CUSTODIANS of a former leisure centre have overcome a £1.3m hurdle that might have prevented them signing a new lease with Durham County Council.

Ferryhill Community Partnership took over the running of the old Ferryhill Leisure Centre two years ago.

Under the terms of the current lease, the county council, which used to own the centre, is the landlord and the partnership is the tenant.

Talks to draft a new lease have been ongoing for some months.

One sticking point was the terms of a £1.3m Sport England grant paid to Sedgefield Borough Council, the forerunner of the county council, in 1996 for work at the leisure centre.

Sport England put a claw back feature in the terms of the grant meaning it could ask for the money back under certain conditions.

One of these was if the leisure centre ceased to be used for sport and alternative facilities were not provided elsewhere in the town.

The partnership team was concerned that if it signed the lease it would be liable for the £1.3m. Sport England has now confirmed the council would have to find the money.

Brian Gibson, partnership secretary, said: “This is a big weight off our shoulders as this was a big concern.

“We were worried about having to fund any claw back but Sport England has advised us that it would fall onto the council.

“We’ve passed a Sport England due diligence test and we’re looking at the hub’s management structure.

“This has been a long time coming but we hope to sign a new lease in four to six weeks.”

Judith Rasmussen, Sport England’s strategic lead for local relationships, said: “Our arrangement would still be with the county council.

“They are fully aware of the situation. If we decided to claw back the money we would negotiate with the council.

“We wouldn’t necessarily ask for the full amount back it would depend on certain factors such as the age of the award.”

Stephen Howell, the council’s head of sport and leisure, said details of the lease with the partnership had still to be finalised, but that it would reflect the grant’s conditions.

He said: “As the grant was provided in 1996 the amount recovered would be proportional if Sport England felt that they had not received value from it.

“In addition, we have negotiated with Sport England that, if the facility closed, any capital receipts from the sale of the site would be ring-fenced for sport, which would mitigate the amount we would need to pay back.”