As part of our considerations for the future of the Community Centre following the mining related subsidence, we carried out a deep analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of each of four options. There was a fifth option proposed - to build a joint Health Centre and Community Centre on the land in the park currently earmarked for the new Health Centre. We discounted that option due to the complexity of having multiple bodies (NHS Fife & Fife Council) involved and, if the new Health Centre is finally going to go ahead, the last thing we want to do is derail the process whilst already approved planning applications are re-architected and have to go through the approval process again. The full appraisal report, including details of the deep analysis can be downloaded by clicking here.
The four options analysed were:
- Carry out minimal repairs to the subsidence damage to allow the centre to re-open as it is. No refurbishment or modernisation would take place.
- Carry out repairs to the subsidence damage and extensively refurbish the existing Centre
- Build a new Centre on a proposed site in the field to the left of the access road to the old Kincardine Power Station
- Demolish the existing Centre and constuct a new purpose-built Centre on the same site.
Option 1 - Carry out minimal repairs and re-open as is.
Whilst this would be the quickest and cheapest option to return community facilities to the village, it does not solve the problems that the existing Centre is old, run down and inefficient. There are also other issues with the building such as the aging roof over the main hall which will require replacement sooner rather than later and the extensive damp and mould that has permeated the building during the 18 months of closure. Whilst the Centre has served Kincardine well for many years, the reality is that it is no longer fit for purpose.
Option 2 - Carry out repairs and refurbish.
This is considered a potentially viable option, but not the optimal option. It should be considered a fallback position should our main endeavours fail. This option would involve basically stripping the bulding back to the shell and reconstructing. It would allow the main hall roof to be replaced, ideally with a steel span roof, allowing for the removal of the roof supporting pillars from the main hall. The stage could be removed to provide a larger hall and other areas such as the kitchens refurbished and modernised. However, opening up the building for these works could reveal other issues that are currently unknown.
Option 3 - Construct a new Centre at an alternate location
This option provides the maximum flexibility in desiging facilities, but it also comes at the highest cost and with the highest levels of risk. On top of the cost of the Centre itself, additional costs would be incurred in creating access to the site, parking, utilities etc and the condition underground with regard to historic mine workings is currently unknown. The proposed location, outside of the centre of the village could also be less attractive to the elderly and those with mobility issues.
Option 4 - Demolish the existing Centre and construct a new Centre on the same site.
The analyis demonstrated this to be the optimal solution, providing sufficient funding can be sourced. It would allow for flexibility in creating purpose built facilties to meet the long-term needs of the village, without the need for land purchase whilst remaining in the familiar location of the existing Centre.