Design 

Is the size of the proposed pool still suitable given the amount of new housing estates that have been built since the original plans? 

Yes, the size of the two swimming pools takes account of the amount of new housing included within the Local Plan.

Do you plan to include a changing room (big enough for a disabled person and 2 carers plus wheelchair) fitted with a ceiling track hoist and adult sized changing bed? 

Yes, the design will include a fully-specified ‘Changing Places’ Changing Room to provide for people with profound needs. This will also be available for users of the Abbey Fields more generally, if they need to change someone with profound needs.

Why won’t you reconsider the design of the pool beyond the foundations? 

The approved design of the swimming pools was subject to widespread public and stakeholder consultation and will provide an excellent facility for the people of Kenilworth. To change now would involve even more delay and expense.

Why is this opportunity not being taken to reinstate outdoor swimming in Kenilworth?

The Council’s priority must be to provide sufficient indoor water space so that the growing population of Kenilworth has enough space for indoor swimming. This decision has been confirmed by Councillors in formal votes on several occasions in the past. The Council has said that it will consider outdoor swimming at other locations in the District in the future, if the opportunity arises.  

Will we still be able to walk around the pool, past the end of the ‘lake’ that meets the pool? (Duck feeding deck side) 

Yes, the project will construct a new duck-feeding platform when the swimming pools are completed and it will be possible to walk and cycle between the pool building and the lake.

How does the council expect to ensure safety of women when finishing a late-night swim with the car park so far away and so poorly lit? 

This is a matter for the Green Spaces Team, who manage the wider Abbey Fields site. However, the main driveway to the site is lit during the evening opening hours.

Have solar panels etc. been considered especially with the cost of energy and some pools have had to reduce opening hours or close? 

Yes, the new building will include photo-voltaic cells for the generation of electricity. The design also includes all other relevant design features to encourage sustainability and to reduce running costs.

Will the substation also be redesigned to try to protect the walls etc in that location?

Yes, the substation has been reduced in size and the foundations lifted higher, in order to protect the medieval remains in this area.

If you must build the swimming pool in the existing location, have you considered (where possible) using modular building construction? 

The proposal is to use traditional construction methods. Modular construction would pose additional logistical risks to the access roads and the surrounding road network.  Due to the ‘modular’ nature of the method of construction, below ground foundation design options would be limited and clash with discovered historic remains.  In swimming pool environments modular construction would not be a suitable design construction method due to the corrosive atmosphere. Due to the nature and use of the Abbey Fields swimming pool a more robust finish is required than could be achieved with lightweight modular construction. Internal blockwork walls with tiled finishes will not only withstand the corrosive environment but offer a better, longer lasting finish to meet the demanding needs of a public swimming pool.

Given the existing delay is there any way of making the pre-commencement process quicker? 

The pre-commencement process shown here is the quickest that is believed to be achievable. The Section 73 application needs to be decided by Development Services and it is intended that this should also be considered by Members at the Planning Committee. This is a controlling factor. Furthermore, the new prices from sub-contractors will take time to assemble and agree, and this is also a controlling factor.

What is the potential for further archaeological finds on the site?

There will be an archaeological watching brief throughout all works until the construction is ‘out of the ground’ but even then work such as drainage will require a watching brief. Almost all of the site has been ‘proved’, which involves digging over the first 1.5 metres of ground and replacing it. The small areas that have not been done are being programmed now. The locations of the piles are being agreed with Historic England and only a few are causing potential concern. It is therefore hoped that most of the remains have been found, but this site is clearly very full of material. Historic England acknowledge that part of their role is to enable communities to construct facilities such as swimming pools. The Project Team is as confident as it reasonably can be that Historic England will work with the Council to find a solution to any further finds.

Do we need to have two pools in the new building?

The unmet demand was identified by the Sport England planning tool as 1.8 lanes of a 25-metre swimming pool. This could theoretically be located within one, seven lane pool, although this combination would be unusual. However, the detailed demand and design work identified that delivering these 1.8 lanes as a 15-metre family pool was much more effective in terms of programming and management – giving much better opportunities for children’s lessons, disability swimming, aquarobics and so on, none of which can easily be accommodated in a main pool when it is in use for other purposes.

What is the justification that 7 lanes are required at the new facility?

The original 25m pool at Abbey Fields had 5 lanes. The research using the Sport England Facilities Planning Model identified the need for the equivalent of an additional 1.8 lanes, as you identify. This means the total demand is predicted to represent 6.8 lanes, which was rounded up to 7 lanes. However, it was then decided that the most effective way to provide the additional formal water space was to construct a family pool, rather than an additional 2 lanes in the main pool, due to much increased programming flexibility.

What was the reason or reasons that determined the need or desirability to change the pool from what it already was; also, what were the criteria and what consultations took place between the authority and local interests such as the History Society, the Town Society, the Friends of Abbey Fields and the general public?

The need for a new facility was identified in 2015. The facility was well-maintained but had reached the end of its useful life. The design process for the new facility included a full public consultation, including several periods of consultation, with up to 9 meetings in each period. Special meetings were held with all identified stakeholders, such as those mentioned in the question and Schools, Town Council and so on.

What has been the total cost of work to date, including any increased costs incurred or due to be incurred since the medieval foundations were discovered?

The total costs to date, including additional expenditure because of the medieval remains, is £3,390,000.

What funds financed the rebuild; was it all local money or was it part of any government award to towns for ring-fenced local projects?

The project has been funded entirely by Warwick District Council, including Section 106 funding from developers.

What is the estimated final projected cost including any compensation to the contractors?

The current lower assessment of costs is £23,715,000. The higher assessment is currently 26,898.500. If the Council decided not to go ahead there would be compensation due to the contractors. This would be subject to negotiation, but the current estimate is £2,375,000.

Kenilworth has only ever had one indoor pool and a reassessment for one pool could radically reduce construction costs, annual Council operational subsidies and reduce the size of a possible alternative site for the pool. There are a number of other sites which could be considered for a pool which would not take up housing land as claimed - i.e. the Woodside Hotel (which already has a pool in it) or on the land at Thickthorn. 

The predicted increase in population for the District in general and Kenilworth in particular has identified that the second pool is required during the lifetime of the building. Operational subsidies are likely to decline due to the presence of the second pool, rather than increase, given the flexible design of the second pool and its expected positive impact on income received. The reason for continuing with the Abbey Fields site is well documented in the report to Cabinet.

Relocation 

Why wasn’t the new swimming pool incorporated with the new facility at Castle Farm?

This option was investigated in some detail at the time of the strategic planning of the facility. A construction on this site would have been unlikely to obtain Planning Permission as two swimming pools in addition to the Leisure Centre and Scout and Guide Centre would have significantly increased the building mass on the site, which is in the Green Belt. Furthermore, the requirement for more car parking would have taken yet further land, leaving almost no public open space on the site. It was also considered that the increase in traffic in Fishponds Road and neighbouring roads would have been unacceptable for local residents.

Could the swimming pool site be relocated to the now empty school at Leyes Lane? 

At the present time the Council is only considering whether or not to continue at the existing site. If the decision is taken not to continue at Abbey Fields and the Council subsequently decides to seek an alternative site in Kenilworth then a full options appraisal of all available sites would need to be undertaken, along with a public consultation.

Archaeology 

How much archaeology has been and will be removed, and what has happened to the stonework that has been taken away? 

No stonework has been removed from the site, apart from various specific artifacts. These artifacts will be offered to local museums.

How did you not anticipate such findings of archaeological interest given that we all know Abbey Fields was the site of a literal abbey? 

It was known that the site was part of the Scheduled Monument of the Kenilworth Abbey. However, all parties involved, including the Project Team, Historic England, the County Archaeologist, the research of the team’s own archaeologist and local experts all concurred that the building of 4 swimming pools on the site over the years would have removed or irreparably damaged any archaeology that had been on the site. That is why the team ensured that the new design fitted the former building’s footprint precisely.

Why is it not possible to construct a proper museum and educational style facility to allow the public to see these findings. Building a pool to cover them up feels very wrong? 

The remains that have been found are of a similar age and historical importance to the barn to the north of the site. This is in much better condition, and is already used as a museum and educational facility. We have taken a detailed 3D scan of the remains, so this scan can be utilised by future scholars in their research.

Why are we not preserving the archaeological site, boosting future tourism to our town, whilst also rebuilding the surrounding play areas still with in Abbey Fields but in a much more suitable area other than right next to an important find? 

As shown above, the remains are of a similar age and historical importance to the barn to the north of the site. This already plays a role in boosting tourism to the town. Historic England would instruct us to cover the remains in any case, as they have done with other archaeological finds on this site, as the remains are vulnerable to decay if they are left exposed to the air, rain and temperature changes.

Given the historic nature of the Abbey Fields are there any further sites in the area that may in future be seen as worthy of excavating?

This is not a matter for the Project Team. However, it is understood that the general policy of Historic England is not to conduct excavations for academic purposes only.

Abbey Fields wider site matters 

If the decision is to not go ahead with the build at Abbey Fields, what will happen to the land? I understand the ruins must be covered, so I'm assuming it has no future as an historic site?  

Historic England will insist that the remains are covered over with native soil, as this is the best way to preserve them for future generations. This means that they could not be used as a historic site. We have taken a detailed 3D scan of the remains, so this scan can be utilised by future scholars in their research.

What can be done to improve the car parking situation? Could an addition car park be added at a different location around the fields? 

The work of the transport consultant on the project demonstrated that the existing parking facilities will be sufficient to accommodate the future demand for car parking. This conclusion was accepted by the County Highways Department. It would not be appropriate to construct another car park nor to extend any existing car park anywhere within Abbey Fields.

Will the vehicular access for customers with a disability be improved in the new design?

There will be two accessible parking spaces close to the front of the building. Access will be via the main driveway. The limitations of the main driveway are acknowledged, but it would not be appropriate to add any additional tarmac in this location. The access arrangements at the gate will be simplified and other vehicles will be excluded from this area wherever possible.

If the build is to continue at Abbey Fields, can the hoarding be more visually appealing? Maybe a local school can do some art? 

Some local artwork is to be used on the hoardings to make them more appealing and to emphasise the access to the Junior Playground, whilst this access can remain open. The access will have to close for Health and Safety reasons once the construction begins in 2024.

If there is no pool built in Abbey Fields would there be any facilities like public toilets or a café in its place? 

If the Council decided not to proceed with the proposals for two swimming pools on this site, there would need to be an options appraisal of what should happen to the site. Historic England would be likely to insist that the area with the most significant remains was turned into a wildflower meadow or grassy area, as these are the best ways to preserve the remains. It would be possible to put facilities like public toilets or a café on the part of the site that does not have any medieval remains, but precisely what to provide would be the subject of the public appraisal.

Finance 

Have you included the savings made from not running a swimming pool for 5-7 years in the costings? Surely, they must be a contributing factor and be offset to the capital expenditure? 

The costs of all the leisure facilities in the District have been significantly changed by the impact of the Covid pandemic. This makes it very difficult to assess the impact of not running Abbey Fields Swimming Pool for a period of years.

Is there funding from Historic England to help cover costs? 

There is no funding from Historic England to help cover the costs of preserving the medieval remains. However, we are obliged to protect the remains as this is a legal obligation on the Council.

How much has the project gone up by? 

The total project cost at present is £14.7 million. Adding the Kier budget to other increases and the reinstatement of the project contingency gives a total project cost in the lower assessment of £20.4 million and in the higher assessment of £22.6 million. This represents an increase of £5.7 million in the lower assessment and £7.9 million in the higher assessment.

At the old outdoor pool how many swimmers a day/hour would you need to break even? Did it achieve this?

The number of swimmers was recorded, however they could choose which pool they used on the same ticket. Therefore we are unable to provide a breakeven cost that is accurate.

Did the main pool make a profit or was it subsidised? For both pools, were they subsidised by WDC and by how much a year?

The previous Abbey Fields Swimming Pool facility was subsidised at a rate of £250,000 per year. This figure changed during the Covid pandemic.

Taking the above questions and numbers into consideration how much would a new outdoor pool have to be subsidised by to stay open all year or just May to September?

A new outdoor pool is not under consideration at this time, and so this calculation has not been made.

By how much will a new indoor pool be cheaper to maintain and run taking into account the heating efficiency of a modern building with modern technology?

The new facility will be more efficient than the old building in terms of energy used per square metre due to the newer technology to be utilised and the addition of energy saving elements. The introduction of the second indoor family pool will mean that the total energy requirements of the new building will be higher than the previous one.

The introduction of the second indoor pool will cater for the population growth of Kenilworth and the required increase of demand in swimming and swimming lessons.

Do you get any non-rate payer funds to subsidise swimming in the district?

No, there are no external funding streams available to subsidise swimming for Local Authorities in England. The Government in conjunction with Sport England have recently opened some funding schemes to assist Local Authorities with running costs and capital investments.

WDC have applied for these funding streams and have been successful with the running cost application, which provides the operators with some funding and support towards utility costs and allows them to keep the swimming admission prices at an affordable rate.

The capital investment application decisions are expected to be announced in January 2024. Unfortunately, neither of these funding streams will apply to Abbey Fields as they are for currently operational facilities.

The SLC Report states that WDC will need to provide an operational subsidy of £133,359 a year. Given that income from swimming lessons was predicted to be £240,000 pa (against £93,199 for all other swimming related income), and given the new local competition for this lesson’s income, how much income do you now expect from swimming lessons and how much annual subsidy do you now estimate WDC will have to contribute?

The Council will not receive income from swimming lessons, as this will be retained by Everyone Active. The Covid pandemic has significantly changed the income profiles for leisure facilities. The Council is currently in negotiation with Everyone Active concerning the performance of all the Council’s leisure facilities, including Abbey Fields Swimming Pools when they reopen. These negotiations are currently confidential but will be made public when they are concluded.

How does you arrive at the capital cost for a new community pool on a green field site of £13,628,000 - wildly more than Sport England's guidance to Councils on this which is easily accessible on their site.

The figure in the report was calculated on the basis of the agreed cost of the Abbey Fields Swimming Pools before the discovery of the medieval remains (£12,550,000) plus consultants and client direct costs. Inflation was then added for the period until work would start at 18.33%. Cost comparisons to other projects underway at present suggest that £12m to £14m is comparable with similar schemes. The capital cost of the Abbey Fields pools has never been £7 million.

The Sport England report that you reference was written in 2011 and so is substantially out of date. The figure quoted also only related to ‘base construction costs’ and not to the cost of any facilities such as the café. It is the Council’s view that the residents of the District deserve more than the ‘base’ design of a standard pool.

The cost of building on top of Abbey Fields' archaeological site has risen from £7 million to £27 million in 5 years. The risk register released with the 'Updated Report' shows WDC accepting all the risk of further increases. Why has WDC refused to discuss a number of feasible alternative proposals for sites being put forward by interested and informed parties?

The cost of the Abbey Fields project has never been £7 million. The decision of the Council to agree funding for the project is subject to a ceiling figure for expenditure. The Project Team will ensure that the revised contract with Kier will be within this ceiling figure. Once the revised contract is agreed the risk of any additional costs will be shared between the Council and the contractor in accordance with the terms of the contract. The reasons why the Abbey Fields site is being progressed at this time are clearly laid out in the report to Cabinet, which is a public document.

The Council has agreed to an increase of costs for the Abbey Fields redevelopment of around £20 million, and also agreed that WDC would accept the sole risk of any further increases in capital costs and would provide annual operational subsidies; but predictions for either of these future costs were not given. Are they being kept 'confidential'?

The increase that Council agreed to fund in their meeting on 15 November was not around £20m. The decision of the Council to agree funding for the project is subject to a ceiling figure for expenditure. The Project Team will ensure that the revised contract with Kier will be within this ceiling figure.

Once the revised contract is agreed the risk of any additional costs will be shared between the Council and the contractor in accordance with the terms of the contract. The Council will not receive income from swimming lessons, as this will be retained by Everyone Active. The Covid pandemic has significantly changed the income profiles for leisure facilities.

The Council is currently in negotiation with Everyone Active concerning the performance of all the Council’s leisure facilities, including Abbey Fields Swimming Pools when they reopen. These negotiations are currently confidential but will be made public when they are concluded.

You state that 'no subsidy will be required once the number of people using the pool rises to the predicted level after a few years'. How did you arrive at this conclusion?

As stated above, the Covid pandemic has significantly changed the income profiles for leisure facilities. The Council is currently in negotiation with Everyone Active concerning the performance of all the Council’s leisure facilities, including Abbey Fields Swimming Pools when they reopen. These negotiations are currently confidential but will be made public when they are concluded.

Misc 

What is the new timescale? 

Due to the submission and consideration of a Section 73 Material Amendment to the Planning Permission and the redesign of the foundations of the building, if the Planning Permission is granted, the start on site date will be delayed until early 2024. Should the Council decide to continue with the scheme, there are a number of factors that will extend the construction period from the previous estimate of 74 weeks to a new estimate of 114 weeks. The relevant factors include restricted access routes across the site to preserve the medieval remains; a constant watching brief from Archaeology Warwickshire until all ground works are complete; the possibility of additional archaeological finds; more restrictive work practices in order to reduce hazards and use of smaller machines. This gives a revised predicted completion date in the summer of 2026.

Can we have a referendum/public vote on final proposals? 

There has been no change to the design proposals for the scheme. The only differences relate to the cost and timescale of the projects, and these are matters for consideration by Councillors.

The 2018 SLC Review of Commercial Options states that the Abbey Fields pools will have a latent demand for swimming from 107,905 people by 2029. Do you accept this figure is still accurate?

The predicted rise in housing to be provided within the catchment of the new Abbey Fields Swimming Pools was calculated in 2019 based on the expansion described in the Local Plan at that time. That Local Plan is still active, and so that estimate is still appropriate. However, work on the development of the revision of the Local Plan is showing that it is likely that predicted population figures will be increased in the revised Plan.

The 2018 SLC Report states that the nearest swimming lesson facilities to Abbey Fields will be Henry VIII's school in Coventry. Do you accept this, or do you think that the many new public swimming lesson pools between Coventry and Kenilworth, such as the Warwick University public pool in Gibbet Hill and Everyone Active’s Hatton Pool now need factoring in and the latent demand predictions adjusted downwards accordingly?

The public pool at Warwick University and the Hatton Pool were both factored into subsequent demand assessments and will be part of such assessments going forward.

Will having HS2 so close cause any issues with the supply chain? I have heard that they have so much buying power that other contractors have had delays and cost increases. My fear is the pool completion being further delayed. 

The current state of the national and local supply market for the construction industry has been fully evaluated in reaching the conclusions on cost and time that will be submitted to Councillors for consideration in November.

Could the millions to be spent on the pool include a few thousand for a safer route to the pool from the Priory Road area? 

This is a matter for the Green Spaces Team, who manage the wider Abbey Fields site. However, the main driveway to the site is lit during the evening opening hours, which gives access to Bridge Street and Abbey Hill, and hence to the Priory Road area.

Could the lake be upgraded for wild/cold water swimming? 

The lake is not suitable for wild swimming as it is very shallow and has a soft, silty bottom.

Can you guarantee that the option to have no swimming pool in Kenilworth is ruled out of the options? 

The report to be considered by Councillors in November is a simple choice between continuing at Abbey Fields or cancelling work on that site. If the decision was taken to cancel this work, the Council would have to decide further, at another time, whether or not to provide a swimming pool building in the Kenilworth area.

What data is being used to drive the decision that the new plans are environmentally friendly? 

The design of the building included a detailed assessment of the environmental performance of the proposed design, and this assessment was supervised by Councillors. Each potential design element to improve the sustainability of the proposed building was assessed, and every element that paid for itself within its design life and which could be fitted into the building envelope was included in the design. This was then formally approved by the Council. This work has been monitored and updated as new elements have come onto the market since the project was designed.

Your report includes in its financial argument for Abbey Fields that it will save 1.8% for not having to follow new building guidelines. This means that levels of lighting and safety on the internal paths which lessons customers will use on dark evenings will not be stipulated in law. Could you please provide WDC's plans for ensuring the safety of paths from the car park to the pool/s, particularly the one that runs by the side of the graveyard and open fields?

The level of lighting on the footpaths in Abbey Fields is not part of the Building Regulations for the Abbey Fields Swimming Pools. This matter is considered to be part of the ongoing management of the Abbey Fields as a public open space, which is currently in the process of implementing a new Management Plan for the area. The level of lighting on paths in the Abbey Fields will be a decision made as part of that developing Plan.

A review of this scheme by Sport England, who carried out the 2018 assessment, should surely be a requirement given these developments. For Councillors to push ahead with this project without an independent, up-to-date business case is an irresponsible use of council funds which are dearly needed for other social, business and environmental projects. 

The assessment of demand carried out in 2018 was not carried out by Sport England, although it was their nationally-recognised Facilities Planning Model that was used to do the calculations. The Council is involved in detailed discussions with Everyone Active on the future business performance of the new facility and the outcome of these discussions will be made public when they have been concluded.