MORE studies are to be carried out on the possible future for West Somerset's £439,000-a-year loss-making Aquasplash leisure pool.

Consultants hired by owners West Somerset District Council identified seven options for the Minehead centre but dismissed five as "not viable".

Surrey-based Strategic Leisure felt it only worthwhile for the council to proceed along one of two routes.

The favoured option was to sell the site and rebuild a pool elsewhere, preferably on the nearby West Somerset College campus.

There were considerable advantages in the idea but also a number of disadvantages, including a need for capital funds which would trigger a funding appraisal and the comparison of private sector partnership against charitable trust management.

Second choice was to jointly manage Aquasplash with the college's sports centre to realise economies of scale and improved community opportunities.

A joint management trust could be created with potential to extend the arrangement to other leisure facilities in Somerset.

It would still mean the authority having to compare private sector against charitable trust management models.

Strategic Leisure said both options should be assessed in greater detail to analyse their advantages, disadvantages and implications.

At the same time, the consultants recommended councillors to immediately draw up an action plan to cut Aquasplash's losses.

However, councillors were told they were not likely to be able to save more than about £50,000 a year on present running costs.

Strategic Leisure said there was an opportunity to introduce a single card user scheme for Aquasplash, the college sports centre and other leisure facilities in Taunton, Bridgwater and elsewhere across Somerset.

"This could result in single membership of any one site a very attractive complete package for all residents and users of facilities throughout the county," the firm said.

Among the options to be dismissed was for the council to continue its existing management regime, which the consultants concluded the authority could not afford.

Year-on-year costs were likely to increase as the building aged, although there was some scope for managerial and marketing initiatives to improve income.

Operating Aquasplash with a capped budget was also rejected because a restriction on spending would affect long term viability and could compromise the ability to continue generating present income levels.

Setting up a charitable trust just to run Aquasplash would still leave a considerable amount of risk on the shoulders of the council while not yielding sufficient savings.

Putting Aquasplash out to private tender had already twice been looked at and would again not produce significant cuts in the subsidy required from ratepayers.

It was also not possible to sell Aquasplash as a going concern, as it would have to be at a hugely discounted price with an ongoing subsidy of at least the present level.

Councillors agreed to spend a further £10,000 for the two recommended options to be explored in more detail, in addition to the £5,000 paid for Strategic Leisure's stage one report.