Minutes:
In response to a question asked by the Chair of Riverside Residents Association Ltd, Councillor J Rowlandson, Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Resources, Investments and Assets thanked Mr. Brown for his question.
Councillor Rowlandson explained that the council was facing unprecedented financial pressure in setting the budget for 2024/2025 and into future years. The costs of delivering the original programme aspirations had increased from the original £62.8m estimate to in excess of £100m because of inflationary pressures, outside of the council’s control. Delivery on the original aspirations would require a further £48 million of capital expenditure, which was unaffordable and unsustainable at the current time, given the unprecedented cost pressures faced and the uncertainty around future financial settlements beyond 2024/25.
In the current financial context and budget pressures facing the council at this time, taking on additional borrowing that would be required to fund that level of increase in capital expenditure was not affordable. However, the aspiration of the council remained unchanged and new build centres remained very much part of future plans, as and when funding allowed.
A further £10 million was being committed to the capital programme budget to improve Chester-le-Street and Seaham leisure centres. These improvements would be focussed on making a positive difference to the experience of customers, enhance site facilities, and ensure the centres were structurally and mechanically sound going forward. Once the council’s budget report had been agreed by Council, a plan for the investment of the £10 million of additional investment in these centres would be developed and proposals shared as soon as possible after this time.
Proposals for the Riverside had reached a well-developed stage and had been subject to significant community consultation and engagement. Whilst being deliverable proposals, consultation outcomes showed that the plans attracted various areas of feedback and concern.
A significant element of the funding envelope earmarked to the Riverside project was predicated on a self-financing proposition, whereby the uplifted usage and income from the redeveloped facilities would pay for the majority of the capital borrowing.
On the balance of feedback, through consultation to date, any project taken forward at the Riverside needed to be considerate of wider opportunities for physical activity and community engagement, and target investment to derive the most benefit for a broader spectrum of the community. This changed the context considerably from the previous plans and proposals that were consulted on, which were largely based upon self-financing developments at the site.
Given this change in emphasis, it would be necessary to continue to manage the Riverside in its current format for the time-being. The council could then proceed to explore subsequent opportunities with stakeholders to develop the wider site, with such developments predicated upon suitable funding opportunities becoming available.