A petition with 2063 verified signatures had been submitted in the following terms:

“We the undersigned (live, work or study in the district) call on Sevenoaks District Council to:

i) Not adopt the council’s current plan,

ii) Consider adopting an alternative plan,

iii) Fully consult with residents and White Oak users on new proposals,

iv) Develop a new plan that meets the requirements of residents and White Oak users.

Sevenoaks District Council plan to replace the White Oak sports and leisure centre with a small activity centre containing a half size pool, no deep water, no sports hall, no practice hall and less studios/party/meeting rooms. There will be a game of limited age range popularity called TAG Active, which is found alongside bowling alleys, trampoline centres and soft play areas.

The new centre is not fit for purpose, is not supported by Sport England and breaches many government and local policies (NPPF). More than 18 sports clubs face closure making 900+ members ‘homeless’, of which 400+ are young people.

We, the White Oak Clubs Committee, have prepared alternative plans professionally costed at £7.54m and £13.2m compared to the council’s £20m. Our plans include space for all or nearly all of the activities and sports currently available and more, and all on the White Oak site.

We believe our plans represent value for the council tax payers money - OUR money.’

Gary Allen addressed the Council in support of the petition.

The Leader explained that the Council’s project had been tested by the procured contractor Alliance Leisure Services (ALS) in line with RIBA stage 4 requirements considering the full technical design specifications and any building regulations.  In comparison, the alternative plans put forward by the petitioners only provided indicative costs using the Sport England calculator, which was only a guide, and did not provide: full development appraisals; professional fees; current and future inflations costs; allowances for asbestos related works; abortive costs; additional procurement, any additional planning permissions; timings and associated costs etc.  Any pre-application advice which the alternative schemes had taken had not been shared with the Council.

It was also unclear whether the suggested alternatives had taken into account many other cost issues associated with refurbishment, for example, less land would be left for disposal which was required to support borrowing.  As the alternative proposals would require the temporary closure of the existing leisure centre, it could also leave the northern end of the district without any leisure facilities for residents and clubs for up to 18 months. Any closure would also cause the TUPE transfer of Sencio Leisure Trust staff to the new leisure operator to be jeopardised and would place staff at risk. If Sencio (the current operator) were forced into having to fund redundancies, it could jeopardise the leisure facilities currently provided at Edenbridge and Sevenoaks. 

The Council had received a full list of clubs from Sencio that currently used the facilities at White Oak. If approved, the preferred leisure contractor would engage early on with clubs to discuss programming and timetabling.  The Council had worked hard on ensuring that the new design could accommodate as many activities as possible.  The Erith based diving club Highgate could no longer be accommodated, nor the district synchronised swimming club.  However their land based training could continue there, and the latter still had access to the Erith Leisure Centre which they currently used. Other clubs that could no longer use the centre would be accommodated at the Orchards Academy, except for the model flying club, dog training and squash and racketball.

The Leader urged Members to note the petition.

Concern was expressed about the condition of the hall at Orchard’s Academy, and Members noted the amount of people who had signed the petition with queries made as to whether these alternatives had been properly investigated.

Upon clarification the Leader confirmed he was moving a motion to note the petition, which was then duly seconded by Councillor Hogarth. 

The Portfolio Holder for Housing & Health, advised that the average life expectancy for the ward of Swanley St Mary’s was 8.9 years lower than that of the highest in the district, and a new leisure centre would have a vital role to play in reducing the health inequalities of the area.  It represented a major investment which would help local residents be healthier and more active.  The proposed operator, Sports and Leisure Management (Active Leisure), were market leaders already operating 198 facilities on behalf of 61 other local authorities.  They had the experience and expertise to achieve health and wellbeing goals and implement accessible programmes for all ages and genders, including weight management; cardiac rehabilitation; smoking cessation; mobility classes; cancer recovery sessions; falls prevention etc.

In debate it was queried whether the proposed facilities would be affordable to local residents, suggesting any use of the facilities would be a large percentage of a low income.

The 15 minutes for debate expired and the motion was put to the vote.

Resolved:  That the petition be noted.