Agenda item

Jackey Bakers Recreation Ground Pavilion

Minutes:

Tony Marmo introduced the report and made the following comments:

 

  • The Council received a petition on 30 June 2023 relating to the Council’s management of the public open space, Jackey Bakers Recreation Ground;
  • On 14 December 2023, Cabinet approved the next steps to be undertaken by officers in response to the petition. This included approving the demolition of the existing pavilion and the purchase of a temporary portacabin style changing facility once demolition has occurred;
  • On 28 March 2024 Council agreed that a capital budget of £370,000 be allocated to facilitate this and this budget is now available for 2024/25;
  • The existing pavilion building at Jackey Bakers Recreation Ground is dilapidated and presents a health and safety risk. It is beyond economical repair and is currently fenced off to prevent unforced access to the perimeter of the building;
  • This report sets out proposals for Cabinet’s approval to undertake the procurement and award of a contract to demolish the existing pavilion, erect a temporary changing facility and to delegate authority to the Director of Environment to agree the final terms and sign the contract with the successful bidder;
  • A RIBA stage 2 Cost Plan undertaken by consultants B&M has estimated the value of the contract at £360,000;
  • B&M have also undertaken building and services surveys and produced a contract specification for competitive tendering based on the plans and designs they have also produced;
  • Planning prior approval for the demolition of the existing pavilion was granted at the Planning Committee held on the 13th December 2023;
  • A further application for planning permission to erect the temporary pavilion has been submitted in early May 2024.

 

Tony Marmo then requested that the Overview and Scrutiny Panel review the report and consider any representations it wished to make to Cabinet ahead of its meeting on 25 June 2024.

 

The Panel discussed the report, made comments and asked questions as follows:

 

  • This was a big step forward and it was good to note that the Council was responding to petitions from residents;
  • There were some concerns in the last few months regarding health and safety issues around the facility;
  • Fencing-off the premises was the right decision that had been taken. However it appeared as if the changing rooms were still being used even after the premises had been fenced-off;
  • Children had been seen on the roof where there was potentially hazardous material. In view of this, was this property not a Council liability?
  • How long would the temporary facility be in place, before a permanent structure is installed?

 

  • Would the temporary facility be able to host teams if they were to attend the Kent Cup Competition?
  • Would the new temporary structure have facilities for women, men and children?
  • How would the Council make the building safer?
  • The site was isolated and one way of providing more security for it was looking for a joint operator. Had the Council considered this option as this would ensure that the facility was fully utilised?
  • Did the £350k project costs include the costs for a connection to services?
  • When would the changing rooms be ready for use?
  • What lifespan did the temporary structure have?
  • With housing development in Haine Road, there would be more footfall as more people would potentially be using the facility.

 

Tony Marmo and Bob Porter, Director of Place responded as follows:

 

  • As soon as officers became aware of health and safety issues the structure was closed. Since then new signage and fencing have been put up to ensure a secure area has been created;
  • Officers conduct a daily check of the premises to ensure the site is safe and secure;
  • Under planning permission conditions, the temporary structure could be used for up to two years;
  • Officers were currently developing a project to take forward the master plan for the site;
  • There were external funding opportunities for new sporting facilities. Officers were currently talking to Kent FA and Active Kent about such opportunities;
  • S106 agreement funding would normally be used for new sports facilities;
  • As there are 4 changing rooms officers would have to make arrangements for how the temporary facilities could be used depending on the scheduled of matches;
  • Pitch power assessments have been done by the Open Spaces team in conjunction with the Kent FA. The pitch power  funding for drainage works based on the assessment, could only be applied for by community groups or football clubs;
  • There will be future discussions on whether the safety fencing currently surrounding the pavilion would be kept and these discussions would involve the community;
  • Officers will consider if the current daily checks being done could be continued when the temporary structure is completed;
  • The temporary facilities would have accessible facilities;
  • Officers would only know when the changing rooms would ready for use once planning permission has been granted and the contractor procured, but it certainly would not be at the start of the new season;
  • The temporary building would have a good lifespan as long as it was not vandalised. This was a facility that could be used elsewhere once a permanent building was put up.

 

The Panel noted the report.

Supporting documents: