Fort Regent Review - Report - 02 November 2009

Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel

Fort Regent Review

Presented to the States on 2nd November 2009

S.R.11 / 2009

1. CHAIRMAN'S FOREWORD .......................................................................................... 4
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................ 5

3. KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................ 7

1. Key Findings ................................................................................................................ 7
2. Recommendations..................................................................................................... 11

4. THE CURRENT SITUATION........................................................................................ 14

1. Responsibility for the Bigger Picture........................................................................ 16

1. Jersey Property Holdings Department...................................................................... 16
2. The Department for Education, Sport and Culture.................................................... 16
3. Jersey Heritage Trust............................................................................................... 17

2. Responsibility: Day to Day ........................................................................................ 18

1. The Management..................................................................................................... 18
2. Information Services ................................................................................................ 20
3. The Active Card....................................................................................................... 22
4. Interior Maintenance ................................................................................................ 24
5. Conferences and Events.......................................................................................... 24
6. Sports Development, Clubs and Associations........................................................... 28
7. Social Inclusion........................................................................................................ 32
8. Catering................................................................................................................... 33
9. Promotion of Fort Regent......................................................................................... 34

3. Historical Responsibility for the Site......................................................................... 36

1. The Swimming Pool................................................................................................. 36
2. Covenant and Site of Special Interest (SSI).............................................................. 41
3. Existing Condition of Fort Regent............................................................................. 41
4. Closed Attractions and Ramparts............................................................................. 42

5. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF FORT REGENT........................................................... 45

1. Statements of Current Thinking: Key States Departments..................................... 45

1. Master Plan for Fort Regent..................................................................................... 45
2. Fort Regent Development Working Group................................................................ 48
3. Public Private Partnership........................................................................................ 48
4. Political Champion................................................................................................... 52
5. Heritage of Fort Regent............................................................................................ 54
6. Recommendations from Previous Reports................................................................ 57
7. Status of the latest report: EDAW............................................................................. 60
8. South Hill Site.......................................................................................................... 62

2. Stakeholder Recommendations: Public Submissions............................................. 64

1. Sports and Entertainment Centre............................................................................. 64
2. Swimming pool site.................................................................................................. 66
3. Conference Centre................................................................................................... 71
4. Restaurant............................................................................................................... 73
5. Ramparts................................................................................................................. 74

6. Summary of Submission Suggestions ...................................................................... 76

6. FINANCIAL AND STAFFING ARRANGEMENTS........................................................ 84

1. Subsidy....................................................................................................................... 84
2. Staffing....................................................................................................................... 87
3. Funding for Development.......................................................................................... 88
4. Rent ............................................................................................................................ 90
5. Maintenance............................................................................................................... 94

7. ACCESS TO THE SITE ............................................................................................... 95

1. Cable Cars.................................................................................................................. 95
2. Snow Hill Access ....................................................................................................... 95
3. Access is Adequate ................................................................................................... 97
4. Directional Signage.................................................................................................... 98
5. Minibus System.......................................................................................................... 98

8. PREVIOUS REPORTS AND FEASIBILITY STUDIES................................................ 100

1. Fort Regent: A Battle for the Future (Edinburgh/Rotterdam May 1995)....................... 100
2. Consultation Report, The Future of Fort Regent, The Jersey Sports Village, Community Sports Centre, Into the Millennium with 20:20 vision. (Roger Quinton Associates Ltd, April 1997) ................................................................................................................. 101

3. Proposed Redevelopment of Fort Regent (Saville Jones Architects, March 2000)...... 102
4. Proposed Conference Facility Fort Regent (Saville Jones Architects, April 2002)....... 103
5. Jersey Conference Centre Study (The Tourism Company, Amended June 2004 & May 2003) ......................................................................................................................... 103

6. Fort Regent Conference and Events Venue (PMP Nov 2004)..................................... 104
7. A Conservation Statement for Fort Regent, Jersey (Antony Gibb Jan 2006).............. 105
8. Development Brief for Fort Regent (EDAW Sept 2007)............................................... 105

9. APPENDIX 1 – PANEL MEMBERSHIP AND TERMS OF REFERENCE................... 107
10. APPENDIX 2 – EVIDENCE CONSIDERED................................................................ 108

11. APPENDIX 3 – EXPERT ADVISERS REPORT.......................................................... 116

1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 118
   2. FORT REGENT – THE CURRENT POSITION........................................................... 119 The Fort Regent Centre – Performance and Perception ............................................. 119 The Ramparts and the Site......................................................................................... 120

3. THE VISIONS FOR THE FORT.................................................................................. 121
4. MOVING FORWARD................................................................................................. 122
   5. APPENDIX 1 – A WORD ON PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS........................... 123 Sub Contracts and Franchises.................................................................................... 123 Management Contract................................................................................................ 123 PFI............................................................................................................................. 124 Enabling Development............................................................................................... 124

1. Chairman's Foreword

Few  subjects  arouse  the  passion  of  people  in  Jersey  as  much  as  Fort Regent. Its brooding presence over the town serves to continually remind people of its past and of what "could be".

Like  many  attractions  involved  with Tourism  it  suffered  greatly  from  the decline  in numbers.  In  the  minds of  many  this  was  exacerbated  by  the closure of the cable car link and the closure of the swimming pool. It has lost its focus as a place where families could spend a very enjoyable and varied day. However, all is not gloom and doom. It has achieved considerable success as a fitness and "good health" centre. Concerts are increasing in number.

That said, there are now large parts of the site that are sliding into dereliction, the heritage side remains very undeveloped. Report after report has been written but we seem no further forward in terms of an overall strategy.

Our  view  is that the  key  is  improved  access combined  with  incremental change on key fronts. In today's climate the Fort is unlikely to attract vast amounts of States funding. However, there is definite room for improvement and it is the Panel's intention to move Propositions in the States to ensure that the Fort is recognised for its positive features and not allowed to enter into an irreversible decline.

Deputy Roy Le Hérissier

2. Executive Summary

The aim of this review was not to add to the extensive paperwork that has already been produced by presenting another analysis of Fort Regent with proposals for what should be in place there.

Instead the Panel wanted to communicate and analyse, what the current situation is at Fort Regent and what, in light of the assortment of disregarded reports, studies and propositions, seemed to be the barrier to development.

Throughout this review the Panel has consulted widely, with the public, the users and relevant States Departments. It has attracted much debate and support largely due to the fact that the Fort is essentially community based in its underlying approach, and the primary purpose of this approach is to encourage and maintain a fit and healthy community.

Consideration has been paid to the impact of the current multi-use nature on the Fort, bearing in mind that the Fort primarily is a historical building dating back to 1803. Its military history has seen its use as both a Fortress and Garrison; it was then demilitarised in 1927 and used again during the Second World War by the Germans. It was only in 1958 that it was sold to the States of Jersey and not until 1967 that the States agreed for the Fort to be converted into a multi-purpose leisure centre.

Since this time there has been a tricky juggling act of finding a balance which respects the original features of the Fort while using it for the benefit of the community. It is the success or otherwise of this balancing act that has raised questions in recent times.

The Review has revealed two sides to the Fort debate. The Panel has found that, in reality, there is much happening at the Fort. The Sport and Leisure Division has been successful in attracting people to use the gym facilities and attend concerts whilst housing many different sports clubs and associations. However, contrary to this is the impression of the controversial white elephant', a once much loved but now deteriorating site, which arguably is not being put to its optimum use, with the demise of many facilities and the "hangout factor" that was once so popular.

The review has highlighted the fact that Fort Regent has tended to encourage grandiose thinking with attempts to provide huge solutions to what have been thought to be huge problems. The Panel believes this has significantly contributed to the delays with refurbishment and the failure of previous reports and studies to gain broad based support and finance.

This review has served to reinforce a picture of a complex web of roles and responsibilities for the site, together with the undeniably tough task of maintaining the structure and using it to its maximum potential. The Panel concluded that far greater clarity is needed as to the respective roles and responsibilities of departments. The Fort needs a patron or champion to promote it and drive development, without which further deterioration is surely inevitable.

The Panel believes that there are palpable actions for the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture to implement that would go some way to restoring public belief that community facilities are a priority for the Department of Education, Sport and Culture. These include the demolition of the closed swimming pool, restoration of the ramparts and improvements to access for Fort Regent. This latter issue is seen as the key to a way forward.

However, the Panel's recommendations for improvement will need to be financed. This review has been totally coloured by the fact that nothing can happen without proper funding. The Panel was informed that development at Fort Regent would inevitably be stalled due to a lack of Funding. For many this will evoke déjà vu' of Project 181 brought before the States in November 1999 to approve, in principle, the redevelopment of Fort Regent. This was passed by 37 votes to 8, but the funds for development were never found. The Panel has recommended to the Minister that immediate exploration of opportunities for funding must be implemented, opportunities that may well involve Limited Partnerships with the private sector.

3. Key Findings and Recommendations

1. Key Findings

FINDING 1: 4.1.3

The Panel found that there was no current formal and ongoing dialogue between the Department for Education, Sport and Culture, Property Holdings and the Jersey Heritage Trust. The Panel was concerned that this would contribute to a neglect and deterioration of the historical features of Fort Regent.

FINDING 2: 4.2.1

As a tenant the Department of Education Sport and Culture has implemented and maintains an impressive Sports and Leisure Facility despite the physical constraints of the Site. However, it is evident to the Panel that there is a lack of clarity between each Stakeholder as to their individual responsibilities for Fort Regent.

FINDING 3: 4.2.2

The existing website for Fort Regent is currently housed within the States of Jersey website. The Department of Education, Sport and Culture is working with Information Services to develop an improved website and on-line booking system across the cultural bodies, with completion scheduled for the end of 2009. It is the Panel's opinion that progress on revamping this system has been too slow.

FINDING 4: 4.2.3

Since the conversion from Pay and Play to the Active Card Scheme the Department of Education, Sport and Culture has recorded a marked increase in the number of people that participate on a regular basis. This has not only benefited Fort Regent as a Leisure Facility but the community as a whole.

FINDING 5: 4.2.4

The Department of Education, Sport and Culture has reinvested revenue gained through the success of the Active Card Scheme. Evidence of this is apparent in the new reception area and fitness section. Energy Efficiencies have been implemented throughout the site and form an environmentally compatible policy in line with the Strategic Plan 2009 – 2014.

FINDING 6: 4.2.5

While there is evidence of a steady decline in Conferences held at Fort Regent over the last five years, expansion of concert/entertainment events has proved successful. However, the multi-use nature of facilities at the Fort has meant that increasing levels of demand brought about by this rise in the number of events, has placed enormous pressure on both Sports Clubs and Centre Staff.

FINDING 7: 4.2.7

The success of the Active Card Scheme has enabled the Department of Education, Sport and Culture to provide a service to the community through promotion of Social Inclusion. By way of example, the Exercise Referral Scheme is currently making a significant contribution to the well being of many islanders who would otherwise be costing the States of Jersey much more in the long term.

FINDING 8: 4.2.8

In spite of what must be acknowledged as a lack-lustre' catering experience, perhaps in terms of setting rather than choice, the reality is the existing catering does meet the demands of the restricted group of mums and toddlers, who currently use it.

FINDING 9: 4.2.9

The Panel believes that it is not currently appropriate to actively advertise the Fort as a tourist destination whilst it remains limited by way of things to do or see there.

FINDING 10: 4.3.1

The Panel found that conditions agreed during the development of the AquaSplash Leisure Facility fatally undermined the future of the Fort Regent Swimming Pool, as a family based Leisure Centre, and ensured that no swimming facility could be redeveloped at the Fort.

FINDING 11: 4.3.1

A lack of strategic planning by the States of Jersey, at that time, meant little consideration was given to the consequences of closure of the Fort Regent Pool, which has subsequently hamstrung any development across the site. The Panel agrees that closure of the pool was a fundamental mistake, which has had an unquestionably negative impact on footfall at Fort Regent.

FINDING 12: 4.3.1

Currently there is a distinct failure by the States to address the redevelopment of the swimming pool site and agree to any future plans.

FINDING 13: 4.3.3

The Department of Education, Sport and Culture and Jersey Property Holdings (JPHD) are both responsible for the internal and external upkeep of the site. In the last year the maintenance schedule agreed between the Departments has highlighted that Fort Regent remains a low maintenance priority for JPHD.

FINDING 14: 4.3.4

Following the closure of many of the activities located around the Ramparts, they were left to deteriorate to such an extent that it was essential to close off several of the areas due to the risk they posed to members of the public. Closure of these facilities has, in turn, reduced Fort Regent's market share. The Centre has become less public facing and lost its attraction to families

FINDING 15: 5.1.3

Despite recommendations in previous reports and feasibility studies over the past ten years, there have been no attempts to pursue Public Private Partnerships for development purposes. Conflicting arguments were submitted with regards to the possibility of Commercial Development at Fort Regent. However, the most favoured opinion was that inviting private partners would be beneficial to developing certain aspects such as a moderately priced hotel.

FINDING 16: 5.1.4

In the search for a department or person responsible for development at Fort Regent, the Panel concluded that there was no clear political or officer accountability. The absence of a Champion' for Fort Regent was thought to be one of the explanations for the deterioration of the site. The Panel believed that future development of the Fort requires much greater political motivation in order for progress to be made.

FINDING 17: 5.1.5

Interpretation and care of the historic fabric has been substandard to date. Lack of consultation with the Jersey Heritage Trust and failure to address recommendations in the Conservation Statement by Antony Gibb has meant a continued absence of comprehensive historical interpretation.

FINDING 18: 5.1.6

The Panel reviewed past reports and feasibility studies produced over the last ten years and found that follow up to the reports had been minimal despite many realistic recommendations and notable common ground contained within them. It was apparent that there was limited concensus as to future of the Fort between the different Stakeholders involved and therefore no single agreed plan despite numerous reports.

FINDING 19: 5.2.3

The Panel was not satisfied that there was enough evidence to suggest that Fort Regent would make a viable conference centre, and would not support an investment for such a development, that would be unlikely to make a viable return. They suggested that any future plans regarding development of a conference centre at the Fort would need appropriate analysis of the market for large conferences, including consultation with hoteliers to identify impact.

FINDING 20: 5.2.4

All round improvement of facilities and access would be necessary to create a suitable environment for an upgraded restaurant.

FINDING 21: 5.2.5

The Ramparts are one of the most neglected areas of Fort Regent. Regeneration of the Ramparts could be seen as a small scale project that could make a huge impact. Jersey Tourism should play a key role in the promotion of the site once it is maintained to a satisfactory level.

FINDING 22: 6.1

The Department of Education, Sport and Culture has, on the surface, shown to be successful in reducing the size of subsidy required for Fort Regent. However, the Panel believes it is not easy to provide a thorough analysis of the Fort's historical financial situation due to the lack of meaningful financial data held across several different accounting systems, as well as the time and resources that would be needed to interpret it. On this basis the Panel feels that it is hard to be conclusive either way with regards to financial justifications for closure of facilities at Fort Regent due to the barriers to appropriate analysis.

FINDING 23: 6.3

The Panel was advised that there were currently no alternative funding streams for the development of Fort Regent, thus significantly affecting any progress. In light of this the Panel found the final decision not to apply for Fiscal Stimulus Funding completely inexplicable and felt that both the Department of Education, Sport and Culture and Treasury and Resources, on behalf of JPHD, were negligent in not seeking funding.

FINDING 24: 6.4

The Panel is concerned that the new rental structure to be applied by JPHD may not take into account matters of social benefit and inclusion.

FINDING 25: 6.5

Fort Regent shares a limited maintenance budget with two other Leisure Centres (Les Quennevais and Springfield). The Fort also competes with a lengthy priority list of JPHD and suffers as a result.

FINDING 27: 7

The Panel found that Fort Regent has poor directional signage both leading up to and within the site. The Panel also concluded that access to Fort Regent is inadequate and needs to be improved.

2. Recommendations

RECOMMENDATION 1: 4.1.3

The Panel recommends that the relationship between the Department of Education, Sport and Culture, JPHD and the Jersey Heritage Trust be put on a formal footing. The Panel request the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture to establish a working group, lead by a politician or champion' and consisting of representatives from these departments and key Stakeholders.

RECOMMENDATION 2: 4.2.1

The Panel requests that the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture work with the Minister for Treasury and Resources to identify the exact requirements needed by the Department of Education, Sport and Culture and JPHD to maximise the potential of the Fort, including budgetary requirements, so that there can be a clear definition and transparency of roles and responsibilities.

RECOMMENDATION 3: 4.2.2

The Panel recommends that the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture instructs the current working group, consisting of the States Central I.T. and the Department of Education, Sport and Culture's I.T. Department, to investigate development of a standalone website for Fort Regent with an online booking system, that is no longer buried within the States of Jersey Website.

RECOMMENDATION 4: 4.2.7

The Exercise Referral Scheme is of great benefit to the community and must be supported, maintained and developed. The Panel requests that the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture ensure that the scheduled Business Plan cuts, which impact on this area, are not made.

RECOMMENDATION 5: 4.3.1

The Panel recommends that the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture must organise for the abandoned swimming pool on the Glacis Field to be demolished with immediate effect.

The Panel further recommends for an Engineering Condition Report to be carried out on the derelict swimming pool site together with investigations into possible future uses of the site. The Panel suggests that investigations should include consideration of a swimming pool with possible incorporation under a hotel development, taking into account the current contractual restrictions.

RECOMMENDATION 6: 4.3.4

The Panel recommends that immediate attention must be paid by the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture to the maintenance of the ramparts. Tidying up of closed areas, demolishing old unused buildings such as the Cable Cars together with installation of historical interpretation are all quick wins which would make a huge impact to the attractiveness of Fort Regent.

RECOMMENDATION 7: 6.1

The Panel recommends that the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture ensures attention is paid to making the historical financial data in relation to the Fort as transparent and interpretable as possible. The Panel feels that it is imperative for the Department to understand and learn from the changes over recent years especially if there is a danger of decisions being made on meaningless data.

RECOMMENDATION 8: 6.3

With regards to the limitations placed on development by the stated lack of funding available for Fort Regent, the Panel requests the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture to implement the exploration of opportunities for Public/Private Partnerships and also to investigate the feasibility of redirection of money from disposal of properties.

RECOMMENDATION 9: 7.0

The Panel recommends that the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture instruct that access to Fort Regent be urgently re-examined with particular attention paid to the development of a lift from Snow Hill up to Fort Regent. In addition improvements to directional signage across the site need to be made with immediate effect.

4. The Current Situation

A key focus and challenge for the Panel during this review was to establish who is responsible for looking at the bigger picture when it comes to the management and development of Fort Regent. What became increasingly apparent during the process of Public Hearings with a number of different Departments, was that the site could not be linked to any one group in particular. The multi-faceted nature of the site is such that it requires input from a variety of Stakeholders. The Panel requested for each Stakeholder to define their involvement and responsibility for the site with the aim of piecing it all together.

Fort Regent Site Map Key:

Pink = Administered by the Department for Education, Sport and Culture

Red = Administered by Jersey Property Holdings Department

Purple = Administered by the Department for Transport and Technical Services Yellow & Green = Administered by the Department for Housing

1. Responsibility for the Bigger Picture

1. Jersey Property Holdings Department

The Panel was informed that the Jersey Property Holdings Department (JPHD) is responsible for maintaining the external structure of Fort Regent. During his attendance at a Public Hearing, the Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources, Deputy John Le Fondré described the relationship between JPHD and Fort Regent.

"the public own it and we act as landlord,and a variety of departments, principally Education, Sport and Culture are the tenants on the site. What we call Fort Regent is also the areas that immediately border on to the Fort, for example, Snow Hill car park, which is under the administration of Transport and Technical Services."[1]

Mr Richardson, Deputy Chief Executive, Chief Minister's Department, added:

"just to put it in context, the States as we moved into ministerial government approved formally the responsibility of landlord and tenant. So all property that was previously under the formal administration of departments, be it Sports, Fort Regent, Transport and Technical Serviceswas formally transferred into the collective ownership of Property Holdings. So they are the formal landlord for all States property and all departments occupy those buildings under varying forms of agreement or lease."[2]

2. The Department for Education, Sport and Culture

The Department of Education, Sport and Culture (DfESC) is responsible for the administration of the Fort Regent Complex. The Sport and Leisure Division which is part of the DfESC manages Fort Regent within a budget agreed by the department. The Sports and Leisure Division is responsible for all programming of activities that take place at the Fort, including the

Active Card Scheme, and all internal and external (grounds) maintenance of the complex.[3]

A Service Level Agreement operates between JPHD and the DfESC, which details  the  roles  and  responsibilities  of  both  parties,  this  is  reviewed annually. The DfESC transferred a small budget to JPHD a couple of years ago for the maintenance of the exterior.

"annual  building  maintenance  requests  for  the  Fort  are submitted by the Sport and Leisure Division to Property Holdings and a schedule of works is then drawn up by Property Holdings. It should be noted that at present some landlord related works are undertaken  by  the  Sports  and  Leisure  technical  team  in agreement with Property Holdings."[4]

3. Jersey Heritage Trust

In a Public Hearing held with Mr Jonathan Carter, Director of the Jersey Heritage Trust and Mr Roger Hills, Head of Historic Buildings at Jersey Heritage Trust, the Panel asked about the working relationship between the Trust, DfESC and JPHD with regards to Fort Regent:

"We have no formal (ongoing) role in relation to any States Department with regard to the management of Fort Regent. There have been occasions in the past where we have been consulted on specific interpretation projects, although not recently. We do of course manage the signal station under an agreement with Property Holdings. We also have a formal role in making recommendations to the Planning Minister about designation, in terms of the protection of the building."[5]

FINDING 1:

The Panel found that there was no current formal and ongoing dialogue between  the  Department  for  Education,  Sport  and  Culture,  Property Holdings and the Jersey Heritage Trust. The Panel was concerned that this would contribute to a neglect and deterioration of the historical features of Fort Regent.

2. Responsibility: Day to Day

The Sport and Leisure Division of the DfESC is responsible for the day to day running of activities and programmes not only within Fort Regent but at Springfield, Les Quennevais, Langford, Oakfield, Havre Des Pas Bathing Pool, Haute Vallee Swimming Pool and a range of outdoor playing fields along with other administrative responsibilities. The Panel was keen to understand what is currently on offer at Fort Regent, what is working well and in contrast what issues there might be.

1. The Management

The Sport and Leisure Division is overseen by an Assistant Director from DfESC. Supporting the Assistant Director is the Head of Operations, Sport and Leisure Division and Fort Regent has a Centre Manager, two Assistant Managers and three Duty Managers.

The  Minister  for the DfESC  commented  on  the  management  of  Fort Regent:

"in the case of Fort Regent, and indeed other facilities, I think that my department has shown itself to be good administrators with good management that provides facilities that private sector might be unable to provide, or at least could be more expensive."[6]

Mr Roy Travert, previously chairman of the Fort Liaison Group and Liaison Officer for the Fort Users' Association, who remains a regular user of the Fort, commented:

"I have no issues with anything that is going on with Fort Regent because it is being well run now. It is being run to the best of its ability in its present form. So I do not see that there are any issues with anything. I do not have the general public coming up to me and saying: "Fort Regent is terrible. Why is it still running?" I have people come and say what a fantastic complex we have. That

is purely down to the way that it is being run now and money being invested back into the facilities up there."[7]

Mrs Nelson, President of the Jersey Netball Association, also commented on her experiences of the Management at Fort Regent during a Public Hearing:

"During the events we have up there we have found the staff to be so friendly and they bend over backwards.nothing is too much trouble. I agree with you so far as that is the workers. As far as the top management are concerned, they are available at any time. They want the business. They want the Fort to work and they will bend over backwards I would say they are superb."[8]

The Centre is registered with Quest, which is a national quality and benchmarking scheme used to measure Sports and Leisure Centres. Quest covers areas such as facility operation, customer service, staffing and service development and review. Fort Regent has been placed by Quest in the highly commended category.

Mr de la Haye, Assistant Director for the DfESC referred to the Quest Scheme:

"It has been a continuous improvement system and I think enables us to justifiably say that the centre is being well operated, and that is not just us saying it."[9]

Mr Roy Cheshire, the Assistant Director of Sport at Brighton University, who also reviews centres on behalf of Quest, visited Fort Regent in May 2009 and commented:

"The Quest accreditation demonstrates that it is meeting the aims it sets itself and has a programme of continuous improvement and having recently been through the process again still shows the progress that is expected of a sports facility."

2. Information Services

During the process of the review the Panel received feedback from the following witness with regards to the ability to book tickets for concerts on- line:

"I have been amazed to learn of the recent explosion of activity in the events management of Fort Regent. However, this success has a downside, and I learn that the absence of on-line ticketing last week resulted in queues outside the building, angry customers  and  hundreds  of  emails  and  complaints.   Another downside  of  not  having  on-line  booking  facility  is  economic:   a website is a place for useful advertising."[10]

The Panel felt it was important to ask the DfESC whether any plans were being made to rectify this.

Mr de la Haye answered:

"It is a concern that we have had. Clearly, we have had a desire to have on-line bookings for a number of months if not years now. I am pleased to say that there is a lot of progress being made in that direction, and even as we speak there is a working group that is  working  with  the  States  Central  I.T.  (Information  Technology) Department  and  our  own  I.T.  department,this  group  is  very hopeful that we will have on-line bookings be the end of this year."[11]

It was discussed that the on-line website would most likely be accessed through the main States of Jersey website. The Panel questioned whether access through the States website was the best way to advertise Fort Regent. Mr Bisson, Head of Operations for the Sport and Leisure Division, replied:

"If you ask me personally, no. I argued strongly when we issued the active brand that we should remain outside of that because we wanted to see ourselves as a you know, we are a commercial operation and unfortunately once you go through a government website, the commercial aspects are sort of buried in lots of other information."[12]

Mr Bisson also added that, with regards to advertising, it is important to recognise that Fort Regent is not completely unadvertised. It has a page on the www.gov.je site, a facebook page has been introduced for the younger audience, posters are put up around town and advertising time is bought on commercial radio. However, he observed that the Fort Regent page within the government site is two or three steps "back" and is not prominent.

Representatives from the Jersey Netball Association and Swimming Club both commented at a Public Hearing on 27th May 2009 that neither had

ever looked up the Fort Regent section on the website, and believed that it would be beneficial if it was separate.[13]

The Panel further questioned why a separate website could not be developed. Mr de la Haye replied that he understood that it was a matter of working within the policies currently set by the States of Jersey, which are in place to create a corporate image across States Departments.

"There is an opinion that we could get a relatively simple system and just go on-line ourselves. But clearly we have got to work within the States system and all of the policies that they have and the I.T. departments have."[14]

The Panel asked the DfESC if they had a management information system in place to help them record and interpret user data, for example, the number and range of visitors, types of activities that are most popular and peak times at the centre.

Mr Bisson, informed the Panel:

"we have management information systems in place which record  data.   To  get  specific  data  out  is  always  slightly  more difficult,..the general usage and the visitor numbers are recorded simply by a photoelectric cell recording visits coming in, but that gives a trend over a number of years and gives us a good indication of the numbers coming in."[15]

For more detailed management information, Mr Bisson, suggested that an on-line booking system for sports activities would be necessary as well, however,  this  was  another  stage  further  than  the  on-line  booking  for concerts.

3. The Active Card

The Active Card was launched in 1999 and has been a big success for the Sports and Leisure Division. In a Public Hearing Mr de la Haye described its importance to them:

"It is important because it has encouraged more people to participate on a more regular basis. There is no question about that and that is why we brought it in. The old system was that if you wanted to use the facilities on a pay and play basis you come and you pay for that visit. Now people hold a card and they are able to

visit not just this centre but others, Springfield and Les Quennevais, it gives them the membership with a lot of benefits."[16]

The Active Card Scheme is of great benefit to the community. It supports several  groups  which include  Students  (reduced  rate),  the  Probation Service  (free),  Exercise  Referral  (reduced  rate  for  one  year),  Income Support (free), Senior Citizens (Reduced Rate), Members' Children (Free), Health and Social Services (selected groups go free).

These programmes are helping to improve the quality of life for a significant number of people by providing incentives to those who are not used to being active.

The  number  of Active  members  during  2008 was  4600  bringing  in  an income of £1,600,000. This income is shared proportionally between the three centres.

During the Public Meeting held at Fort Regent it was commented that:

"It was said earlier that this place does not buzz any more. I was here over last weekend and it was certainly buzzing throughout that period of time and I think has been buzzing every time I have been up in the time that I have been back in Jersey. The Active Programme, of  which  I  am  a  member,  would  be  the  envy  of anywhere,  I  suspect,  in  the  world  but  certainly  in  the  United Kingdom."[17]

4. Interior Maintenance

The Sports and Leisure Division has focussed on a number of actions to help reduce running costs at Fort Regent and be more environmentally aware:

"Working  through  the  building  we  have  put  in  motion sensors,there  are energy  efficient  lighting  systems,  things  like percussion taps that do turn off on their own rather than the public leaving them on, programmed heating systems, heat harvesters. That means that the heat that is going in, and it goes very high in this building, it is about bringing it back in and not just losing it, but reusing it and we do have an environmental policy in place." [18]

Together with the above actions, increased revenue through the Active Card Scheme has enabled the department to build a new reception area and make substantial improvements to the fitness area, with new flooring and weights equipment.

5. Conferences and Events

Interpretation of data over the last five years has shown a reduction in demand for conference business at Fort Regent, and more specifically for conferences for over 500 people. For example in 2004 the Fort housed the following:

• 18 Concerts
• 2 large conferences with attendance over 1,000, one lasting three days
• 3 Seminars with attendance ranging from 115 – 400

• 5 Small meetings including seminars, training, presentations
• 7 other conference enquiries that were received but could not be converted to actual events.

In contrast to this in 2008 the following events were held:

• 16 concerts
• 1 large one day conference with attendance over 2,000
• 3 small meetings, presentations, training sessions
• 3 other enquiries were received but not converted

A steady decline in conferences and enquiries could be tracked between 2004 and 2009, however, in 2009, although the conference business has reduced, the entertainment events have increased substantially from 16 on average to 24 in 2009.

The Panel was interested to know how Fort Regent benefits from hosting a range of conferences and entertainment events. There are a number of factors that determine the basis on which a contract is developed for each booking, so every event will bring different benefits and costs. For instance, contracts can range from simple hall hire to a more complex shared risk/percentage split and must also take into account whether an event is being run for charity or the community.

Mr E Trevor provided a submission with regards to an annual fund raising event for the Jersey Christmas Appeal held at Fort Regent:

"We use the Fort on a Sunday in late November or early December for a "car boot sale" in order to raise funds for the Jersey Christmas Appeal of which I am the 2009 Chairman. The Fort gives us the accommodation free as their contribution to the Appeal. We sell about 130 tables at £10 each and also collect with buckets and raise a further £1,000. After we have paid the girl who does the sorting out for us, receiving the cheques, allocating tables, seeing people in and out, we make a profit of about £2,000. The Fort is excellent for this as we are able to set up quickly with careful control of the vehicles and sending them into the Pier Road car park as soon as they have finished. The

halls should be retained for public concerts, events which have a very large audience and things similar to the boot sale."[19]

Although the figures for entertainment events have increased for 2009, it is important to consider the impact of a reduction in conference business. Entertainment Events are bringing in an income anywhere between £500 and £4,000 per event, depending on the popularity of the artists. Conferences can earn the centre anywhere up to £10,000 and Trade Fairs such as the Home & Lifestyle Show brought in £20,000 in 2006. So, could a focus on attracting conference business be of benefit to the centre?

Mr Reid, General Manager for the Jersey Conference Bureau explained to the Panel that Fort Regent is a member of the Conference Bureau. The role of the Bureau is to market and promote the island, while providing support to both Fort Regent as a States owned enterprise and also private enterprises, hotels and other service providers in the industry.

Facilities for Shows and Conferences include the Gloucester Hall and Queen's Hall as the main areas used, these can take up to 2,000 visitors and provide the largest capacity for shows and conferences on the island. Smaller conferences can be housed in the Don Theatre, which has adjoining rooms that are beneficial for any break out meetings or workshops. These have recently been upgraded with up-to-date projection equipment with the view to attracting some smaller meetings to return to use the facilities. The Don Theatre can also be used for meetings for Sports Clubs and Associations. Clubs can hold Annual General Meetings in the Don Theatre for free, although other general meetings incur a fee.

A submission sent into the DfESC by Mr Fryer from Star Stage Production Company, made reference to the facilities at the Fort:

"In my view Fort Regent offers excellent facilities to both myself as the company, and to the general public coming to see these shows, I think you only have to look at the calendar to see the amount of shows and events, to see how important and

popular the Fort has become, I struggle to see if this facility did not exist, how companies like myself would survive."[20]

One particular issue with regards to the success of the increase in concerts is the impact it is currently having on Sports Clubs and Users, and regular displacement from their training areas:

"Shows take place all the time, there is no reason to push out (we) the sports people who have kept the Fort going. We use the side rooms, which at present are used as dressing rooms for Artistes when there are visiting shows. Utilise the ones on the other side instead where the Humphrey room is. Make proper dressing rooms. Then they can always double up for small events like meetings or even small conferences."[21]

Mr Arthur Falle, Regent Gymnastics Club, added:

"Fort  Regent  is  not  being  fully  utilised,  the  staff  and management are always helpful but due to restrictions put upon them it is difficult for them to fully satisfy everybody.

For  instance  as  a  Gymnastics  club  we  have  always  been  well looked after in the 28 years we have been based at Fort Regent, but we are finding it more difficult year after year to operate our club to its full potential. As a Club we have a lot of upheaval with moving areas within the Fort due to a number of sporting and entertainment events taking place. A purpose built gymnasium for gymnastics is long over due."[22]

6. Sports Development, Clubs and Associations

There are in excess of 50 Clubs and Associations that use Fort Regent on both a regular basis and for special events. A number of representatives from these Clubs sent submissions to the Panel to provide information about their experiences and requirements.

Mr Cabaret provided a submission on behalf of the Regent Shooting Club. He informed the Panel that the Club had been using the range at Fort Regent for the past 25 years, and that there remained a firm need for this facility. Mr Cabaret did conclude that there were necessary improvements that could be made if the island wanted to progress the sport and invite other islands to travel to Jersey to compete. Improvements would also be necessary if Jersey were to host the Island Games again.[23]

Mr Falle, Regent Gymnastics Club, commented:

"Regent Gymnastics Club uses Fort Regent six to seven days a week some 25 hours with all our coaches giving their time voluntarily. We currently cater for over 200 gymnasts both boys and girls form the age of three and half to sixteen to eighteen years of age. The support of our parents is also strong and many of them use Fort Regent themselves for other activities whilst their daughter and son are training with us.

I was involved in the Island Games in 1997 as General Team Manager and organised the Sport of Gymnastics since then. With Jersey looking to put forward a Bid for 2015, Fort Regent needs to be fully prepared and be able to accommodate a number of sports. What an ideal opportunity for Fort Regent to be the Sports Village for these games." [24]

Mr John Grady, President of the Gymnastics Association of Jersey was also keen to inform the Panel of the need for a designated venue.

"You know of my own club's problems in finding a suitable venue for training and that we have found some sort of solution in Greenfields. The other three clubs in the Gymnastics Association of Jersey have had, and continue to have, similar problems with finding a venue that enables them to train at least on a par with their mainland counterparts and properly prepare for competition. The majority of clubs on the mainland have access to high class facilities for all or part of their training programmes. The only way that gymnastic clubs on Jersey are able to access the kind of facility that will allow the practice of high level skills is to travel off island. Given the expense of travel this is not a viable proposition.

Currently the Queen's Hall at Fort Regent can be set up as a good competition venue. Events there have already been held successfully and the response of visitors has always been very positive. With the purchase of some additional matting for parallel bars and a proper pommel set up it would be possible to stage events with a full range of equipment at an appropriate standard and continue to invite clubs to Jersey. The Gymnastics Association of Jersey is desperate that this facility is kept available in any development of Fort Regent.

But the sport needs a training facility that will match this competition venue and again I would ask on behalf of the four clubs in Jersey that consideration is given to providing such a facility in any development of Fort Regent. A facility that is an up-to-date training venue dedicated to gymnastics all year round."

Neil Courtney, Head of the Jersey Instrumental Service also provided a submission to the Panel with regards to their accommodation at Fort Regent:

"Since September 2006, the JIS has had use of two rehearsal rooms that were created in the site of the old aquarium when the service's previous use of a very adequate space at the old JCG site for 5 years prior to the summer of 2006 came to an end. (It is not without some irony that we note that the latter has remained undeveloped and on our doorstep for the three years that

have elapsed!). Whilst we have been most grateful to have a dedicated space available to us at the Fort on a regular basis it has not, alas, been without some shortcomings.

The rooms are somewhat cramped, have no natural daylight and insufficient ventilation leading to quite severe ongoing damp problems meaning that we often have to rehearse with the main doors kept open to ensure a supply of fresh air. We are very concerned about the Health and Safety of our staff and students when working in such an environment. There is also an ongoing issue relating to storage of personal possessions (coats and bags go in mobile cages – an unsatisfactory arrangement) and instrument cases are stored in cupboards outside the rehearsal rooms.

Additionally we have occasional use (at extra cost) of the Don Theatre (good acoustic) and two smaller rooms (very resonant acoustic) all of which are physically separated from JIS rooms and necessitate careful supervision of pupils when moving around a busy leisure centre, and which could also be a potential problem in the event of emergency evacuation.

Ms Zachariou, Director of the UberEdge Dance Company and School commented:

"I am the founder of a dance school. I use Fort Regent studios to hold my classes. I chose this venue because of the ease of getting to Fort Regent for town workers by foot and by car. Admittedly there is still room for improvement in that area as you mention in your letter. The staff are helpful and organised, the room is always ready for me which aids in the impression of my business. Unlike some other fitness units in the island, Fort Regent is welcoming to its visitors which makes the experience a relaxing leisurely one. It's also very clean!

The future of Fort Regent is of great importance not only to me but to all the other local businesses that use it. It is unique to us and suits us which is why we have chosen to base ourselves there and feel it is detrimental to our business to see Fort Regent being used to its full potential. Plus the businesses being run there then in turn introduce their clients to other events happening in Fort Regent. If we get both right it's a recipe for success![25]

Mr Le Corre, President of Indoor Bowls at Fort Regent also added:

"We represent Indoor Bowls at the Fort. There are in the region of 200 members using the facilities, we have been using Fort Regent for our sport for over 26 years, our age group varies from 60 to 85 years. We use the Fort 4 times during the week.

Staff have to lay the mats down before we commence bowls and remove them after we have finished, far from ideal for our sport. Often we have a group within 10ft using the trampoline on one side and a group of toddlers using the gym on the other side. A permanent closed-in bowls arena would be ideal for our sport. Car parking is also a problem for our members, as we use the Fort during office hours on week days, we are one of the only groups who have to pay parking fees to use the Fort."[26]

In addition to this the Fort provides office space for Sports Development Officers of sports such as Netball, Hockey, Athletics, football and triathlon.

The President of the Jersey Netball Association, Mrs Nelson, commented:

"That is a superb setup because we definitely do liaise together as different sports, especially when you have got talented youngsters who are good at cricket, good at hockey and good at Netball, and it does happen."[27]

The Panel asked Mrs Nelson if this office was setup for members of the Public to drop in with enquiries for the Sports Development Officers, to aid with the overall promotion of each sport.

"It is something that we would definitely work at. As far as attracting the public, probably things would have to change slightly because you do not want netballers coming in talking to our netball development officer and maybe disturbing the rugby and the football, and what have you."[28]

7. Social Inclusion

At the Public Meeting on 6th May 2009, Mr De La Haye outlined the support that is offered through schemes provided by the Sport and Leisure Division at Fort Regent for Social Inclusion and Community benefit:

"These are some of the groups we support. The J.E.T. (Jersey Employment Trust) Centre is for adults who have severe learning or physical disability. They are unable to go to work. Now they come to this centre as a community centre, rather than going to the J.E.T. centre up at Five Oaks.. Mont A L'Abbé clearly is another school which has a lot of young people, particularly who have special needs, that we support.. .I have already talked about the probation services. Exercise referral has grown. It has been in existence since 1995, we have in excess of 900 people come through the programme each year. Rather than going to the doctor for a prescription of drugs instead people now come for a prescription of health and they come for exercise and activity and we have seen some dramatic changes in the quality of life of some people. We do work with the Alcohol and Drugs Advisory Service, we do have people who are working with them and going through the programmes, because again it is about providing opportunities for those people to turn their life around from where it is so that they do indeed have an opportunity to get back to a good quality of lifeand finally the Children's Service, there is another group that we work with and we try to help."[29]

A member of the Public also commented during the Public Meeting:

"Also, as a G.P., I think they do an excellent job in the Exercise Referral Scheme. I send patients myself and I think it is a

brilliant idea to get people who are not wanting to go into the fitness centres themselves."[30]

Exercise Referral is a 10-week programme of physical activity. It is aimed at people who are not used to physical activity and who have certain medical conditions. The scheme is accessible to people from the age of sixteen although all referrals must be made by a Doctor or health care professional. Exercise Referral provides the opportunity to try some regular physical activity to help improve a person's health and well-being. There are regular sessions available throughout the week.[31]

8. Catering

The catering  at  Fort  Regent  is  currently under  contract  to  the  Modern Hotels Group. They have been operating at Fort Regent for the last 31 years. They contributed to several of the amenities added when the roof went  on  in  1978,  such  as  an  ice  skating  rink,  a  roller  skating  rink,  a restaurant and bar/café.

In a Public Hearing with Mr Jonathan Segal, Director of Modern Hotels, the Panel asked for the reasoning behind the type of eatery that they are providing:

"We have to provide what the public wants. So, the only people that are up there are the toddlers and the sports people. The sports people go, work out and leave. They do not even want their own drinks bar there, and as far as providing food for anything other than toddlers and mothers, the truth of the matter is there is nobody  there  except  toddlers  and  mothers..We  did  a  whole

programme with the management up there about changing the food offered up there, salad bars, all of that. There was absolutely no demand for it whatsoever and it just got closed down."[32]

Mr Segal continued to comment on the environment created at Fort Regent:

"the truth of the matter is the problems that exist at Fort Regent have absolutely nothing to do with whether of not we have a cheese sandwich or a chicken salad. Let us look at the environment that we are asking people to sit and eat in. They are just not going to do it."[33]

The comments of Mr Segal were also re-iterated by Mr Roy Travert during the Public Hearing with the Panel on 27th May 2009:

"There were various venues that started up by the weights area to give healthy food options but then they stopped obviously due to lack of footfall. I think it is very difficult to provide the sort of catering that people want without  changing a  lot of their  eating habits.People generally when they go up to the Fort, they go up, they do their activity and then they leave.I do not think that a catering facility purely based on health food would survive up there. I do not think that there is a footfall for it.[34]"

9. Promotion of Fort Regent

As well as highlighting the need for a specific website for Fort Regent, the Panel was keen to build up a picture of how the Fort is promoted in other ways.

The Panel received a submission informing them that the Fort benefits from Blue Badge Guided Tours, which fall into two types; those done for the general public that are advertised by Jersey Tourism and those done for specialist groups. Tours advertised by Jersey Tourism last two hours and take in many of the original features of the Fort, inside and out, as well as the 360 degree views of town and country. Those arranged for specialist groups last for approximately three hours, they may concentrate on, for example, the gardens, artillery, other military aspects such as parts of the outworks still with un-adapted casemates or they may include a visit to the well or signal station.

The Panel questioned the Minister for the DfESC as to what arrangements are in place between his department and the Tourism Department to ensure that Fort Regent is advertised sufficiently to visitors to the island.

The Minister stated:

"Not as much as there should be is the short answer. Clearly we should be working far more closely with the Tourism Department and indeed I have already had discussions with the Minister of that department to look at how we can work together."[35]

Mr de la Haye added:

"I think one of the things that I would say about that is we are not a major tourist destination. That is the first point. At the moment we operate as a sport and leisure centre, we welcome visitors; particularly we welcome visitors for events, whether they are sporting events,whether they are conferences and so we work with Tourism particularly on those occasions to promote those activities and events. We do work with Tourism when there is a concert or a show that is going to be on most usually while that visitor is likely to be in the island. We will do some promotions outside the island so that they look at Jersey."[36]

Mr de la Haye further highlighted the difficulty of advertising events in hotels, where visitors who see the posters are likely to have finished their holiday and left the island before the show advertised is due to begin. He talked about the importance of targeted and focussed advertising to help manage expectations. He further stressed the importance of appropriate advertising for different audiences, those that are specifically visiting Jersey for an event and those who, when they are in the island, are welcome to visit  Fort  Regent  but  are  not  to  be  misled  into  expecting  "a  fair  or entertainment, , at 10:00am on a Friday morning."

Mr Segal also noted changes to the Tourism industry and visitors numbers:

"When I started in this industry in 1976 there were 25,000 beds on this Island. We are now down to 13,000 or less, 12,000 beds on this island, and although the quality of the beds is good, our ability to attract tourists is reducing because as the beds fall, communication links fall,.what we have allowed to happen in this island is a reduction in the bed stock for various reasons, owners capitalising on their real estate, falling demand."[37]

3. Historical Responsibility for the Site

1. The Swimming Pool

During the course of the review the Panel visited the closed swimming pool site and was shocked and saddened by the state of deterioration they encountered.

The swimming pool at Fort Regent was closed in 2003. Much debate took place in the States of Jersey during this process, some of which is detailed here.

As Mr de la Haye explained at a Public Meeting held during this review:

" the States made a decision to close Fort Regent

(Swimming Pool) when it put extra money into the development of the AquaSplash. That agreement is a 21 year agreement and there is an agreement that no pool, not just here but no (public) pool, can open within a 2 mile radius, of the AquaSplash."[38]

The following proposition in relation to the St Helier Waterfront Leisure Complex, Terms of Lease, was lodged au Greffe on 6th July 1999 by the

Policy and Resources Committee:

Note: "The Finance and Economics Committee has studied these proposals with great care. Officers of the Treasury, in conjunction with Waterfront Enterprise Board (WEB), have analysed the financial details and the proposals are currently being examined by the States' Auditors ( Price WaterhouseCoopers). Therefore, having thoroughly considered the proposals, this Committee supports the granting of a lease to CTP Limited (CTP) on the terms set out in the Heads of Terms of lease as detailed in the joint report by CTP and WEB. The Committee believes that the agreement will, at a cost to the States not exceeding £10.9 million, deliver the quality leisure facilities sought by the States in a cost effective manner, whilst safeguarding the interests of the States. The inclusion of a competition pool and spectator facilities avoids the potential capital cost of £4.5 million to refurbish the Fort Regent pool and removes the current revenue deficit funding requirement of £200,000 per annum. The terms also enable the States to share directly in the success of the facility operators, through a profit-sharing arrangement, whilst minimising the States exposure to risk of operating deficits. In addition to the direct financial benefits, the Committee acknowledges the positive impact that a total capital investment in the tourist industry of some £25 million will have on the economy of the Island."[39]

The States of Jersey later assembled on 12th December 2000 to discuss the closure of the swimming pool at Fort Regent. The following question

was asked of Deputy Vibert , President of the Sport, Leisure and Recreation Committee at that time:

"Would the President advise members whether the swimming pool at Fort Regent has to be closed before the proposed leisure pool on the Waterfront is to be opened and if the answer is in the affirmative, would he give the reasons for this decision?"

The President replied, "No"

"On 27th July 1999 the States adopted a proposition of the Finance and Economics Committee (P.93/99), which authorised the transfer of £5.5 million from the Strategic Reserve to the Tourism Investment Fund. Part of that sum, £2.5 million, was to provide for a 25 metre, six lane competition pool, to replace the pool at Fort Regent. The inclusion of a competition pool was believed to avoid the potential capital cost of £4.5 million to refurbish the Fort Regent pool.

Following the withdrawal of Cannons, the operation of the leisure pool complex was offered to Club Carrefour. The proposed lease agreement between the States of Jersey and Club Carrefour required the Sport, Leisure and Recreation Committee to close the Fort Regent pool within 6 months of the Waterfront complex opening. This is consistent with the decision of the States when it approved P.93/99."

Today, the swimming pool remains closed. Mr de la Haye described its current condition to the Panel:

"The condition of the swimming pool is not very good at all. The roof is in some considerable problem, so are the walls. But more importantly there is concrete degradation. If any other activity was to take place in the swimming pool area as it currently stands I suggest it would cost an awful lot to upgrade it and to change it around to ensure that health and safety was met. It would probably be cheaper to raze it to the ground and rebuild.

That would be something that would need to be investigated." [40]

The Panel was interested to hear just how much the closure of the pool at Fort Regent had affected the centre. Mr de la Haye explained to the Panel that their department estimated a significant loss of 200,000 visits to Fort Regent per year after the pool closed.

Mrs Penfold, President and Administrator for the Jersey Swimming Club outlined several issues that they had encountered since the closure of the pool. First was the issue of storage. The Swimming Club office remains at Fort Regent; however, it is now a logistical challenge to transport all the necessary equipment from there to whichever venue is hosting their training and competitions. Although the Swimming Club was promised that the AquaSplash would replace the Fort Regent pool, this has not been the case and Mrs Nelson provided the following reasons why:

• A lack of electronic equipment for competitions.
• AquaSplash are unable to keep the Leisure pool closed during a competition due to the money it would lose. This means that those in the Leisure pool would need to be silent during the start of each race, as this is what is required.
• It is not possible for a referee to walk up and down the side of a pool due to the positioning of the diving boards.
• A warm down area is needed, ideally the Leisure pool could be used for this if it could be closed. Although extra officials would also be needed to supervise it.
• It is also reportedly very hot for spectators watching in the seating above the pool.

Without a permanent base Jersey Swimming Club also have to manage a timetable across three different centres. This has not only affected the day to day running of the Club but also the Social side. Parents are now going to different centres for their child's training and do not get the opportunity to meet as they would have done at Fort Regent.[41]

The pool hire cost is another factor the Club is having to juggle:

"We  do  find  that  pool  hire  charges  are  absolutely horrendous. They take a lot of money. It is about £46,000 a year we pay now in pool charges. We have got to find just under £3,000 a month every month for 12 months of the year for the use of Langford, an hour a week at Les Quennevais is thrown in there, and then on top of that we have got £3,000 a term for AquaSplash. So we are finding it difficult to keep our heads above water."[42]

Mrs Penfold advised the Panel that the loss of access to a designated swimming pool and a swimming pool with the necessary specifications for competition had meant there were serious limitations when trying to invite teams across to compete in Jersey. Les Quennevais remained the only possible centre for Jersey Swimming Club, but this put a great deal of pressure on the Centre. Mrs Nelson also outlined that:

"In the future what they are planning on, the A.S.A. (Amateur Swimming Association) is that swimmers going to internationals will have to qualify in a 50 metre pool. We do not have a 50 metre pool. Our closest 50 metre pool is in France. Or we have the expense of going to England."[43]

Mrs Penfold summed up her feelings on the closure of the Fort Regent Pool for the development of the AquaSplash:

"We were extremely angry. We do feel misled, yes. It is like everything in life. If you are going to build new swimming pool you should be asking the people that are involved in swimming what they need. It does not happen that way and it seems to me that they just do not ask the right people the right questions."[44]

2. Covenant and Site of Special Interest (SSI)

The Panel asked if there was a legal Covenant on the Glacis Field. Mr Flowers explained:

"There is not a Covenant, but the whole of the site has been designated as an S.S.I. (Site of Special Interest) and in my view it would  be  extremely  unlikely  that  any  development  would  be permitted  on  the  Glacis  Field except  on  the  current  site  of  the swimming pool. Extremely unlikely."[45]

Mr Carter, Director of Jersey Heritage Trust, explained that the Fort was designated as a Site of Special interest in 2008, this included the East Ditch, South Hill and Glacis Field, although it did not include any post 1945 elements.   The  S.S.I.  designation  does  provide  a  framework  for  any sensible consideration of any changes in the preservation sense.[46]

3. Existing Condition of Fort Regent

When EDAW (EDAW PLC Planning, Design and Economic Development Worldwide) reviewed Fort Regent in 2007 it summarised the condition of the site as follows:

"Fort Regent itself is well preserved. The condition of the 1970s and 1980s leisure centre contained within and around it is becoming less fit for purpose – its poor quality structures demand regular upkeep and represent a high burden on the States. In terms of sustainability, the enclosed structure is neither thermally nor light efficient, as it requires considerable heating due to the inefficient use of space. The complexity of the edifice, its historic fabric, and the  sheer  size  of  the  roof  enclosing  it  contribute  to  the  high maintenance costs. Nevertheless, the leisure centre has remained popular  since  its  opening,  justifying  the  continuation of  this  use within the Fort, even if not under its current guise."[47]

As detailed earlier in the report, JPHD is responsible for maintaining the external structure of Fort Regent. During a Hearing with the Panel they were asked for their priorities with regards to continuing maintenance:

"I think it would be fair to say that for this year, certainly, our priority has been office strategy, integrated property management system, charging mechanisms, backlog of maintenance, which is all very unsexy stuff but it is all very necessary stuff. So as we have said a number of times we have an £80 million backlog of property maintenance that has to be addressed." "I suppose our phrase is not so much where does it come in our priorities, but what priorities lie ahead of it? For at least the next year." [48]

4. Closed Attractions and Ramparts

Mr de la Haye provided an explanation for the closure of many of the external activities at Fort Regent:

"My experience of the Fort is that I think there were some ad hoc developments that went on over a number of years, and some of those are extremely good, but not necessarily were they always connected. There were a huge range of activities that were going on at Fort Regent, and I am sure they were extremely well intentioned, but the result of that was that we were running an extremely expensive facility, in my opinion not meeting the needs of the customer. We did not do anything very well for lots of people. That is my opinion. I think what we do now is we have reduced the number of activities that we provide but it is far more focused, and it is much better placed in terms of where we are trying to aim at certain groups of people, and I believe are doing a better job in servicing those needs."[49]

When questioned about the closure of the Skate Board Park Mr de la Haye answered:

"We did have a skateboard park at Fort Regent up in the ditch at the north end. At that time, that skateboard park was operated on..a commercial basis where young people did pay to use the facility. Again, it was not terribly good in terms of the kind of equipment that was there and it deteriorated so it was decided that that would close down, not at our decision but rather at the decision of the operator."[50]

The Panel questioned further about the recent re location of the Skate Board park to the harbour site. Mr de la Haye informed the Panel that the DfESC made no judgement as to whether or not Fort Regent could take one, and certainly did not say no. However, it was not chosen as a preferred option by those developing the idea, perhaps due to the more central location at the Harbour.

5. Future development of Fort Regent

During the review process the Panel discussed likely actions needed for development of the Fort with key departments that share responsibility for its future.

1. Statements of Current Thinking: Key States Departments

1. Master Plan for Fort Regent

It was apparent throughout the Public Hearings for this review that developing a master plan for any future development was a common theme across the different departments. It was also stressed that Fort Regent should not be looked at as a stand alone development, but incorporated into plans that are being developed for St Helier.

When asked by the Panel for his viewpoint, Deputy Le Fondré commented:

"It seems important to me that whatever happens or whatever views surround redevelopment of Fort Regent, they need to be linked to other work that is going on at the moment for the East of Albert redevelopment. So I think there is potentially a danger that we could be looking at Fort Regent as a project but we should be looking at a much bigger picture and a much bigger master planning exercise for that whole area."[51]

Mr Flowers expanded on this:

"If you do not master plan this project you will end up with opposing views all the way through, you will never get a consensus and you will never get the project off the groundFort Regent appears to be the classic, it has been on the cards for redevelopment for 15 years, I think, at least. We do not seem to have a strategy and a master plan that sets a direction everyone

can buy into, that then – subject to funding and development opportunity – can be developed."[52]

Agreement for a focussed approach to planning and development was reiterated by Mr de la Haye: