The Overview and Scrutiny Committee of Rushmoor Council met on Thursday, 5th February 2026, to conduct pre-decision scrutiny on the procurement of a leisure operator for its facilities and to reconsider the disposal of properties at Union Yard, Aldershot. The committee reviewed the proposed operator for the Farnborough Leisure Centre and other leisure facilities, and discussed the financial and social implications of selling Blocks C & D at Union Yard.

Farnborough Leisure Centre - Leisure Operator Procurement

The committee undertook pre-decision scrutiny on the procurement and approval of an operator for the Aldershot Pools and Lido, Alpine Snowsports Centre, and the proposed new Farnborough Leisure Centre. This process, which began in June 2025, evaluated bids based on 60% quality and 40% cost. Operators could bid for a standard concession contract or an agency agreement. The committee received background information on the preferred operator, including their values, health and wellbeing programmes, investment plans, and social and environmental value commitments. They also discussed potential risks and mitigation strategies.

During the discussion, councillors raised several key questions:

• Membership Fees: Concerns were raised about potential cost increases for residents. It was noted that the preferred bidder proposed a pricing model designed to ensure equitable access and commercial performance, with annual price increases benchmarked against Sport England and user feedback, and subject to Council agreement.
• Performance Targets: The committee sought clarification on the implications of not meeting performance targets. They were informed that the Council would retain an agreed minimum financial return, which was guaranteed.
• Lido Maintenance: The financial implications of mechanical or plant failure at the Lido were discussed, with confirmation that responsibility for the Lido's plant maintenance would remain with the Council.
• Aldershot Pools and Lido Car Parking: The ongoing issue of car parking capacity at the Aldershot Pools and Lido was acknowledged. It was noted that additional parking had been made available, including a new overflow area and the use of Aldershot Park and, on occasion, the Crematorium car park during busy periods.
• Social Value Accountability: Questions were asked about how promises of social value made during procurement would be held to account. It was confirmed that contract terms would include provisions for social value.
• Procurement Costs: The committee was informed that the Council had a contract with Portsmouth Council, who assisted with procurement work alongside Rushmoor officers.
• Community Outreach: While target areas for community outreach, particularly those with multiple deprivations, had been identified, it was noted that these were negotiable.

The committee also discussed rebuilding relationships with local clubs, specifically swimming and synchronised swimming clubs. They were advised that the project team had engaged with key stakeholders, including these clubs, throughout the procurement process.

Following the discussion, the committee requested the following actions:

• David Phillips, Deputy Head of Operations, was asked to confirm any penalties for contract failure by the operator.
• David Phillips was also asked to confirm whether the Council should request a performance bond from the preferred operator.
• David Phillips was further asked to confirm that appropriate balance sheet checks had been undertaken for the preferred operator.

Union Yard, Aldershot - Disposal of Blocks C & D

The committee reconsidered the decision made by the Cabinet on 15th December 2025, to dispose of Blocks C & D at Union Yard, Aldershot to Vivid Housing. Since the Cabinet meeting, key project dependencies had changed, and Vivid Housing's Board decision was confirmed to take place in mid-February. The committee had the opportunity to consult with Chris Hodgkinson of Lambert Smith Hampton (Investment Management) (LSH), who presented findings from recent soft market testing on the value of Blocks C & D. Mr. Hodgkinson reported that six companies had made offers, all of which were below the value offered by Vivid Housing, leading LSH to recommend proceeding with the sale to Vivid Housing.

The committee discussed the financial implications of selling to Vivid Housing compared to alternative options outlined in Exempt Report No. REG2502. They were advised that while red book valuations served as a benchmark, a property's actual sale value is determined by market willingness to pay. Soft market testing generally reflects true value, though off-market sales can sometimes lead to over or undervaluation. Members asked and received responses regarding the specifics of the sale.

The possibility of selling the properties individually on the open market was also discussed, with members sharing views on the potential differences in income. It was noted that a piecemeal sale, which could take 14-21 months, would incur additional holding costs compared to a single sale of both blocks. While the total capital receipt from individual disposals might be higher, this would need to be offset against increased holding costs, making it a higher risk compared to the immediate benefit of a larger single capital receipt.

Executive Director Karen Edwards explained that Option 4(a) from Exempt Report No. REG2502, the original preferred disposal option in April 2025, had been withdrawn. The current offer from Vivid Housing was the quickest to progress, aligning with the Council's Financial Recovery Programme and helping to minimise further costs associated with holding the property. Additionally, the mix of properties and restrictions on commercial units had been adjusted during negotiations. Affordable housing nominations would remain with the Council's current arrangements, addressing the housing list, while shared ownership would be managed by Vivid Housing.

Regarding concerns about anti-social behaviour (ASB) and Vivid Housing's perceived inaction, it was stated that strategic-level meetings were being held to address these concerns effectively. Members were informed that 18 units were already occupied by Vivid tenants, and no ASB issues had been reported to date.

The committee noted the financial implications of not proceeding with the sale to Vivid Housing and its potential impact on the Council. While the committee had discussed relevant financial and social points, they made no specific recommendations to the Cabinet.