Agenda item

The Deputy Leader of the Council presented the report which gave the Committee an update on the performance of LeisureSK Ltd during quarter 2 2025/26.  The performance requirements were against the Leisure Management Contract as set out in a new agency agreement which had commenced in April 2025.

It was noted that some of the KPI’s had changed from the previous Leisure Management Contract and the data shown in the appendix would form the baseline data from which performance would be measured going forward.  It was not a measure of how LeisureSK Ltd was performing against each individual KPI.  Regular monitoring was carried out in respect of the leisure centres and sports stadium and any issues that required to be addressed were reported to the Centre Management Team.  If any rectification required was the responsibility of the Council, this was reported accordingly internally to the service area responsible.

Members discussed the report and the following issues were raised:

·         Questions around the NPS score contained in the Appendix Table which appeared to have drastically reduced across all three leisure centres, why had it dropped so significantly compared to the last set of data and what mitigation and plans were being put in place to address this drop.  The Member asked if a report was required from LeisureSK Ltd in respect of a mitigation plan answering the questions of why the NPS had dropped and how this could be recovered.

·         The NPS score was a measure of a customer’s experience based on how likely they would recommend the centre to family and friends.  Each year the leisure centres undertook the Sport England Moving Communities Customer Experience Survey.  This was a standardised survey that was sent out to all local authorities and operators and looked at the users of the facilities within the last three months.  It was calculated by subtracting the percentage of detractors, those that scored 0 – 6 on the NPS survey from the percentage of promoters that scored 9 – 10 on a scale of 0 – 10. It was noted that the range could be from a low of minus 100 where the customer was a detractor to a high of 100 if every customer was a promoter.  It was noted that the figure had gone down as it was linked to the customers experience within the leisure centres.  It was for LeisureSK Ltd to state what actions they would take to address the results the surveys had produced, it was noted that the NPS was just one question on the survey and that there were a host of other questions asked. 

·         A further comment was made in respect of the National NPS level which was currently 21.9, however, it was noted that this was for different sized operators and operator models and it was hard to mirror operators exactly, it was an issue to pick up with LeisureSK Ltd to put plans in place to address the data.

·         The Member who had raised his concerns asked if this could be an action for a report to come back to Committee.

·         The Chairman of LeisureSK Ltd referred the Member to the Business Plan for next year which was an item on the agenda.  Objective 9 of the Business Plan was to develop a Customer Service Strategy which would measure customer engagement and satisfaction. Reference was made to the Moving Communities data which did not necessarily mean customers were dissatisfied, its whether they would be less likely to recommend the leisure facility.  The information did not give a reason for the recommendation.  The Chairman of LeisureSK Ltd stated customer information was an area LeisureSK Ltd wanted to develop further in respect of the information held regarding customer engagement and satisfaction.  Information was not measured as well as it could be.  Customer satisfaction was a key objective for LeisureSK Ltd for 2026 to enable more information to be given on the reasons for the numbers reported.  The reasons “why” would inform how the Customer Service Strategy was developed; customer experience and satisfaction would be a main focus area for improvement for 2026.

·         The Chairman asked if the information and format was an issue.  The Chairman of LeisureSK Ltd stated that it was the content of the Moving Communities data which was very high level and collected the same way for each local authority most surveys were carried out by email and telephone and had a limited sample size.  The Moving Communities Data did not help LeisureSK Ltd understand the level of customer engagement and it was an area that needed to be improved.

·         Clarity was sought in respect of the difference between a NPS survey and a satisfaction survey to which the Leisure, Parks and Open Spaces Team Leader responded.

A comment was made in respect of the cleanliness items contained within the report in respect to Stamford Leisure Centre. It was stated that the majority of the items had been rectified.   The £100,000 the Member referred to would cover more maintenance items especially in areas such as the changing rooms. It was noted that Stamford had received more visits during quarter two following customer feedback during the summer period and these visits had been carried out a different time of the day with reports in respect of cleanliness items being rectified required within 72 hours. Deep cleaning of the changing rooms by a professional contractor at Stamford Leisure Pool had also been undertaken which had been successful.  A further question was asked in respect of the refurbishment plans and it was stated that these would focus on the changing room areas as £100,000 had been allocated to Stamford and the specification and procurement route were currently being looked at.

The Deputy Leader of the Council was confident that the issues would be addressed but stated that the cleanliness of the leisure centres was simply not good enough at the present time.  It was noted that the LeisureSK Board were taking the cleanliness of the centres very seriously and it had to improve.

Further comments were made which included:

-          financial implications which the report had implied that there were none – the report before Members dealt more with metrics rather than finance which was within the next agenda item.

-          Maximum occupancy of Grantham Swim School had not been highlighted – Swim England allowed a capacity of 85% which allowed movement between children in swimming lessons, it was how the programme could be expanded further with the limited pool space available especially in respect of Grantham.  The Chairman of LeisureSK Ltd stated that the swimming programme at Grantham was being looked at with a view to moving some club slots to release more capacity.

-          31% reduction in accidents although no denominator was shown – this had been picked up by the LeisureSK Board and data would be presented with more context going forward the same with complaints.  It was noted that the Council’s Annual Health and Safety report did report on the accidents and it was suggested that the KPI in respect of this may be changed slightly going forward.

-          It was explained that this was the first year of a contract and the information would form the baseline data upon which impovements could be measured going forward.

-          More comments were made in respect of having mystery shoppers, the development of the Customer Service Strategy, cleanliness of the leisure centres, capturing everyone’s experience who attended the leisure centres including those who may not necessarily book in for an activity but spectate.

The Committee noted the report.