Councillor Mark Williams master piece points 11 to 17:

This is the key to everything and transforms a normal consultation in to a mere formality: Points 11 to 17 are there to fix the consultation.

This is achieved by pressure and limits by the Developer and the Council working together to force the selection of the plot which they both wish to seize from the Green Corridor and which they say they favour.

They will make exceptions but only if it is for that plot.. no other plot will be allowed any exceptions and as a consequence the plot is fixed, the plot can only take a 25 meter pool (this is said verbally only) so presto! Consultation is over.. a mere formality. You have all been wasting your time.

The process in more detail: starts by setting different conditions:

The Councillor’s tactic is: we are going to spend an amount of money (2 million pounds), that will last exactly 5 years, the plot we favour is not going to be developed in time (as it is the turn of Canada Basin) but British Land will make exceptions but only for this plot so the only plot which can be developed in time is the one on the Green Corridor, that plot will only support a 25 meter pool.. 
Seven Islands Leisure Centre built from 1965 is only going to last exactly 5 years and it will fall to pieces.. so sorry No other plot can fit no other pool size can fit (this last assurance about the 25 meters was made only verbally by Councillor Williams 30/3/2016). That is how it is done in more detail.

As far as I can tell the 25 meters is a verbal specification only, there doesn’t seem to be any specification in writing to downgrade the original Master Plan. This administration tries hard to not appear as responsible for downgrading the original Master Plan specification made by a non-Labour Administration.

Points 18 to 25: Describe the site and all the changes elsewhere around the site necessary for the preferred site to work as if proof were needed of how little consultation can be found in this consultation they end in point 25 requesting the site be accepted. There is no similar work on other sites except symbolic drawings where even the tentative Seven Island site which is about 50 meters x 90 meters and can take a 50 meter pool with no difficulties has been also designed showing a paltry 25 meter pool.

Points 26 to 30: Look at funding issues and explain that what they wish to do is to give the contract to British Land basically, and as all the other “options” this one is the favoured one and this is what will be done ;).

Points 31 to 39: Bring a lot of buzz words and phrases to describe unknown and not recognisable Labour run Southwark Council policies which we have never seen before at Seven Islands but which are there really to promote the land grab.

Examples:
Southwark’s emerging Health and Wellbeing policy..?

Canada Water Action plan from 2013 to improve Leisure facilities for all residents and workers from the plan area…?

Southwark Council’s Fairer Future promise… of access to free swim and free gym facilities.

All of a sudden Labour run Southwark Council is concerned by “the average life expectancy for Southwark is lower than the national average and can vary by up to as much 9.6 years for men and 6.9 years for women”.? So far Labour run Southwark Council has been inviting us in winter to catch flu at Seven Islands.. now they are concerned about our health !

Seven Islands receives only 150,000 visits per year (less than a centre of that size should achieve) and the new facility will receive 400,000 visits per year…?

What they say about all this which was no problem at all before is that they are going to follow these out of character policies:

To improve Leisure facilities for all residents and workers?

Building healthier and more resilient communities and tackling the root causes of ill health of most vulnerable residents and enabling them to live more active and independent lives?

Since when has Southwark had these concerns?.. When the ventilation system at Seven Islands has been dead for 3 years! .. Windows and doors are being opened at Seven Islands in winter making people in general but specially “the most vulnerable residents” sick! .. this concern is totally out of character for Labour run Southwark.. this obviously is the land grab dressed up as concerns which don’t really exist.

They tell us that:
The Council will refurbish Seven Islands and decide about the long term provision of Leisure Services.

They roughly describe the proposed favourite site.

And they analyse the usage of Seven Islands and estimate the usage of the new Leisure Centre on their preferred site, all this is based on their studies and consultancy which are so questionable and don’t compare the lack of resources put in to Seven Islands with the resources put in to St. George’s – Tower Hamlets- for instance:

Regarding the “improvement” of going from a 33 meter pool to a 25 meter pool:
How can a reduction of the pool size from 33 meters to 25 meters be described as an “improvement”?

When the shallow end is cordoned off on a 25 meter pool only an 18 meter pool is available to the public.. So how can swimming in an 18 meter pool be described accurately as “increased participation in physical activity”.

It notes that there is an opportunity to provide Leisure Services on a site in the Town Centre.
When to have a proper Leisure Centre in the Town Centre would be to go back to the original Master Plan and the 50 meter pool put it in the Decathlon area.

Also it is true that to have a 50 meter pool or 33 meter pool in Seven Islands site either lovingly restored or rebuilt with a proper 50 meter pool would be just as well  ..  Only a five minute walk from anywhere in the Town Centre.


Point 37: Regarding Usage:
According to this research Seven Islands receives 150,000 visitors (this is less than what it should have) per year but the new facility will receive 400,000 visitors per year.

Emphasising the importance of excellent leisure facilities in the right place and the potential impact that can have on the health of residents. We must note again that Seven Islands is an ideal leisure site in the right place but abandoned by Labour run Southwark Council.

Where Seven Islands 33 meter swimming pool doesn’t have a problem for disabled people to access the pool however there is no winch available for extreme cases of disability.

The problems with the usage of Seven Islands:

Seven Islands has been run in to the ground: no investment even for maintenance.

The exclusion charge or membership charge is higher than in the well maintained and run St. George’s Pools in Tower Hamlets. Now Southwark is talking about free access, this has never been tried in Seven Islands so we can’t compare.

For the past 3 years the ventilation system has not been fixed or a new system just bolted on. So for the past 3 years pool attendants have been opening doors and windows in winter making users sick. Some parents prefer to drive their children to other centres.

The timetables of Seven Islands are not stable: first example: First if schools are out, users from other activities find that the pool is closed to them, timetables have all changed. Second example: if on a Saturday there are not enough lifeguards or teachers, they give priority to the profitable lessons and close the facility to the general public.

Unlike St. Georges the small pool for mothers and toddlers, very small children at Seven Islands has been closed.

There are not crèche facilities.

There could be many more sports and community halls on the Seven Islands site with plenty of room for expansion or even to build further floors for even more facilities.

The same authority which has neglected Seven Islands to this degree is telling us that all of a sudden their priorities have changed.. they have seen the light..  The new centre is going to be a centre for excellence! Has Southwark seen that its policies of the past have been wrong then? Or is Labour run Southwark promising so much to grab the land of Seven Islands for development? It only wants us to look the other way for a while so that it can grab green corridor land and put a Leisure Centre there on a cycle lane in a nature reserve?

If Southwark administers any new facility in the same way as it is administering Seven Islands it will fail as well in the sense that it will be under used.

Southwark says that Seven Islands is “reaching the end of its serviceable life and not meeting the current needs of the community”, that is not what they say at St. George’s where the 33 meter pool and Leisure Centre are lovingly maintained, has reliable timetables, lower access charges than in Labour run Southwark Council and serves workers and residents well. St. George’s Leisure Centre is intensely used.
The 33 meter pool at St. George’s is thriving with Tom Daley teaching how to dive on the maintained and updated diving boards, the system has proper ventilation and BOTH pools are kept in use for good swimmers, very young swimmers and learners, covering the needs of the community as no 25 meter pool can do simply because of its intrinsic size and depth limitations.

Sadly Southwark has run down Seven Islands so much that it has left it with only two valuable assets, its land and its 33 meter pool, now Labour run Southwark Council is coming for both, and making hundreds of unrecognizable promises to cover up its real intentions.


Points 40 – 46: Look in to the funding of the consultation process some of the cost will be coming from the regeneration budget, the member is being asked to confirm the site for the Leisure Centre and then the finance of the project will be subject of another procedure and report.

Right at the end Labour run Southwark repeats the same un-truth which it has been saying all the time: “The Strategic Director of Environment and Leisure notes the outline specification for the new centre and is satisfied that the size of the plot is sufficient to deliver the space requirements for a community leisure centre. In comparison to the facilities at the existing centre the specification for the new centre will have the potential to provide significantly more opportunity to participate in physical activity”.
As you can see the “Strategic Director” is saying that to swim in an 18 meter pool provides “significantly more opportunity to participate in physical activity”!
This Director also says that he notes that the “size of the plot is sufficient to deliver the space requirements for a community leisure centre in comparison to the facilities at the existing centre”! .. The existing centre has a 33 metre pool the new facilities can only accommodate a 25 meter pool according to Councillor Mark Williams verbal information in consultation meeting. THE ORIGINAL MASTER PLAN CALLED FOR A 50 METER POOL THAT IS WHAT YOU SHOULD BE DELIVERING OR ELSE LABOUR RUN SOUTHWARK COUNCIL SHOULD NOT TOUCH OUR 33 METER POOL.

End of comments on consultation report at Labour run Southwark Council.


No comments:

Post a Comment