Decision Maker: Cabinet

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: Yes

Is Callable In?: Yes

Date of Decision: November 25, 2025

Purpose: To consider the report of the Cabinet Member for Finance and Resource and the Cabinet Member for Leisure and People outlining the future delivery model for Southampton Water Activity Centre.

Content: (i)  To approve the lease appointment of the SWAC site to Chieftain Training. (ii)  To approve the key commercial terms set out within Appendix 1. (iii)  To delegate authority to the Executive Director of Resident Services, following consultation with Cllr Simon Letts, Cabinet Member for Finance & Resources, and Executive Director of Growth & Prosperity, to take the necessary actions for the contracts, leases, 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 SWAC 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 SWAC   This option has been rejected as it does not meet the needs of the community nor the Council’s strategic objectives and ambition.   Transfer the operation of SWAC 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 therefore is likely to be more expensive and provide poorer quality of services than through the approval of the recommendations of this report.   Retain SWAC within the leisure contract under a new operator   One option considered but ultimately rejected was to retain SWAC within the leisure contract under a new operator. It was acknowledged this site cost the council approximately circa £160,000 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.