APPENDIX 47
Memorandum submitted by Mr Keith Richards
LEEDS INTERNATIONAL SWIMMING POOL
I hope that you will be able to put this e-mail
to the Select Committee, as a representation on behalf of the
International Pool Action Group in Leeds.
I am a Chartered Surveyor and Project Manager
working in the Commercial Sector. I don't work for Developers
or any of the local property Companies; my field is in Management
of commercial refurbishment and smallish new build projects, which
gives me a fairly wide overview of the subject in hand. I don't
have a professional interest in the International Pool site or
the South Leeds Stadium site—my interest is as a concerned
resident of Leeds.
BACKGROUND
Leeds City Council propose to build a new swimming
facility at South Leeds Stadium, located two miles outside the
city centre. They have sought lottery funding, and have in principle
commitment from Sport England, but as a condition of achieving
matching funding they must sell the site of the existing Leeds
International Pool (LIP), which is located in the centre of the
City. There is a considerable opposition to the Council's plans
in this regard, because the existing pool is a valuable community
asset which the city can ill afford to lose. The International
Pool Action Group, which consists of people with an interest in
enhancing, rather than destroying, civic amenities, wants the
council to look again at the position and come up with a proposal
that will provide a new pool for elite swimmers (if indeed this
is appropriate) and also to keep the existing facility in the
City Centre. We do not necessarily believe that the existing building
should be kept, we do feel that the City needs a centrally located
swimming pool and leisure facility, as it has had for the last
150 years. We believe the Council and Sport England could adopt
a strategy that would achieve this aim, and release the capital
value of the LIP site. This will be described in more detail later—Sale
& Leaseback.
COUNCIL'S
DUTYA leisure facility like LIP
is as much a part of the city's heart beat as its commercial and
cultural facilities. The crux of my groups argument with the City
Council is that the Local Authorities duty lies not just with
the sporting elite, ie the beneficiaries of a new pool out at
South Leeds Stadium. The council has perhaps an over-riding duty
to ordinary citizens, and it will be failing in this duty if it
takes away the centrally located LIP which is used by large numbers
of people at all hours of the day, both for sports and leisure
users. Could the Council not come up with an imaginative way to
ensure that we keep such a valuable part of the infrastructure?
Some possibilities are outlined below. It is apparent that the
Council has neglected the existing centre for many years, and
it is unfortunate that its current poor condition can be used
as an argument justifying its relocation. Is it true to say that
the Council is providing `added sporting value' in creating a
new pool at South Leeds? The City would still have just one 50m
pool, albeit in a far less accessible location, but would suffer
the loss of gym and other facilities. It cannot be reasoned that
the move to South Leeds is beneficial to anyone at all, except
those who happen to live in South Leeds; and the relocation will
be detrimental to the Council's own priority social groups.
USER GROUPS
Currently in training at LIP are a European
swimming champion and World record holder, as well as numerous
elite triathletes. In addition, there are six swimming and diving
clubs. The facility is also used by the genral public for swimming,
aerobics, gym work, running, cycling etc and there is Heart Watch,
which is a group for people who have undergone heart surgery or
are otherwise heart patients, who use the pool for monitored,
structured exercise programmes. In all, the `general public' are
the majority of users. Regular users of the Pool, serious sportsmen,
who have expressed the view that South Leeds is just not a feasable
option for them, they will be very much inconvenienced by the
proposal, to the extent that their training will be detrimetally
affected. One such is an International Triathlete, who is at the
Pool at least three mornings a week; another was recently British
Biathalon champion. So, in their efforts to satisfy one elite
group, the Council alienate another.
CONSULTATION
The Council have not consulted the general public,
and few people in Leeds are aware of all the implications of the
Council's proposals. However, amongst those groups who are interested,
ie the users of leisure facilities, there is very considerable
opposition to the Council's plans. A recent survey conducted in
the vicinity of LIP by a member of the International Pool Action
Group, Dr John Dickinson, obtained over 1,200 signatures in a
single day against the loss of LIP. The only groups the Council
have conducted are those in the swimming clubs. These groups clearly
have a vested interest, although a large number of them have expressed
concern over the new locations, which is definitely not conducive
to pre-work or pre-school exercise.
LIP CATCHMENT
The LIP's catchment area contains the Leeds
City Centres main business district and many people employed in
the city centre use the pool at lunchtime, first thing in the
morning or immediately after work. The location is extremely convenient
for this group of users and the City Councils plans do not cater
for these needs in any way, shape or form. Neither does it cater
for the other main group of users/potential users, the local populace,
who are in the main, low income groups, ethnic minorities etc.
This latter group are the least likely to travel to an out of
town location. The City Council expect that there will be an additional
10,000 people living in the city centre within the next three
years, in newly developed apartments and the like. They do not
appear to consider it appropriate to keep an existing leisure
facility that would doubtless be used and valued by this population,
especially if the facility was refurbished (or indeed replaced).
The Council propose that most of these people will be affluent
enough to demand expensive private leisure facilities? The Council's
remit is to look after priority groups as well as incoming `yuppie'
high earners and it is very sad indeed to see the officers of
a Labour Council, pursuing what appears to be a policy of social
exclusion. If the Council's plans go ahead, there will not be
a publicly run leisure facility within two miles of the city centre.
This reduced access will mean an end to leisure for many, many
people, which is apparently against the government's policy of
providing opportunity for easily accessible and convenient, health
promoting exercise.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
The Council's plans are financially driven,
to the extent that sale of LIP is a convenient way of disposing
of a high running cost facility. The Council have not seriously
considered the options of refurbishment the existing building
(costing on their figures a maximum of £5m) or of introducing
enhancements and capitalising on its potential as a leisure venue
similar perhaps to the Dome at Doncaster. It does appear to the
casual observer that the Council want to see the LIP site developed
for commercial users, as part of their drive to boost the city's
image as a `business capital' and that this is their over-riding
objective. However, LIP is a public asset and financial considerations
should not be the only deciding factor. Public service has to
come into play; or have we degenerated to the point where this
concept has no meaning anymore? Where does this leave libraries,
museums, art galleries and theatres? They too, are publicly run,
with financial limitations and they also occupy valuable sites.
The Council's proposals are based on an estimated value of the
LIP site of £6m. This appears rather cautious, if not pessimistic.
It is one of the highest value sites in the city, especially given
the probability of a highly intensive mixed commercial use in
future. With suitable development briefing and fair economic conditions,
sale revenue least commission a detailed and independent valuation
of the site, based on an assumption that a future development
will retain a publicly run leisure use.
LOCAL AUTHORITY
POLICY ON
LEISURE
It is known that the Council will close the
facility at Beeston if the current proposal goes ahead. There
is also a plan to close Holt Park Leisure Centre in the near future,
to sell the site on for development, and Guiseley Leisure Centre
is also `at risk'. The Council's offers have stated publicly that
they consider that the private sector will fill the gap left by
the closure of Council facilities. This is completely unacceptable,
given the high cost of membership to such establishments, and
the `exclusive' nature of them.
ACCESSIBLITY
LIP is in an ideal location to serve the majority
of Leeds' population, and can be readily reached by public or
private transport or any other means from all parts of the City.
The new facility will not share such ready accessibility and neither
is it in such a safe, secure part of town. Bus transport will
be at least a two-bus trip, (one into town and one out to south
Leeds), cycle access will be exceedingly difficult, if not dangerous
and pedestrian access virtually impossible. Those who are reliant
on public transport will not relish the hassle involved in going
for a swim, on the grounds of expense, inconvenience and time.
It would appear that the only practical way to reach the new centre
would be by car; how does this sit with Council and Government
policies on traffic reduction or control? The Council can't ignore
the simple fact that a journey from, say, Quarry Hill to South
Leeds is likely to take over an hour each way, given good traffic
conditions, and this will not improve as roads get busier. The
priority social groups are likely to be the first to suffer from
this and it can be anticipated that few from central or northern
portions of the city will use the new centre.
AN OPPORTUNITY?—SALE
AND LEASEBACK
The Council can ensure that a leisure use continues
on the site if it has the will. It could achieve the objective
of disposing of the site whilst achieving a new, state of the
art facility, albeit reduced in size, with much reduced running
costs. In the following scenario everyone wins. A Sale and Leaseback
deal would effectively require the Council and the purchaser of
the site to enter into a forward agreement which would require
the Purchaser to re-develop the site, probably for offices, hotel
or mixed commercial use. They would also be required to commit
to constructing a new leisure facility, which would then be leased
back to the Council for a rental payment each year. The Council
would then run the facility as a public, community facility and
they would benefit from hugely reduced running costs. The income
from such a deal would enable the Council to fund construction
of the new facility in South Leeds with help from Sport England.
It would remove the main source of the Council's problem: ie the
huge expense of running and maintaining the existing LIP building.
I envisage an innovative, yet scaled down scheme that provides
the city with a good quality, central leisure facility amongst
a mix of commercial and residential land uses. It might possibly
be the basement and first couple of floors of a high rise office
or hotel. Perhaps it could incorporate the latest technology such
as solar energy and heat exchange/recovery—imagine having
a complex that is heated largely by the discharged cooling loads
of offices in the same and adjacent buildings, for example. The
positive PR and marketing benefits to the Council would be immense,
not only achieving a dual aim in terms of sports provision but
doing so in a "Public/Private Partnership". I have spoken
to several others about the Council's proposal including colleagues
who are experts in Valuation and Development Consultancy. You
might be interested to know that these people see the views I
express above as perfectly valid and reasonable propositions from
a Property Industry perspective.
FINALLY
The International Pool Action Group consider
that the Council's plans are ill conceived, based on poor quality
information and without adequate consultation with local people.
We consider that the plans are detrimental to the interests of
local people of all social groups and they should not be supported
with public funding. The city requires a much more complete strategy,
that does not rely on public sector provision of facilities and
which meets the needs of all sectors of the Community.
17 December 2001
|
