had, however, envisaged a building on a larger scale.

“My own view is that this facility is in the County Town and should be designed and equipped to serve the whole district,” he said.

“The difficulty is that we have three large towns each with their own agenda for sport and recreation and each with a desire to provide state of the art facilities. By attempting to meet these needs we come to a compromise position where we end up dividing the limited resources available.

“If this means we have to put more money into the project then that’s what we have to do. If it means scaling back plans for leisure centres in other towns then that’s what we have to do.

“This does not mean we don’t provide facilities in Newcastle, Ballynahinch or Saintfield, it simply means we may have to reconsider the timeframes in which they can be delivered.”

Supporting Mr. Coogan, councillor Stephen Burns argued the original brief for the centre was not “like for like with a wee bit extra” and said he had believed an elite sports facility was being built. He then suggested getting a second opinion from other consultants on what they could get for their money.

Councillor Colin McGrath, who led the leisure centre project board within the council, said Mr. Burns was not aware of what had been previously agreed. He said they had been asked to create a leisure centre for the budget of £12.1m for “the same facilities if not more” than before.

He said the facilities had increased in scale compared to the current centre and rejected any notion of going back to the drawing board.

“The council has spent a lot of money to get where we are now with the approval of the council,” said councillor McGrath.

Councillors Patsy Toman and Billy Walker expressed concern at the possibility of leisure facilities elsewhere in the district being compromised.

Council chief executive John Dumigan rejected the notion of seeking a second opinion from consultants, stating that the current consultants had been “very patient.”

Warning councillors of the potential impact on future rates if they went over budget he also pointed out that due to their choice of site, a significant part of their budget had to be spent on piling.

Director of Recreation Michael Lipsett said if extra money was to be spent, he suggested it be on the fitness suite, as there was a good business case for increasing the size to bring in extra revenue.