Halifax Leisure Centre Levelling Up Fund application

This page is a version of the Levelling Up Fund application for Halifax Leisure Centre. 

The level of detail provided in the Application Form should be in proportion to the amount of funding requested. For example, bids for more than £10m should provide considerably more information than bids for less than £10m.

Specifically, for larger transport projects requesting between £20m and £50m, bidding entities may submit the Application Form or if available an Outline Business Case (OBC) or Full Business Case (FBC). 

Levelling Up Fund application

Local authority name / Applicant name(s)*: The Metropolitan Borough of Calderdale (CMBC)

Bid Manager Name and position: Halifax Town Centre Development Programme Manager

Senior Responsible Officer contact details: Director of Regeneration & Strategy, Calderdale MBC, 3rd Floor Princess Building, Princess Street, Halifax, HX1 1TS

Chief Finance Officer contact details: Head of Finance, Calderdale Council

Country: England

Please provide the name of any consultancy companies involved in the preparation of the bid: Walker Sime; Metro Dynamics; Alliance Leisure

Part 1 Gateway criteria

1a Gateway Criteria for all bids

Please tick the box to confirm that your bid includes plans for some LUF expenditure in 2021-22: 
Yes

Part 2 Equality and diversity analysis

2a Please describe how equalities impacts of your proposal have been considered, the relevant affected groups based on protected characteristics, and any measures you propose to implement in response to these impacts. (500 words)

The Equality Act 2010 imposes an on-going legal responsibility on CMBC to have due regard to the need to promote equality. CMBC does not tolerate harassment, victimisation or unlawful discrimination in service delivery and employment on the grounds of age, disability, gender reassignment, race/ethnicity, religion or belief, sex/gender, sexual orientation, marriage & civil partnership, and pregnancy & maternity.

The following documents provide supplementary guidance to make sure this does not happen, and actions taken should it arise:

• Equality strategy – annual report - demonstrates the Council’s role in advancing equality of opportunity;
• Equality and Diversity Policy Statement - describes the council’s six priority equality objectives;
• Calderdale Equality Impact Assessments - describes how the council’s services and policies do not discriminate against communities;
• Cohesive Communities Strategy – describes the council’s priorities to Grow the economy, reduce inequalities, Build a sustainable future;
• Gender Pay Gap Report - outlines the actions to reduce the gap further and achieve gender equality.
• All age disability strategy – collects

The following actions will ensure equality of opportunities are followed through all project phases:

Protected groups / user attendances

• The extensive stakeholder engagement undertaken and different approaches used (Appendix B) ensured that a fair representation of users, local community groups and organisations were consulted during the project design phase (70% Females; 4.6% from BAME; 6.6% with disability). 
• Reasonable adjustments have been taken to ensure physical access for disabled users. 
• The council will routinely gather and monitor information/data on protected groups through service user questionnaires and feedback forms. 
• After project completion, the evaluator will be expected to collect monitoring data on all equalities groups, including monitoring the proportion of female and male, BAME, over 65 and disable users participating in sport activities. 
• If there is under-representation of any particular target group, CMBC will identify mitigating actions to ensure the leisure programme is targeting a fair proportion of females, BAME and disable users. 
• CMBC will keep a record of any complaints which will be dealt with through the council’s complaints procedure. 
• Service delivery targets will be introduced where the programme is at risk of becoming unresponsive to local need. 
• Facility/service information will be accessible.

Internal staff and delivery partners

• Everyone is expected to share the council’s equality commitment including people, organisations, and companies we work in partnership with and those who provide goods and services on our behalf.
• All delivery partners will be required to comply with the Equalities Act 2010 and will need to demonstrate a policy is in place for protected groups.

Processes

The council’s Project Manager with the support of the legal and procurement advisor will undertake due diligence activities relating to compliance with:

• Procurement policies and requirements
• Equalities policies
• Publicity policies
• Data sharing/protection policies
• Document retention policies
• Outputs/outcomes database
• Risks and issues log

All data will be published in our monitoring returns to the UKG and reported under our own governance processes.

Part 3 Bid summary

3a Please specify the type of bid you are submitting:

Single Bid (one project)

3b Please provide an overview of the bid proposal. Where bids have multiple components (package bids) you should clearly explain how the component elements are aligned with each other and represent a coherent set of interventions (Limit 500 words).

The proposal will safeguard CMBC operated leisure facilities in Halifax town centre.
Halifax Swimming Pool (HSP) is operating beyond its life expectancy and is in need of replacement. It is the main swimming facility serving Halifax and there is a need to replace it with a modern, fit-for-purpose facility. Similarly, North Bridge Leisure Centre (NBLC) is rated ‘Below average’ in terms of quality and size. It is approaching the end of its useful life and requires extensive refurbishment.

The opportunity exists for CMBC to significantly enhance the quality of the health/leisure offer in Halifax by combining HSP and NBLC to create a single, flagship facility on the NBLC site within one of the most densely populated and highly deprived areas of the Borough. In addition to safeguarding vital leisure facilities which deliver health and wellbeing benefits, the proposal provides operational efficiencies; releases the HSP site for redevelopment; and regenerates a gateway site.

The proposal will enable CMBC to retain the level of sports provision which accommodates a range of activities such as 60+ groups, school sports festivals, sporting/non-sporting events. The proposal addresses deficits in water space resulting from population growth and constraints at other facilities, and extends facilities to cater for all ages (e.g. adventure play), thereby retaining and attracting footfall in the town and complementing wider regeneration.

Existing NBLC

New facility

Due to high operating/maintenance costs, HSP and NBLC generate an annual deficit of c£1.4m. Without investment, both facilities will close resulting in the loss of health and labour productivity benefits which will impact recovery in an area already being ‘left behind’.

The proposal directly responds to the socio-economic needs of an area of high deprivation by safeguarding facilities vital to community health, wellbeing and productivity.

Benefits include:

• 6,719 sqm of new/improved floorspace
• Capacity for 1,565 new members
• Safeguard footfall of 667,600 visits pa to town centre location
• 38 jobs created/safeguarded
• 1ha site released for redevelopment (HSP site)
• Direct cash benefits of £1,491,851pa efficiency benefits
• Amenity benefits of £247,934pa for the regeneration of a town centre site
• Wellbeing benefits valued at £183,754 pa from NHS cost savings
• Productivity benefits valued at £4,491,662 pa from reduced ill-health

Wider benefits include reduced antisocial behaviour; increased footfall, sense of ownership, social interaction and environmental benefits.

The proposal requests £12,228,568 of capital funding from LUF.

NPV of benefits is £153.6m. BCR is 2.57 which is aligned with benchmarks of between 1.2 and 3.4.

The project supports delivery of the Town Centre Delivery Plan and complements FHSF.

Construction can begin Q4 2021/22.

3c Please set out the value of capital grant being requested from UK Government (UKG) (£). This should align with the financial case:

£12,228,568

3d Please specify the proportion of funding requested for each of the Fund’s three investment themes

Part 4 Strategic fit

4.1 Member of Parliament Endorsement (GB Only)

See technical note section 5 for Role of MP in bidding and Table 1 for further guidance.

4.1a Have any MPs formally endorsed this bid? If so confirm name and constituency. Please ensure you have attached the MP’s endorsement letter. 

Yes
This bid has been formally endorsed by MP for Halifax (see endorsement letter at Appendix B2).

4.2 Stakeholder Engagement and Support

See technical note Table 1 for further guidance.

4.2a Describe what engagement you have undertaken with local stakeholders and the community (communities, civic society, private sector and local businesses) to inform your bid and what support you have from them. (Limit 500 words)

A stakeholder engagement plan informed the consultation and engagement process. This identified all relevant stakeholders and considered their level of interest and influence, which determined the method and frequency of their engagement.

In designing engagement methods, consideration was given to potential barriers to participation and mitigation measures put in place. For instance, social media channels were used to encourage youth engagement; surveys were undertaken online and in paper format to allow consultees without IT access to participate.

To capture the views of a broad audience and ensure inclusivity, several channels of communication were used providing a potential reach of over 131,000 people. This included posters, leaflets, surveys, press releases, newsletters, internal CMBC communications and radio.

Consultation was undertaken iteratively, with each phase feeding back into the project design. After each round of consultation, take-up was reviewed and the engagement plan was updated to highlight any under-represented groups for targeting. This process resulted in targeted engagement being undertaken with disability groups such as Calderdale Disability Partnership to specifically explore accessibility and equality considerations.

Engagement has comprised:

• Early engagement with councillors, council leaders and officers at concept design stage to secure strategic buy-in; 
• Engagement with relevant professionals to support the development of the concept; 
• A programme of public consultation comprising email comments; meetings with interest groups (e.g. community groups, potential user groups, schools/FE); consultation days; surveys;

The providers of other leisure and sports services in the surrounding area have had the opportunity to comment on proposals and have not raised any objections.

Face to face meetings were held prior to Covid-19 restrictions. Following the introduction of Covid-19 restrictions, further online consultation was undertaken. In total, over 500 responses were received via the online survey or emailed directly to council representatives. Current design images and facility plans were supplied, allowing an open forum for people to voice their opinion on any aspect of the proposal.

The responses demonstrate good support for a new facility and agreement amongst all stakeholder groups that it is needed. 53% of survey respondents indicated they would use NBLC if facilities were improved. Stakeholders are keen to ensure that sporting and leisure facilities are safeguarded and enhanced to encourage healthy living and improve the physical appearance of town centre assets. An overview of the engagement approach, key findings, and letters of support are provided at Appendix B.

The table below outlines a sample of comments and how they have influenced the design of the scheme:

4.2b Are any aspects of your proposal controversial or not supported by the whole community? Please provide a brief summary, including any campaigns or particular groups in support or opposition? (Limit 250 words)

No aspects of the proposition are controversial and the scheme is widely supported by the community. Community consultation has indicated a desire for the new facility to have a deep pool for synchronized swimming and diving. This remains under consideration but at present, the costs appear prohibitive.

An extensive community consultation programme has been undertaken (outlined at 4.2a and at Appendix B) which has provided opportunities for interested parties to comment on the proposition and for potential service users to shape the design of the facility. The feedback has been overwhelmingly positive and has confirmed that there is need and demand for the facility as proposed.

The providers of other leisure and sports services in the surrounding area have had the opportunity to comment on proposals and have not raised any objections. Consultations have also been undertaken with surrounding businesses, particularly Sainsbury’s which is located adjacent to the site, and they have confirmed their support for the proposal.

A planning application for the scheme is being submitted to Calderdale Council w/c 21st June 2021 and is expected to be approved by September 2021. As there has been extensive consultation on the scheme design; there is no change in land use; and the project will significantly improve the visual appearance of the existing leisure facility and site, objections are not anticipated.

4.2c Where the bidding local authority does not have the statutory responsibility for the delivery of projects, have you appended a letter from the responsible authority or body confirming their support?

N/A

4.3 The Case for Investment

4.3a Please provide evidence of the local challenges/barriers to growth and context that the bid is seeking to respond to. (Limit 500 words)

Halifax has high levels of deprivation and health inequalities which represent a major loss in economic terms: MHCLG’s IMD indicates 19 of Calderdale’s 128 LSOAs (14.8%) are among the 10% most deprived nationally. Eighteen of these are located within Halifax which is amongst the most deprived areas in terms of the living environment (Figure 2) and health deprivation (Figure 3).

Figure 2: 2019 IMD Living Environment Deprivation

Figure 3: 2019 IMD Health Domain

Calderdale’s Joint Strategic Needs Assessment identifies a gap in life expectancy between the most (Halifax) and least deprived areas of Calderdale (7 years for men, 9 years for women). Depression is significantly above national levels, with mental health referrals increasing by 18% since Covid-19.

Low productivity levels linked to health deprivation, inequalities and low level of physical activity: Physical activity levels decrease as deprivation increases, therefore high levels of poverty is a major barrier to growth as it restricts the supply of healthy workers able to support growth. Halifax Parliamentary Constituency is consistently below national averages across key labour market statistics.

The pandemic has exacerbated poverty and health inequalities by worsening pre-determinants for ill-health. Although more affluent populations have become more active since the pandemic, 49% have become less active including people from BAME communities and those with long-term health problems. The loss in productivity related to ill-health in Calderdale is approximately £300m a year, a significant proportion of which is preventable through an active lifestyle. Inclusive recovery and levelling up therefore must address health inequalities by facilitating engagement in exercise.

Outdated infrastructure: Within this context a key challenge for Halifax and risk to recovery, is the poor quality of its sport and leisure offer. Halifax’s two main sports assets are beyond their life expectancy and at risk of closure due to significant maintenance and repair costs. The pandemic has exacerbated these financial challenges through the government-mandated Covid closure. At a time when communities with low levels of social capital are particularly vulnerable, the loss of these facilities will significantly hinder recovery and levelling-up of a highly disadvantaged community.

Other growth constraints to which the project responds include: 

• shortage of employment land;
• shortage of non-retail uses within the town centre.

4.3b Explain why Government investment is needed (what is the market failure)? (Limit 250 words)

The retention of an enhanced sport and leisure offer which safeguards future provision within an area of high deprivation and is accessible to local schools and colleges, will generate positive externalities in the form of health and wellbeing benefits through engagement in physical activity. Much needed improvements in the design and physical appearance of the site will reduce anti-social behaviour, improve community safety and amenity value, therefore supporting the regeneration of the town centre and improving perceptions of place.

The intervention will generate public goods that the private sector cannot deliver and will provide direct savings to the public sector through the reduced use of health and community safety services. Without intervention, escalating maintenance costs places existing provision at risk. This will hinder levelling up and recovery through the loss of labour productivity benefits resulting from a more active and healthy workforce.

As a key objective of the project is to reduce health inequalities, success is dependent upon the participation of residents from disadvantaged communities where ill-health is more prevalent and low levels of exercise reduce life expectancy and productivity levels. This can only be obtained through a public sector managed facility that can offer affordable prices compared to private provision. However, under current budgetary constraints, the capital expenditure required to upgrade the sport offer is not sufficiently underpinned by the income generated by the proposed facility. Whilst the operational model of the facility will guarantee long term financial sustainability, grant funding is sought to address the capital funding gap.

4.3c Please set out a clear explanation on what you are proposing to invest in and why the proposed interventions in the bid will address those challenges and barriers with evidence to support that explanation. As part of this, we would expect to understand the rationale for the location. (Limit 500 words)

Investment will re-develop NBLC into a high-quality, flagship leisure and wellbeing destination with a service offer which meets the needs of a diverse and growing population. 6,719 sqm of new / improved leisure space will be created comprising:

The investment will deliver cultural and town centre regeneration objectives by safeguarding at least 667,600 visits to NBLC which generates health, wellbeing and productivity benefits through engagement in exercise; retains footfall in Halifax town centre; and diversifies the town centre offer.

By creating a high quality facility which meets the needs of a range of age/interest groups, the investment will reduce the number of residents identifying the quality of local facilities as a barrier to exercise, and encourage the engagement of residents from Halifax’s disadvantaged communities where health inequalities are most acute through accessible pricing and targeted engagement activities.

The proposal supports regeneration objectives by safeguarding and creating new, accessible jobs; releasing a 1ha site for commercial or housing development which will deliver wider economic benefits; and improving perceptions of the area by enhancing a gateway site and reducing the incidence of anti-social behaviour. The intervention logic is summarised in the diagram below.

By safeguarding and expanding vital community infrastructure, levels of physical activity will be maintained and increased. This will deliver health and wellbeing outcomes which raise labour productivity and reduce the costs of ill-health. The Theory of Change is supported by research by Sheffield Hallam University which states that engagement in physical activity can have a positive effect on well-being, education, crime and social capital. Operation of the facility by CMBC will ensure wider benefits are realised and inclusion objectives achieved through targeted marketing and leverage of the wider Active Calderdale initiative. 

Feasibility testing has determined there is need and realisable demand for an enhanced facility on the North Bridge site which provides assurance that the opportunity will be taken up and benefits realised. A resident survey indicates that improved facilities will encourage greater use of NBLC, and analysis of the catchment area indicates a high proportion of existing service users are located within deprived communities which suggests the project will continue to engage target service users where ill-health is particularly prevalent. 

Income and expenditure analysis indicates the project will achieve efficiency savings of c£1,491,851 pa for CMBC which can be diverted to other services.

The rationale for the location was determined by the following considerations: 

• The central location within an area of high deprivation and poor health which supports the engagement of target communities (see 4.3a); 
• To minimise costs by redeveloping the existing facility; 
• To retain existing service users; 
• Accessibility (e.g. proximity to bus station) and prominent location; 
• Proximity to other town centre facilities including Dean Clough Mill to achieve synergies; 
• Analysis of drive times and latent demand within a one mile radius of the site.

4.3e Please explain how you will deliver the outputs and confirm how results are likely to flow from the interventions. This should be demonstrated through a well-evidenced Theory of Change. Further guidance on producing a Theory of Change can be found within HM Treasury’s Magenta Book (page 24, section 2.2.1) and MHCLG’s appraisal guidance. (Limit 500 words)

The project addresses levelling up by creating sustainable community infrastructure which is vital to wellbeing and prosperity within a highly disadvantaged community. Objectives include:

• Improve Halifax’s cultural / leisure offer and perceptions of place by developing a modern, high-quality leisure and wellbeing destination (June 2023); 
• Safeguard at least 667,600 visits to NBLC supporting health, wellbeing and productivity benefits and retaining town centre footfall (March 2024); 
• Create a high-quality offer which caters for a broad range of service users and increases the frequency of exercise to at least once per week, particularly amongst disadvantaged target groups where health inequalities are most acute (March 2024); 
• Reduce the number of residents stating the quality of health and leisure facilities are a barrier to exercise from a baseline of 53% (March 2024); 
• Attract investment and footfall to the town centre by releasing brownfield land for redevelopment (March 2024); 
• Create/safeguard 38 permanent new jobs in the town centre (December 2023);

The logic model below sets out how outputs and outcomes are expected to flow.

The primary output is the construction of a new, high quality leisure and wellbeing facility, which consolidates two leisure facilities onto one site and releases a brownfield site for redevelopment. Job creation projections are based on current employment which will be retained, and servicing the uplift in facilities. CMBC will operate the facility and target local residents for recruitment. A delivery plan at Appendix F outlines how the project will be delivered.

By consolidating two inefficient facilities into one, significant cost savings to the council will be generated which will be reinvested into the scheme and will support the delivery of related activities following development phases including public realm/connectivity interventions to ensure maximisation of benefits. The financial model supports cashflow projections and CMBC will manage the facility to ensure financial sustainability and long-term benefits realisation.

Current utilisation (c667,600 visits pa) will be safeguarded and increased (by at least 1,563 new members), including amongst disadvantaged target groups which form the main catchment area. This will deliver health and wellbeing outcomes which raise labour productivity and reduce the costs of ill-health. This logic is supported by research, including research by Sheffield Hallam University which supports that engagement in physical activity can have a positive effect on well-being, education, crime and social capital. The feasibility study at Appendix D highlights the scale of latent demand in surrounding communities which have high levels of deprivation. Letters of support at Appendix B provide evidence of intent to use amongst a sample of stakeholders.

CMBC will lever support of the Active Calderdale initiative to promote increased activity levels amongst disadvantaged communities through targeted marketing, subsidised membership for claimants and affordable pricing structures. The Council is also working with local schools/colleges which will expand utilisation and promote active lifestyles amongst young people (including the new 6th form). The project is part of wider town centre improvements which collectively will increase footfall and utilisation.

4.4 Alignment with the local and national context

4.4a Explain how your bid aligns to and supports relevant local strategies (such as Local Plans, local economic strategies or Local Transport Plans) and local objectives for investment, improving infrastructure and levelling up. (Limit 500 words)

Strategic Vision

By safeguarding and enhancing sports and leisure facilities, the project will generate health and employment outcomes which supports the delivery of CMBC’s Vision 2024 to reduce inequalities, grow the economy and build a sustainable future. The 2024 vision specifically includes creating a place where residents have good health. 
The project is aligned with the Local Plan (2018) objective to create, “an attractive place where people are prosperous, healthy and safe, supported by excellent services”.
Calderdale Vision 2024

Inclusive Economic Growth

The project directly supports CMBCs Inclusive Economic Strategy (2018) which estimated that lost productivity due to ill health could be £300m a year and CMBC’s Inclusive Recovery Strategy which directly responds to levelling up and identified an increase in health inequalities since Covid-19 with residents in disadvantaged communities becoming less active which has implications for productivity growth. By enhancing and safeguarding health facilities, the project will increase productivity and support levelling up by maintaining a healthy workforce, reducing absence rates, and improving the outlook for people with limiting long term illnesses.

Regeneration

The project directly contributes to the Halifax Town Centre Delivery Plan (Appendix G) by:

• Unlocking sites to attract investment; 
• Attracting people to spend more time in Halifax town centre; and, 
• Broadening Halifax’s social and cultural offer.

Visitor Economy

The project will retain footfall in the town centre out of office hours, supporting the evening economy which is an objective of CMBC’s Visitor Economy Strategy (2019).

Health and Sport

The project directly supports the delivery of the Council’s Wellbeing Strategy and Active Calderdale which bring together interventions across the borough to:

“create a network of high quality, accessible and sustainable sport and leisure facilities, which offer inclusive services for all; enabling the inactive to become active and more residents to fulfil their potential by participating in sport and physical activity, thus improving their long-term health and well-being”.

4.4b Explain how the bid aligns to and supports the UK Government policy objectives, legal and statutory commitments, such as delivering Net Zero carbon emissions and improving air quality. Bids for transport projects in particular should clearly explain their carbon benefits. (Limit 250 words)

By investing in infrastructure which improves quality of life for residents within a deprived community, the project directly supports levelling up and delivery of the government’s Plan for Growth. The scheme directly tackles geographic disparities in health outcomes; regenerates a gateway town site; improves perceptions of the area; creates/safeguards community infrastructure, and unlocks land which supports the delivery of LUF objectives and UKG’s job creation targets. Through targeting and location in an area of high deprivation, the scheme directly contributes to PHE’s strategy to prevent poor health and reduce the health gap between the most and least deprived communities. Further details regarding the project’s contribution to DCMS, Sport England and PHE’s strategic objectives are provided in Appendix D.

UKG has set the target to reduce UK emissions by 68% by 2030. CMBC’s construction partner has committed to net zero by 2030 (see Appendix H) and will identify and mitigate environmental risks associated with the construction phase. Our design team are advising on ‘green’ options including a green roof which will increase biodiversity, reduce pollutants, improve air quality, lower building running costs and reduce noise in the building (Appendix C).

CMBC has committed to invest in cycle and foot paths to connect the new facility to the Dean Clough Mill commercial and leisure complex as part of wider place-making and net zero investments. This will complement Future High Street Fund investments into walkways across Halifax town. The map below outlines where NBLC connectivity improvements will be made.

4.4c Where applicable explain how the bid complements / or aligns to and supports other investments from different funding streams. (Limit 250 words)

The scheme is not dependent upon other projects but supports delivery of the Town Centre Plan (Appendix G) by creating a diverse commercial, retail and leisure offer to retain employment and expenditure within the town. The scheme (cluster 3, 14, 15 in the diagram below) is one of several projects CMBC are investing in to revitalise the urban centre so it can more effectively catalyse economic growth.

Town Centre Delivery Plan Projects

The scheme complements £12m investment secured through the Future High Street Fund which is investing in nine inter-related cultural projects within the town to revitalise Halifax’s historic assets, develop connectivity by linking assets, create new event space and improve public realm. Collectively, the FHSF investment and this bid will maximise the potential of Halifax’s cultural assets (see below) for social and economic growth, and the implementation of both projects in parallel will support benefits realisation.

Halifax’s Cultural Assets

The scheme will benefit from connectivity improvements improving accessibility. This includes investment from the West Yorkshire Combined Authority (WYCA) to improve the main road junction to the site and £15.8m of WYCA investment in the bus station (due for completion March 2023).

Redevelopment of Halifax Bus Station

The project supports Calderdale’s role as a Local Delivery Pilot for Sport England which is implementing complementary health and wellbeing interventions. Synergies between the projects, which are both delivered by CMBC, will support benefits realisation.

4.4d Please explain how the bid aligns to and supports the Government’s expectation that all local road projects will deliver or improve cycling and walking infrastructure and include bus priority measures (unless it can be shown that there is little or no need to do so). Cycling elements of proposals should follow the Government’s cycling design guidance which sets out the standards required. (Limit 250 words)

The scheme is not a transport project, however the West Yorkshire Phase 2 scheme outlined in 4.4c will implement LTN120 compliant cycling provision to the entire town centre core and is adjacent to the Leisure Centre site. Interventions proposed for NBLC will complement this through improved accessibility between Dean Clough (a neighbouring commercial and leisure site) and the new facility. As outlined at 4.4c above, this investment will also complement Future High Street Funding which will invite and encourage people to walk within and across Halifax town centre in an improved environment with better navigability and more desirable ambience.

Part 5 Value for money 

5.1 Appropriateness of data sources and evidence See technical note Annex B and Table 1 for further guidance. All costs and benefits must be compliant or in line with HMT’s Green Book, DfT Transport Analysis Guidance and MHCLG Appraisal Guidance.

5.1a Please use up to date evidence to demonstrate the scale and significance of local problems and issues. (Limit 250 words)

High levels of deprivation and health inequalities:

Approximately 27,000 people in Halifax live in one of the UK’s 10% most deprived communities. This forms the main catchment area for the NLBC project and represents 31% of the total population. The 2020 Annual Population Survey indicates that within Halifax Parliamentary Constituency (HPC):

• 16,000 (26%) of people of working age are economically inactive compared to 21% nationally
  • 4,600 are long term sick (29% compared to 24% nationally)
  • 6,200 have depression, mental problems or nervous disorders (61% compared to 50% nationally)
• 27,700 people aged 16+ have health conditions or illnesses lasting more than 12 months (33%)

Low productivity levels linked to health deprivation, inequalities and low levels of physical activity:

PHE datasets on physical activity at local authority level hides concentrations of poor health within local communities. However, Halifax resident survey data indicates 88% of residents would like to do more exercise. CMBCs Inclusive Economic Strategy (2018) estimates lost productivity due to ill-health is £300m pa.

Outdated sport and leisure infrastructure:

CMBC monitoring data indicates there is good demand for provision. Baseline indicators include:

• 667,600 visits pa
• 12,838 service users
• 1,682 members

However:

• survey data suggests outdated facilities are a barrier to exercise. 53% of residents would be encouraged to use NBLC if facilities were enhanced.
• Demand analysis indicates latent demand will increase membership by 1,562 (50%) when facilities are improved.

5.1b Bids should demonstrate the quality assurance of data analysis and evidence for explaining the scale and significance of local problems and issues. Please demonstrate how any data, surveys and evidence is robust, up to date and unbiased. (Limit 500 words)

Evidence regarding the scale of local health, wellbeing and poverty issues and inequalities draws on nationally published datasets which are robust and impartial.

Local data, analysis and reports have been used to assess potential impacts and benefits and include:

The majority of analysis is based on pre-pandemic data. However Covid-19 has exacerbated existing health and deprivation inequalities therefore need for the project is expected to have increased. This is supported by data suggesting mental health referrals in Calderdale have increased 18% during lockdown.

An extensive and inclusive programme of community consultation has been undertaken (see Q4.2 and Appendix B) inviting open comment on the scheme. Inclusion measures have included using a range of consultation methods and targeted engagement. Quantitative survey work was undertaken pre-pandemic, but has been updated with qualitative engagement in 2020. CMBC is also currently consulting residents regarding the impacts of the pandemic on activity levels to ensure assumptions remain valid.

As the project is primarily safeguarding existing provision which is at risk of closure, the use of actual monitoring data regarding usage and cashflow provides robust data on which to base impact assumptions.

Feasibility work on which future cashflow projections are based was undertaken in 2018 but is being reviewed to ensure it remains robust. Sensitivity testing however provides assurance than a 10 – 20% reduction in income or increase in costs would still result in a positive BCR position.

5.1c Please demonstrate that data and evidence chosen is appropriate to the area of influence of the interventions. (Limit 250 words)

Halifax Parliamentary Constituency data, which forms the primary area of influence, and IMD data which covers LSOAs in Halifax, have been used to assess the scale of local issues and continued need for enhanced sports provision on the North Bridge site.

More detailed PHE data regarding health and activity levels has been drawn upon to a lesser extent as this is only available for Calderdale local authority area. Although Calderdale as a whole falls behind UK averages across most socio-economic indicators, local authority data masks the extent and significance of issues within Halifax.

Quantitative and qualitative research with residents within Halifax has been used to ensure data and information is appropriate to target communities. Community consultation has targeted existing service users as one of the key stakeholder groups for the project which provides assurance that the views of the target market have been captured and robust baselines can be set and monitored. A quantitative survey of residents captured the views of over 400 people, 60% of which were Halifax residents with the remaining 40% located in the wider Calderdale catchment area.

5.2 Effectiveness of proposal in addressing problems

5.2a Please provide analysis and evidence to demonstrate how the proposal will address existing or anticipated future problems. Quantifiable impacts should usually be forecasted using a suitable model. (Limit 500 words)

Without intervention, the deteriorating condition of HSP and NBLC will result in their closure and the loss of all the social and economic benefits. By providing a new combined facility, this proposal will be effective in addressing:

Outdated sport and leisure infrastructure:

The new combined facility will provide: 

• Improved wellbeing offer: 
  • 6,719 sq m of new/improved floorspace with a mixed sports and leisure offer and enhanced activity programme 
  • Increased capacity of 1,565 members 
  • 667,600 visits and 12,838 users safeguarded
• Direct cash benefits: 
  • £302,838 pa income 
  • £1,491,851 pa efficiency benefits generated by the closure of outdated facilities 
• Amenity benefits: 
  • £247,934 pa for 1.42ha 

A feasibility study was undertaken by independent consultants to analyse the current needs and operational performance of NBLC and HSP facilities and set out a new offer able to meet current and future user needs while being financially sustainable. The independent demand assessment together with evidence from user surveys and public consultation provide assurance that the above capacity will be reached and the benefits generated.

Low productivity levels linked to health deprivation, inequalities and low level of physical activity:

Health and deprivation statistics for CMBC were collated and used to evaluate baseline data for target beneficiaries (users/members). We then followed established guidance to forecast:

• Wellbeing benefits: 
  • £183,754 NHS cost savings pa 
• Productivity benefits: 
  • £4,491,662 pa 
• Employment: 
  • 14 new jobs 
  • 23 safeguarded jobs

As a key objective of the project is to reduce health inequalities and target the inactive, critical to the project’s effectiveness are: 

• A targeted marketing campaign to engage with residents from disadvantaged communities; 
• Leveraging the wider Active Calderdale initiative co-funded by Sport England to target community engagement in sports;
• Providing affordable entrance/membership fees (assured through CMBC operating the facility)
• Partnering with local schools/college to promote active lifestyles amongst young people; 
• Providing an outreach counselling service to support those at risk of developing mental health issues.

High deprivation level

Improved physical design, lighting and landscaping will lead to:

• Reduction of antisocial behavior 
  • £25,000 pa saving cost of dealing with incidents 
• Increased footfall in the area 
• Increased sense of ownership & usage of the building by local communities and visitors 
• Increased social interaction 
• Environmental benefits through ‘green’ design features e.g. green roof

Effectiveness of these results is achieved by working with: 

• town teams to develop synergies with wider regeneration initiatives; 
• community safety teams to manage anti-social behaviour; 
• the design and construction contractors since early phase of the project to ensure the design meets current/future needs.

Shortage of housing/employment land:

The investment will release a brownfield site for commercial or housing development which will lead to: 

• Creation of new economic growth opportunities: 
  • 1ha land released based on current HSP site

Effectiveness of these results is achieved by working with the spatial planning teams to identify employment/housing opportunities.

5.2b Please describe the robustness of the forecast assumptions, methodology and model outputs. Key factors to be covered include the quality of the analysis or model (in terms of its accuracy and functionality) (Limit 500 words)

Robustness of assumptions

The following analysis has been undertaken to estimate the level of capacity and financial sustainability of the future centre: 

• A commercial assessment of latent demand. Including a review of existing members of HSP and NBLC by catchment area and mosaic profile.
• Review of the usage of studios/facilities, classes attendances and hall occupancy during weekday/weekend days, peak/off peak times. 
• Review of subsidy per visit and benchmark comparison with other centres. 
• An overview of the fitness/leisure competitive offer in the Borough, with a list of surrounding private and public sport facilities and fees charged. 
• A review of the UK health and fitness industry. 
• A review of the performances of other centres following significant refurbishment and new build. 

The above informed the assumptions regarding NBLC capacity and financial sustainability (see 5.2a).

Robustness of estimated outputs and benefits

• Outputs and benefits estimation is informed by the logic model and is in line with Green Book and MHCLG guidance. 
• Cash benefits have been estimated using current performance of both centres and performance data of other centres following significant refurbishment. 
• Socio-economic benefits have been estimated drawing on results from local consultation, feasibility study, available economic data, established research and standard benchmarks including DCMS research to monetise health benefits and New Economy Manchester’s Unit Cost Database (Appendix J).

Robustness of methodology

We have used standard HMT Green Book methodology to calculate the economic benefits, applying additionality using established HCA research, and applying a discount rate of 3.5% in line with HMT requirements.

Covid impact considerations 

The Covid pandemic has disrupted the sports and physical activity sector with the “2020 State of the UK Fitness Industry Report” showing an increase in people exercising at home (25%). However it has also changed people’s perceptions of sport with 63% of adults giving more importance to being active compared with before the outbreak. 

• We assume that by the time the centre will open (2023) the demand for sport services will come back to the levels pre-pandemic with less people exercising at home. We also estimate that the centre attendance could be higher post-pandemic given the change in perception about the importance of sport. 
• A recent survey undertaken by CMBC post-pandemic (Mar 2021) confirmed that demand for the centre remains. The report states that the pandemic has further enhanced disparities with some older people, those on low incomes, those living alone, and those in urban areas finding it harder to be regularly active. As the scheme supports the engagement of residents within disadvantaged communities and the inactive, this context will support utilisation estimates. We also assume an increase in demand for public-owned sport facilities which offer more affordable prices. 

Based on these facts, our pre-covid assumptions and estimated outputs remain actual and valid.

5.3 Economic costs of proposal

5.3a Please explain the economic costs of the bid. Costs should be consistent with the costs in the financial case, but adjusted for the economic case. This should include but not be limited to providing evidence of costs having been adjusted to an appropriate base year and that inflation has been included or taken into account. In addition, please provide detail that cost risks and uncertainty have been considered and adequately quantified. Optimism bias must also be included in the cost estimates in the economic case. (Limit 500 words)

The assessment of economic costs has been undertaken in line with the best practice principles set out in HM Treasury Green Book and MHCLG Appraisal Guidance. All costs have been adjusted to reflect current prices based on the discount rate of 3.5%. Where relevant, historic monetary values have been converted into current prices to adjust for inflation using HM Treasury GDP deflators. The economic costs of the project have been appraised over a 30-year period to reflect what we consider to be the useful asset life of the development. Public realm impacts have been assessed over a 10-year period as we consider these will have a shorter asset life. Employment impacts have been assessed over one year. Optimism bias has been added to construction costs in line with MHCLG guidance. This has been calculated based on an analysis of project risk using the Mott MacDonald Optimism Bias Calculator (see response to 5.5c) and well as wider project risks presented in Appendix A).

5.4 Analysis of monetised costs and benefits

5.4a Please describe how the economic benefits have been estimated. These must be categorised according to different impact. Depending on the nature of intervention, there could be land value uplift, air quality benefits, reduce journey times, support economic growth, support employment, or reduce carbon emissions. (Limit 750 words)

Analysis of benefits has been informed by the Theory of Change. All benefits have been assessed over a 30-year appraisal period and have been discounted at 3.5% pa. A residual value of 50% of construction costs has been added as a benefit at year 30. Assumptions include:

• Without investment existing facilities will be permanently closed. The retention of existing usage is therefore additional.
• To ensure the analysis is robust, existing levels of usage (which are known rather than estimated) have been used to calculate the scale of potential future benefits. As the new facility will also enable an uplift in provision and engagement, the analysis therefore provides a conservative, ‘minimum’ assessment.

See Appendix J for detailed methodology.

Amenity

Although there is no change in land use, redevelopment of NBLC will significantly improve confidence and value perceptions of the area. MHCLG guidance values amenity benefits for urban sites at £174,602 per ha (adjusted to current prices). As the site would remain in its current form without intervention, deadweight of 0% has been assumed and leakage is not anticipated. The scale of redevelopment and local challenges suggest that displacement will be unlikely. With the site covering 1.42 ha, amenity benefits of £247,934 pa has been applied to BCR, with persistence of 10 years.

Employment

The preferred option will safeguard 23 existing jobs and create 15 FTE new jobs due to the enhanced service offer. Accounting for additionality in line with HCA guidance (2014), leakage and deadweight will be minimal as local residents will be targeted for employment and the jobs would not be created without the investment. Displacement of 20% has been applied, resulting in 14 net new jobs. Although GVA benefits (of £1,602,100 pa) cannot be included in the BCR, CMBC will target people not currently in employment for at least 40% of new jobs. The fiscal and economic value of this benefit is £187,338 based on moving six JSA claimants into employment. This benefit has been applied for one year.

Wellbeing and Life Satisfaction

Research by Davis et. Al. (2019) states:

“sport and physical activity generates net positive benefits for individuals and society… there is consensus that sport and physical activity creates preventative and therapeutic physical and mental health benefits”

DCMS research into the wellbeing impacts of sport indicates that the wellbeing value per engagement is £12.10 (adjusted to current prices). This represents the increase in income that would be required to result in the same wellbeing increase. Based on existing usage of the facility by c12,838 individual service users pa, wellbeing benefits of £155,340 pa will be safeguarded. Displacement and leakage are zero (based on analysis of the leisure centre’s catchment area (Appendix D)). Deadweight of 20% has been applied as benefits could be generated through other means.

DCMS research indicates that engagement in sport delivers NHS cost savings £75.34 per person pa through reduced GP visits and risk of depression. With 19% of the working age population reporting poor health, the engagement of 2,439 service users may generate NHS savings of £183,754 pa. Deadweight of 20% has been applied.

Productivity Effects

Poor health causes people to spend less time at work and be less productive whilst at work. The Lords Public Services Inquiry Levelling Up report recognises that improving health should be a key measure of success for the levelling up agenda.

Lost productivity due to ill health in Calderdale is estimated at £300m per year (£2,302 per working age resident). With 19% of the local population reporting poor health, the engagement of 2,439 service users in exercise will generate productivity effects of £5,614,578 pa. As the investment is safeguarding these benefits, deadweight, displacement and leakage will be minimal and have been assumed at 20% which results in benefits of £4,491,662 pa.

Cash Benefits

Analysis of projected cashflow suggests annual cash benefits of £302,838 (see Appendix D). Cash savings are also anticipated as existing facilities have to be heavily subsidised. Based on the most recent income and expenditure data (2019/20), efficiency benefits of £1,491,851 pa have been applied.

5.5 Value for money of proposal

5.5a Please provide a summary of the overall Value for Money of the proposal. This should include reporting of Benefit Cost Ratios. If a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) has been estimated there should be a clear explanation of how this is estimated ie a methodology note. Benefit Cost Ratios should be calculated in a way that is consistent with HMT’s Green Book. For non-transport bids it should be consistent with MHCLG’s appraisal guidance. For bids requesting funding for transport projects this should be consistent with DfT Transport Analysis Guidance. (Limit 500 words)

Analysis of all costs and benefits in line with Green Book and MHCLG guidance and over a 30 year appraisal period, results in an initial BCR of 2.58. This has been calculated as follows:

• Total net additional benefits (£153,672,344) divided by total economic costs (£59,775,445). There are no private sector costs.

Costs include borrowing and recurrent costs which include all facility maintenance and equipment replacement costs (see Appendix J). The BCR is aligned with benchmarks for sports and leisure facilities which range from 1.2 to 3.4 (Davis et.al, 2019) and therefore represents excellent value for money for this type of intervention.

In order to provide robust and justifiable estimates of impact, benefits have been quantified based on known existing usage rather than future estimates. The above estimates therefore represent the minimum value of anticipated benefits.

Sensitivity testing indicates:

• A 10% reduction in all benefits reduces the BCR to 2.33
• A 10% increase in all costs reduces the BCR to 2.35
• A 20% increase in costs reduces the BCR to 2.15

An adjusted BCR incorporating the following benefits and £10.4m of social value committed by the project’s construction partner (see Appendix I) results in a BCR of 3.13.

VfM must be considered alongside the ‘do nothing’ reference case which would result in the loss of vital community infrastructure and the ‘do minimum’ which would incur a minimum £13.8m cost just to address essential maintenance requirements and which will not deliver wider regeneration benefits or serve a growing population. Whilst the scheme offers good VfM, its social value to an area which is amongst the 10% most deprived nationally and where Covid-19 has disproportionately impacted the most disadvantaged residents cannot be under-estimated.

5.5b Please describe what other non-monetised impacts the bid will have, and provide a summary of how these have been assessed. (Limit 250 words)

Non-monetary impacts include:

• Reduced health inequalities: over half of current members live within a two-mile radius of the site which includes the most deprived communities of Halifax. The investment will safeguard and increase engagement in sport within these communities through targeted intervention and alignment with Active Calderdale initiative.
• Reduction in anti-social behaviour: By incorporating ‘designing out crime’ principles into the new facility a reduction in police visits is anticipated. This is supported by research for Scottish Government (2006) which concluded that well-connected and visible areas can reduce crime as natural surveillance and better lighting increases people’s sense of security. The study suggests a 21% reduction in crime through better lighting.
• Improved perceptions of place: Improvements on the appearance of the building (including a potential for a green roof solution), provision of a café’ and play area, and 
• better lit in the surrounding area are estimated to improve people perception of the area and sense of safety. Baseline data will be established through survey at the start of the project. 
• Increased social interaction: a bigger hall, soft play area, café’ and space for hiring will increase visitors to the centre and facilitate social activities and community interaction. A positive association between participation in community based activities and health is documented at national and local levels. 
• Environmental benefits: Green design e.g. green roof will deliver air quality and biodiversity benefits. 

5.5c Please provide a summary assessment of risks and uncertainties that could affect the overall Value for Money of the bid. (Limit 250 words)

Sensitivity testing indicates a 10% / 20% increase in costs or reduction in benefits achieves a BCR over 2. Other scenarios include:

• No wider health and productivity benefits are realised: ‘acceptable’ BCR of 1.89
• Cost of borrowing increases (5% interest rate): ‘high’ BCR of 2.30
• Only direct cash benefits are secured: ‘low’ BCR of 1.15

Only one scenario, in which no wider social or productivity benefits are secured results in a low BCR. Based on research evidence regarding the impacts of exercise on health, this scenario is highly unlikely.

Part 6 Deliverability

6.1 Financial 

See technical note Table 1 for further guidance.

6.1a Please summarise below your financial ask of the LUF, and what if any local and third party contributions have been secured (please note that a minimum local (public or private sector) contribution of 10% of the bid costs is encouraged). Please also note that a contribution will be expected from private sector stakeholders, such as developers, if they stand to benefit from a specific bid (Limit 250 words)

Total development costs of the preferred option are:

CMBC will be responsible for the maintenance of the asset and site once completed. Total project cost is [redacted]. The financial ask of the LUF is £12,228,568 [redacted].

Co-funding of [redacted] will be provided by CMBC using prudential borrowing subject to ensuring that all necessary steps are taken to allow Council approval by December 2021 following confirmation of LUF support. The loan would be serviced through additional income and cost savings generated by the new facility.

LUF investment will enable full redevelopment of NBLC, significantly enhancing and safeguarding Halifax’s leisure facilities. An area of high deprivation will benefit from a better built environment which will improve perceptions of place, encourage engagement in exercise and attract investment. Regeneration benefits will not be possible without LUF.

6.1b Please also complete Tabs C and D in the appended excel spreadsheet, setting out details of the costs and spend profile at the project and bid level in the format requested within the excel sheet. The funding detail should be as accurate as possible as it will form the basis for funding agreements. Please note that we would expect all funding provided from the Fund to be spent by 31 March 2024, and, exceptionally, into 2024-25 for larger schemes.

Attached

6.1c Please confirm if the bid will be part funded through other third-party funding (public or private sector). If so, please include evidence (i.e. letters, contractual commitments) to show how any third-party contributions are being secured, the level of commitment and when they will become available. The UKG may accept the provision of land from third parties as part of the local contribution towards scheme costs. Where relevant, bidders should provide evidence in the form of an attached letter from an independent valuer to verify the true market value of the land.

No

6.1d Please explain what if any funding gaps there are, or what further work needs to be done to secure third party funding contributions. (Limit 250 words)

Total project costs will be met by LUF and CMBC using prudential borrowing which has been reviewed by the Chief Financial Officer and will be approved by Cabinet in December 2021. The Council’s funding contributions are therefore fully secured and can be drawn down as required.
[Redacted]. Cashflow analysis of the new facility indicates an operating surplus of between £300,000 and £350,000 pa which will service loan costs. Without LUF investment, the cost of borrowing will be prohibitive and will result in on-going subsidy of facilities by CMBC which will divert funds from other important local services and risks the future loss of community infrastructure.

LUF funding is requested to enable the preferred option (redevelopment of the North Bridge site to provide one new, multi-purpose sports and leisure destination) to be progressed which offers the best value for money and enables the wider regeneration and amenity benefits of improving the town’s physical infrastructure to be unlocked. The preferred option also unlocks a brownfield site for redevelopment within the town centre and ensures

Halifax has provision to meet the needs of the growing population which cannot be achieved through other ‘repair and maintain’ options.

6.1e Please list any other funding applications you have made for this scheme or variants thereof and the outcome of these applications, including any reasons for rejection. (Limit 250 words)

An application for a maximum realisation of £2m has been submitted to Sport England’s Strategic Facilities Fund. The Fund supports local sport and leisure projects which incorporate inclusive design features into new capital facilities to encourage greater participation in sports which in turn, reduces the proportion of local people that are physically inactive.

The project for which LUF funding is sought, is not dependent on the outcome of this application which will be announced in August/September 2021. If the application is successful it will enable further enhancement of the project design to further increase inclusivity.

6.1f Please provide information on margins and contingencies that have been allowed for and the rationale behind them. (Limit 250 words)

Cost estimates have been developed by professional cost consultants who have supported the development of the project for 4+ years. Costs are based on April 2021 calculations which take account of recent price changes.

Contingency of [redacted] has been included based on a 4% contingency suggested by cost consultants which has been increased to 5%. This is based on analysis of project risks in line with the Mott MacDonald OB calculator which suggests contingency of 5%. The following risks have been considered:

The main financial risk is cost overruns during delivery. This is mitigated by:

• Scheme costs have been developed by experienced cost consultants and based on detailed designs, site investigations and feasibility analysis.
  • Costs have been built from the bottom up to reflect the cost per m2 or per item of each requirement.
  • All figures reflect knowledge of local markets rates.
  • Total costs have been checked against comparator schemes to provide assurance that the project is deliverable while still offering value for money.
  • Costs have been continually refined as the project has developed with the most recent estimates being from April 2021 which take into consideration any recent prices changes, particularly following Brexit.
• Adequate contingency has been built into project costs.
• The construction partner has input to design and undertaken an independent ‘health check’ of the cost plan using market informed rates and bench marking.
• The construction partner is retained on a pre-construction service agreement and is therefore ready to commence on site once funding is approved which significantly reduces the risk of procurement and mobilisation delays which can impact costs.
• The construction partner will employ a Senior Commercial Manager during construction with responsibility for regular financial reporting.
• Robust project management processes and designated Project Management staff are in place to ensure risks are assessed on an on-going basis and financial control is maintained. Additional control and assurance will be provided by the Project Board who will have ultimate responsibility for financial monitoring.

CMBC has contracted Alliance Leisure Services (ALS), via the UK Leisure Framework as their development partner. As ALS have a design and build contract with the construction partner (McLaughlin & Harvey), CMBC (and UKG) will not be responsible for construction cost overruns. In addition, by contracting ALS via the UK Leisure Framework, beyond RIBA4 all costs are guaranteed which puts the onus on the delivery team to manage costs to budget.

The other primary financial risk is that the facility is not financially sustainable following completion. This is mitigated by:

• Feasibility work to test demand and develop income/expenditure projections which have been subject to sensitivity testing (see Appendix D for full details of underpinning assumptions);
• Community engagement to test demand and ensure income projections are realisable;
• Existing high levels of usage which will support income projections.

A summary of cashflow is provided below which illustrates affordability and financial sustainability.

In addition to generating a surplus which can be reinvested in the facility, the redevelopment of NBLC will provide efficiency benefits by removing the need to subsidise the outdated North Bridge and Halifax Swimming Pool facilities. The analysis indicates that the cost of interest on borrowing can be financed without directing money from other services.

6.2 Commercial

See technical note Section 4 and Table 1 for further guidance.

6.2a Please summarise your commercial structure, risk allocation and procurement strategy which sets out the rationale for the strategy selected and other options considered and discounted. The procurement route should also be set out with an explanation as to why it is appropriate for a bid of the scale and nature submitted. Please note - all procurements must be made in accordance with all relevant legal requirements. Applicants must describe their approach to ensuring full compliance in order to discharge their legal duties. (Limit 500 words)

The approach is aligned with the council’s procurement values, securing the delivery of best value, and the requirements of the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012.

The diagram below illustrates the existing project development team and the contractual relationship between CMBC and ALS. ALS were procured by CMBC via the UK Leisure Framework on a delivery management contract.

[redacted diagram]

ALS has subsequently retained McLaughlin & Harvey (MCLH) on a Design and Build contract via the UK Leisure Framework. The procurement and management structure for the construction phase will be as follows (also see Appendix I):

[redacted diagram]

Through this contracting process, all relevant contractors and advisers for the construction phase are in place. Therefore procurement risks are very low.

Procurement via the UK Leisure Framework has provided access to contractors with specific expertise in the design and development of leisure facilities which has facilitated the development of a high-quality, modern facility in line with spending objectives.
The Framework was procured in accordance with EU Procurement Regulations by Denbighshire County Council (DCC), and after an extensive tendering and evaluation process ALS were appointed. The Framework is therefore owned by DCC but a management board comprising of both DCC Officers and Alliance Leisure personnel has been established to monitor and develop the Framework.

The Framework has allowed CMBC to enter into a direct relationship with ALS to scope, develop and deliver the project without committing the council into undertaking the development until viability has been demonstrated. The selected contracting arrangement also passes all risk associated with cost overruns to the private sector as costs are guaranteed after RIBA4. The approach has also ensured the early engagement of a construction partner to further assure deliverability.

Other options considered and discounted include:

• Direct contracting with individual technical advisers: contracting with ALS provides seamless access to all necessary technical support. This offers a more cost effective solution than direct contracting with several partners and ensures a joined up approach.
• Direct contracting of a construction partner: contracting with ALS means the council does not directly contract with a construction partner. This reduces legal costs and passes financial risk onto the private sector.

Upon completion, the new facility will continue to be operated by CMBC. There is therefore no risk associated with the procurement of an operating partner.

In line with the Social Value Act, our construction partner will deliver a community benefit strategy to maximise social return on investment from planned capital investment. MCLH’s proposed approach is expected to deliver in excess of £10.4m of social and local economic value through:

• Local employment;
• Improved skills opportunities;
• Employment opportunities for young people;
• Responding to the climate emergency.

6.3 Management

See technical note Section 4 and Table 1 for further guidance

Delivery Plan: Places are asked to submit a delivery plan which demonstrates:

• Clear milestones, key dependencies and interfaces, resource requirements, task durations and contingency. 
• An understanding of the roles and responsibilities, skills, capability, or capacity needed. 
• Arrangements for managing any delivery partners and the plan for benefits realisation. 
• Engagement of developers/ occupiers (where needed) 
• The strategy for managing stakeholders and considering their interests and influences. 
• Confirmation of any powers or consents needed, and statutory approvals e.g. Planning permission and details of information of ownership or agreements of land/ assets needed to deliver the bid with evidence 
• Please also list any powers / consents etc needed/ obtained, details of date acquired, challenge period (if applicable) and date of expiry of powers and conditions attached to them.

6.3a Please summarise the delivery plan, with reference to the above (Limit 500 words)
Roles and Responsibilities

• Senior representatives from CMBC will form a Project Board with responsibility for: 
  • Providing strategic governance and oversight of the project progress within agreed timescales and budget 
  • providing decision and approval of variations 
  • providing mitigation guidance for risks / issues which exceed tolerances 
• Project Manager will be responsible for implementation of the project including: 
  • managing the relationship between CMBC and delivery partners (management and construction) and technical experts 
  • ensuring delivery to agreed timescale, budget and quality
  • monitoring risks 
• Assistant Project Manager will provide administrative support, ensuring that the appropriate evidence and audit trails are maintained in line with LUF guidance. 
• Technical Experts (finance, legal, procurement) will provide inputs as required by the Project Manager

Delivery partners

• (Management): Alliance Leisure Services (ALS) has been appointed by CMBC as the project development partner to manage delivery from inception to completion. The ALS Delivery Manager will be responsible for:
  • Leading and managing the construction contractor and overseeing delivery; 
  • Controlling, monitoring and reporting on project progress to CMBC; 
  • Identifying issues and risks as they arise; 
  • managing the project budget and activities in line with time, cost and quality targets agreed with CMBC 
• (Construction): McLaughlin & Harvey will responsible for design and build of the facility reporting into ALS. 

CMBC own the land and will operate the facility and can ensure the full social value and wider benefits of the facility will be realised. This includes capitalising on synergies with Active Calderdale and Future High Street Fund.

Stakeholders

Extensive consultation and engagement activities were carried out throughout feasibility, concept and design phases and will continue during project delivery (Appendix B). Main stakeholders include:

• Council leaders and elected members 
• Other CMBC delivery Teams for complementary projects 
• UKG 
• Community / service users (local residents and local businesses) 

A user forum will provide on-going community engagement.

The organogram below illustrates how the Project Manager and external Delivery Team report into the Project Board.

Project milestones

The project is already at an advanced stage of development and is therefore ready to commence construction by January 2022. The following milestones have been identified (See Appendix F for detailed plan):

* Construction contract will be procured directly by ALS via the UK leisure framework. This will ensure no delays in the appointment of the construction partner.

6.3b Has a delivery plan been appended to your bid?

Yes

6.3c Can you demonstrate ability to begin delivery on the ground in 2021-22?

Yes

6.3e Risk Management: Places are asked to set out a detailed risk assessment which sets out (word limit 500 words not including the risk register): the barriers and level of risk to the delivery of your bid, appropriate and effective arrangements for managing and mitigating these risk, a clear understanding on roles / responsibilities for risk

The project is well progressed and ready to start RIBA5 once funding has been approved. We are able to provide the following assurances regarding project deliverability: 

• Planning and consents: The site is owned by CMBC. There is no change in land use and there is community support for the scheme therefore planning is expected to be granted by September 2021. 
• Site constraints: the project is well developed and any issues/constraints with the site have been identified and mitigated through site investigations and design works. 
• Funding: A detailed cost plan has been developed by external cost consultants who have been engaged with the project for over 4 years. Costs have been regularly updated as required and the preferred construction partner has been working with the Council under a Pre-Construction Services Agreement to ensure design and costs are reasonable. Match funding from the Council is in place appending final Cabinet approval in December 2021. 
• Procurement. (Management) ALS were appointed as delivery management partner via the UK Leisure Framework (UKLF) in accordance with EU Procurement Regulations where providers were assessed for their financial stability, track record, experience and technical & professional ability. (Construction) A construction contractor onboarding exercise has been undertaken ahead of RIBA5 where McLaughlin and Harvey (McL&H) has been identified as preferred contractor. ALS will enter into a NEC 3 Engineering & Construction Contract with McL&H. ALS will be responsible for overseeing the construction delivery, controlling costs and risks from RIBA 4 to completion. A minimum limit of indemnity insurance will be required from the Contractors/ Consultants involved during development/construction. 
• Delivery. The project deliverables, timescales and detailed construction workplan are set out in the Gantt chart in Appendix F. The plan has been developed with input from the CMBC, ALS Delivery Manager, technical experts and the construction partner, and is based on the delivery of comparable schemes. 
• Dependencies. The successful completion of the project and longer term benefits realisation are not dependent on any other projects or partners.

Given the above, risks to the immediate deliverability of the scheme are low, and CMBC expects to commence construction as soon as funding is approved.

Roles and Responsibility 

Risk management for the project follows best-practice guidelines and considers uncertainty, opportunity and threat risks. It is an ongoing iterative process where risks are proactively monitored and managed throughout the delivery of the project using a five-stage process of identification, analysis, evaluation, action and monitoring. This is recorded in a working risk register (Appendix A), for which the Project Manager has day to day responsibility. Where appropriate, risk owners have been allocated risks and are responsible for ensuring the likelihood of their occurrence is minimised. The Project Manager will hold monthly risk reduction and opportunity meetings throughout the construction phase with members of the project delivery team and contractor. 
Any programme level risks which implicate time delay and cost will be reported via the ALS Delivery Manager to the Council’s Project Manager who, if necessary, will escalate to the Programme Board for mitigating action decisions.

6.3f Has a risk register been appended to your bid?

Yes

6.3g Please evidence your track record and past experience of delivering schemes of a similar scale and type (Limit 250 words)

CMBC Experience 

CMBC has the project management systems, skills and track record to be able to successfully deliver this project. CMBC has successfully delivered similar schemes including:

• [redacted] New Central Library, Halifax, including a new link into the historic Piece Hall; 
• [redacted] refurbishment of the Grade 2 listed Princess Buildings, Halifax, as a new administrative Head Office; 
• [redacted] conversion and refurbishment of the former library at Trinity Sixth Form College to house a sixth form centre; 
• [redacted] renovation of the grade 1 listed Piece Hall building which has been transformed into a retail hub, events space and tourist attraction; 
• [redacted] Northgate House Commercial development, refurbishing the old council office buildings into a Cat b Office development; 
• [redacted] A629 road widening programme. 

ALS Experience 

Alliance Leisure has delivered over 100 leisure projects for its clients over the last decade, on time and within budget, including: 

• a £17 million development of the SC2 – Denbighshire Leisure centre, creating a modern, destination waterpark; 
• £7.4m refurbishment and extension of Monmouth Leisure Centre for Monmouthshire County Council in South Wales. 
• £5.3m development of the Summit Indoor Adventure in Selby. 
• £5 million redevelopment of Salt Ayre Leisure in Lancaster.

McL&H Experience

McLaughlin & Harvey has a strong track record in undertaking large sport/leisure projects, including:

• £19m development of a leisure centre for North Ayrshire Council; 
• £20m development of new training facilities for Liverpool Football Club; 
• £16m sports and leisure complex for Dumfries and Galloway Council; 
• £14m aquatic centre in Glasgow; 
• £23m sports village for Stirling Council.

6.3h Assurance: We will require Chief Financial Officer confirmation that adequate assurance systems are in place. For larger transport projects (between £20m - £50m) please provide evidence of an integrated assurance and approval plan. This should include details around planned health checks or gateway reviews. (Limit 250 words)

• Financial management and control procedures are in place for compiling, authorising and ensuring only eligible and defrayed expenditure is included in LUF claims for payment (see Appendix A for claim procedure). 
• The Council adheres to the Lord Chancellor’s Code of Practice on the Management of Records under s.46 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The policy stipulates duties and responsibilities for the effective retention of records. All LUF related documentation will be held on the council’s document management system and financial system and retained for 7 years (to comply with HMRC regulations) after the final LUF claim has been processed. 
• This project will be added to the Council’s internal audit programme as well as being subject to external audit – any issues identified through internal audit reports will be reviewed at departmental level and a management action plan developed for corrections. Significant failings will be reviewed by the Council’s Audit Committee. 
  • The Audit Committee has been in place at Calderdale since 2005. The 2020/21 self-assessments (based on the latest CIPFA guidance) identified that the Audit Committee was considered to be operating effectively within the Council. 
  • Statement of accounts is compiled in accordance with the relevant code of practice and satisfies all legislative requirements. Following receipt of the latest “Annual report to those charged with governance” by our external auditors, Ernst & Young LLP (who have been appointed to audit our accounts from 2018/19 to 2022/23), these accounts were approved by Audit Committee on 19th November 2020.

6.4 Monitoring and Evaluation

See technical note Section 4 and Table 1 for further guidance.

6.4a Monitoring and Evaluation Plan: Please set out proportionate plans for M&E which should include (1000 word limit): Bid level M&E objectives and research questions, Outline of bid level M&E approach, Overview of key metrics for M&E (covering inputs, outputs, outcomes and impacts), informed by bid objectives and Theory of Change. Please complete Tabs E and F on the appended excel spreadsheet, Resourcing and governance arrangements for bid level M&E

Bid level M&E objectives and research questions

The Project Manager and Assistant Project Manager will assess whether the project’s objectives are being met and whether the beneficiaries are being reached and receiving the results proposed under this project. This will be undertaken in partnership with ALS Delivery Manager and the NLBC Operation Manager.

The project feasibility study and business case have been already developed to ensure project objectives are realistic and achievable. Stakeholders and potential beneficiaries have already been identified and engaged throughout the consultation and project development phase as described in section 4.2.

Approach and governance arrangements for bid level M&E

Sufficient resources have been included in the project budget to ensure that project monitoring and evaluation activities are carried out effectively. CMBC uses a robust project management system based on PRINCE 2 which ensures that activities are delivered according to time and budget. The project will also have access to CMBCs financial management, legal, IT systems to ensure effective delivery.

The following activities will be implemented to ensure all aspects of the project are monitored, evaluated and reported to UKG:

• Project progress
  • CMBCs Project Manager will send to UKG regular Reports on Progress made towards the achievement of the milestones and targets set out in the Project Plan (see Gantt chart provided in Appendix F). The project manager will warrant the accuracy of these reports and ensure at every progress report stage that the project remain compliant with any obligations under Subsidy Control and the LUF Regulations.
  • The Project Manager will attend formal sites monitoring visits and meet with the delivery partner at least once a month to discuss progress, undertake observations of activities and provide additional support or advice as necessary.
  • Where any material changes to the project from the bid submission are required, the Project Manager will notify in writing UKG through a formal Project Change Request and secure approval for implementing the change obtained.
• Claims 
  • The Assistant Project Manager will set up a unique separate cost centre code on CMBC finance system to ensure expenditure can be accounted for and maintain an audit trail, backed up by source documentation. 
  • the Assistant Project Manager will monitor this cost code on a monthly basis to both ensure that only applicable costs are coded here but also to project anticipated spend within the year.
  • The Assistant Project Manager will verify that ensure that the council complies with the requirements relating to defrayal of expenditure and that any ineligible or unsupported expenditure or outputs are not claimed prior to being resolved. 
• Contracts
  • The delivery partner will be required to sign a contract that will include terms covering, among other things, delivery and claim dates, value, outputs and results, document retention, reporting, evaluation, equality and diversity, reduction or recovery of payments, data protection. 
• Documentation
  • The Assistant Project Manager will ensure that all documents that provides information for progress reports, claims, and project evaluation are retained for a seven year period from the date of which the funding agreement is in place. 
  • The Council will be responsible for having documentation relevant to the delivery partner should it be required for monitoring or audit purposes. 

Approach for project impact M&E

As the impacts of the project will primarily materialise following construction, external evaluators will be procured to work with CMBC to embed monitoring and evaluation processes to facilitate on-going impact assessment. External evaluators will also provide an independent impact evaluation of the project following completion. This has been included in project costs.

The strategic objectives for evaluation will be to determine:

• Project delivery efficiency / lessons learnt
• what difference the project made and whether outputs, outcomes and impacts materialised as anticipated
• whether the project has represented good value for money.

External evaluation will be overseen by a steering group comprising CMBC personnel involved in the delivery and on-going management of the facility. The evaluation will be fully compliant with Magenta Book guidance and will adopt a Theory-based methodology using qualitative and quantitative research methods including:

• desk-based analysis
• consultations with key stakeholders
• consultations/survey of end beneficiaries.

KPIs are informed by the project logic model (Appendix E) and Theory of Change and include:

The Project Manager will be responsible for establishing and updating a Benefits Register (see Appendix A and Tables E - F attached) on a quarterly basis and use it to provide quarterly reports to the Project Board and UKG. Evaluation findings will be shared with UKG and with Council staff involved in the delivery of comparable projects.

Part 7 Declarations

7.1 Senior Responsible Owner Declaration

As Senior Responsible Owner for North Bridge Leisure Centre Project I hereby submit this request for approval to UKG on behalf of CMBC and confirm that I have the necessary authority to do so.

I confirm that CMBC will have all the necessary statutory powers and other relevant consents in place to ensure the planned timescales in the application can be realised.

7.2 Chief Finance Officer Declaration

As Chief Finance Officer for CMBC I declare that the scheme cost estimates quoted in this bid are accurate to the best of my knowledge and that [name of organisation]

• has allocated sufficient budget to deliver this scheme on the basis of its proposed funding contribution
• accepts responsibility for meeting any costs over and above the UKG contribution requested, including potential cost overruns and the underwriting of any funding contributions expected from third parties
• accepts responsibility for meeting any ongoing revenue requirements in relation to the scheme
• accepts that no further increase in UKG funding will be considered beyond the maximum contribution requested and that no UKG funding will be provided after 2024-25
• confirm that the authority commits to ensure successful bids will deliver value for money or best value.
• confirms that the authority has the necessary governance / assurance arrangements in place and that all legal and other statutory obligations and consents will be adhered to.

7.3 Data Protection

Please note that the The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) is a data controller for all Levelling Up Fund related personal data collected with the relevant forms submitted to MHCLG, and the control and processing of Personal Data.

The Department, and its contractors where relevant, may process the Personal Data that it collects from you, and use the information provided as part of the application to the Department for funding from the Levelling Up Fund, as well as in accordance with its privacy policies. For the purposes of assessing your bid the Department may need to share your Personal Data with other Government departments and departments in the Devolved Administrations and by submitting this form you are agreeing to your Personal Data being used in this way. 

Any information you provide will be kept securely and destroyed within 7 years of the application process completing.