Leisure centre alterations at The Oasis Leisure Centre, Swindon

What was proposed

The application sought listed building consent for re-ordering, partial demolition, new building elements, site clearance and engineering works at the leisure centre.

“S/LBC/25/0182/TB - Re-ordering, demolition in part and construction of new building elements including the associated site clearance, engineering works - The Oasis Leisure Centre, Hawksworth Way, Swindon (Ward: Rodbourne Cheney)”

“In respect of application S/LBC/25/0182/TB - Re-ordering, demolition in part and construction of new building elements including the associated site clearance, engineering works - The Oasis Leisure Centre, Hawksworth Way, Swindon – The Committee considered:”

Minutes

The recommendation

Permission was recommended subject to a legal agreement and planning conditions, with refusal delegated if the agreement was not completed by 1 December 2025.

“That the Chief Planning Officer be authorised to GRANT planning permission subject to: (a) The completion of a S106 Deed to secure the planning obligations that are material to the decision (as set out in the Infrastructure & Heads of Terms section of this report); and (b) The planning conditions set out in this report with delegated authority to make reasonable amendments, additions or omissions to those conditions before issuing formal consent as may be necessary.”

“In the event that the S106 Deed is not completed by 1 st December 2025 the Chief Planning Officer be delegated authority to refuse planning permission, extend this timeframe or refer the application back to Planning Committee for determination.”

Officer report

Why permission was supported

Improved building performance, solar panels and biodiversity gain were considered benefits that outweighed the development’s adverse impacts.

“S/LBC/25/0182) would improve its building fabric performance and introduce solar panels thus lowering carbon emissions. In addition biodiversity net gain will be achieved (off-site). These elements are considered to represent modest weight.”

“In conclusion it is deemed that the identified benefits of the development outweigh the adverse impacts and therefore the development would constitute sustainable development and planning permission should be granted.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Sport England maintained an objection over lost sports provision, while heritage, transport, landscape, ecology and drainage concerns were addressed through information or conditions.

“Sport England Dated 18th March 2025 • Applicants have not addressed previous concerns, namely lack of justification for the loss of the squash and sports hall. • Suggest that this work should be fed into an indoor built facilities strategy which could also address the squash issue. • This being the case, Sport England maintains its objection this application, as it is not considered to meet Objective 1 as set out above.”

Officer report

Public concerns

Residents objected to the loss of indoor and outdoor facilities, inadequate replacement provision, parking and traffic, heritage effects, environmental impacts and the development’s social consequences.

“Consultee Summary of Comments Officer Comment* Public/Residents (Object) Facilities • Indoor facilities needed to cater for disabled community inc adults & children with additional needs; • Loss of ‘Wiltshire’s largest’ sports hall which is an important community facility/venue for; concerts, comedians, elections, exhibitions, fairs, hosting regional sporting event, local schools events, cultural events and sports. Like for like replacement required.”

“Transport • Increased traffic congestion Great Western Way – warehouses / HGVs / residents. • Inadequate parking provision – deter users, overflow to surrounding areas. • Flat owners will use leisure centre parking, town centre proximity ‘loop hole’ used to avoid resident parking provision. • Additional pedestrian & cycle crossings not addressed. • Parking figure is not set in stone if the hall is retained in line with public pressure.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Two objectors and two cabinet members addressed the committee.

The committee discussion

Supporters emphasised protecting the Oasis, while objectors questioned financial reasoning, parking, employment buildings and whether a diving pool could be provided.

“Swindon has previously suffered from failures to make decision as to what is done with heritage assets and buildings. The Committee has the opportunity to make an important decision and to help protect the Oasis for the future. • Members should recognise the need to protect the Oasis and to support the decision made to grant the planning permission for redevelopment of the Oasis.”

“Local residents will feel the impact of insufficient parking at the redeveloped Oasis due to people attending the site having to park in side streets. • The proposed employment-use buildings are surplus to requirements within Swindon at this time. • It has not been sufficiently considered that a diving pool could be provided at the Oasis.”

Minutes

The vote

Nine committee members supported the proposal and one opposed it.

“Councillor Neil Hopkins proposed that listed building consent be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the case officer’s report, including the additional conditions referred to by the case officer in their introduction to the application. Councillor John Ballman seconded the proposal.”

“Nine Members of the Committee were in favour of the proposal. One member of the Committee was opposed to the proposal. The motion was carried.”

Minutes

The final decision

Listed building consent was granted subject to the stated conditions, including additional requirements for new services and investigative works to the berm.

“Resolved – That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions outlined in the case officer’s report and subject to the additional of bullet points “K” and “M” under Condition 3, which would respectively require that the details of any new services and their connections, and any details of any related investigative works to the berm be submitted.”

Minutes