Purpose

To consider the report of the Cabinet Member
for Finance and Corporate Services and the Cabinet Member for
Compliance and Leisure outlining the future delivery model for
Southampton Water Activity Centre and Woodmill Outdoor Activity
Centre

Decision

(i) 
To approve the splitting of the Woodmill site and the freehold sale of the Stoneham
side of the site to Southampton Scouts/ Southern Water.
(ii) 
To approve the lease appointment of the Mill site at Woodmill to Above Board Limited.
(iii) 
To delegate authority to the Executive Director – Resident
Services following consultation with the Executive Director of
Growth and Prosperity and Cllr Simon Letts, Deputy Leader &
Cabinet Member for Finance & Corporate Services to take the
necessary actions to give effect to this decision.
(iv) 
To delegate authority to the Executive Director of Growth and
Prosperity following consultation with the Executive Director
– Resident Services and Cllr Simon Letts, Deputy Leader &
Cabinet Member for Finance & Corporate Services to take the
necessary actions for the contracts and agreed terms on the
property aspects.

Reasons for the decision

1. 
A number of options have been considered
(see the “Alternative Options Considered and Rejected”
section of this report).
2. 
The following points outline the approach taken to secure the
future of the Woodmill site:
 
• 
Cabinet approval was obtained in July 2024 to find an alternative
provider for the site.
• 
An open and transparent competitive process in January to find a
tenant. 
• 
Engagement with the interested parties on various aspects of the
site.
• 
Progressing partnerships and engagement with other services and
organisations.

Alternative options considered

Permanently cease leisure services at
Woodmill
 
This option has been rejected as it does not
meet the needs of the community or the Council’s objectives,
this would be a short sighted decision for the city of
Southampton.
 
Transfer the operation of Woodmill to in-house
council management
 
This option has been considered and rejected
as the council does not have the expertise, funding nor the
infrastructure to enable provision of quality leisure services.
This option is likely to be more expensive and provide poorer
quality of services than through the approval of the
recommendations of this report.
 
Retain Woodmill within the leisure contract
under a new operator
 
One option considered but ultimately rejected
was to retain Woodmill within the leisure contract under a new
operator. It was acknowledged this site cost the council
approximately £150,000 per year. The decision was made that
the most appropriate course of action would be to remove it from
the contract and seek a more suitable operator or freehold
arrangement to support the long-term success of the site.