Lambeth want to sell YOUR swimming pools

[Mr Retro]

There's already a large Tesco in Brixton though ... how many do we need?!

We wouldn't need any if the market would open later at night than it currently does.

We sure as fuck don't need 2 but a Tesco in the rec so near the market would practically close it. If it goes ahead it shows the council don't care a fuck about Brixton

 

[colacubes]

We sure as fuck don't need 2 but a Tesco in the rec so near the market would practically close it. If it goes ahead it shows the council don't care a fuck about Brixton

It's Streatham rec that Tescos are taking over. There's no plans for them to have anything to do with Brixton as far as I know.

 

[netbob]

It's Streatham rec that Tescos are taking over. There's no plans for them to have anything to do with Brixton as far as I know.

There are also no firm commitments to keep Brixton Rec / pool from any of the parties.

The LibDems and Tories (as a coalition) have said they are committed to keep Clapham, but I dont think have said the same for Brixton and talk in more general terms about redevelopment and better services. The Tories have the Clapham commitment in their manifesto. The libdems don't seem to.

Labour have said that the LibDems/Tories want to close everything, but (I dont think) have made a commitment to keep the Rec (although I guess you are supposed to infer they would if they are campaigning against any closures)

 

[Streathamite]

Bob pops in from a 14 hour day to point out the obvious.



Err doesn't this kind of shut down the case? Unless you believe they are lying in which case there's nothing they can do to convince you.

Incidentally Jezza if you're willing to believe that anything is true until categorically denied in a language that you approve of then I'd like ot point out that Labour are going to sell lots of school sites off. I have no proof of this whatsoever but:

a) unlike here Labour haven't denied it yet,

b) they have history of doing it when they were last in power in Lambeth (1998-2002) - again unlike here when the Lib Dems have plans to invest more in pools etc.

<bob wonders off to bed>

'determination' is nish, tbh, and I gave up trusting the weasel words of the municipal hacks of ALL parties (are you nursing the delusion, Bo b, that I am a Labour supporter still? ).
tbh, the ONLY sentence in that trainwreck of a resolution that convinced was this;

The joint administration will not be closing any of the
borough's leisure facilities, it will be making a significant investment in
them.

 

[lang rabbie]

Is it just me ,or is this whole swimming pool issue about as clear as mud?

I mean, 'continuous swimming provision' in no way means that they aren't going to close down existing provisions, does it?

It is saying that the old pool wouldn't close until the new one opens. Unlike a refurbishment of Clapham Manor Baths which would mean no swimming for nine to twelve months.

And we only have to look at the woeful situation at the brand new swimming pool in Peckham pulse, to see that we should be well suspicious of new build 'improved' facilities.

Southwark made the fatal mistake of letting their in-house architects design it - none of whom had designed a pool before!

 

[rennie]

because out sourcing stuff is better?

 

[RushcroftRoader]

Feel a phone call coming on...

"Hello, is that the South London Post?..."

 

[cllr]

There are also no firm commitments to keep Brixton Rec / pool from any of the parties.

Lib Dem Manifesto - page 22

Deliver our plans for upgrading leisure provision in Streatham, Clapham and Brixton and improve leisure provision in North Lambeth and Norwood maintaining continutity of service throughout​

See www.lambethlibdems.org.uk - downloads for the manifesto.

 

[netbob]

Lib Dem Manifesto - page 22

Deliver our plans for upgrading leisure provision in Streatham, Clapham and Brixton and improve leisure provision in North Lambeth and Norwood maintaining continutity of service throughout​

See www.lambethlibdems.org.uk - downloads for the manifesto.

I saw that, but a commitment to a continuity of service is not the same as a commitment to keep exisiting sites. (is it?) All that statement says is that there will always be X service in Y town centre. Brixton Rec could be moved and downsized to another location in Brixton and you wouldent have broken that pledge.

I'm not saying this is what you nesseserally are going to do, it's just there isnt a 100% pledge about the future of the Rec and when combined with talk of 'develoipment opertunities' you cant blame people for being suspicious?

 

[g force]

Exactly - with plans for a pool with the Tesco's site in Streatham, what's to stop them shutting a site in Brixton - new pool opens, abntoehr centre shuts = "continuation of leisure provision in Lambeth".

Means fuck all really.

 

[rennie]

bloody council speak.

 

[RushcroftRoader]

It really is political newsspeak. It actually doesn't mean anything.
Cllr, please make a firm, easy to understand statement.
In fact just answer this simple question with a yes or no:

"Will you maintain or enhance leisure facilities, including swimming, at Brixton Rec for the benefit of the whole community?"

Its a simple promise to make. Up to you to make it.

You can try this question on for size as well:

"Does the council have any plans to replace existing leisure facilities in Brixton with facilities at alternative sites?"

 

[cllr]

This is where the Lib Dems are at the moment, using your suggested words...

"We will maintain and enhance leisure facilities, including swimming, in Central Brixton for the benefit of the whole community. If this is at another site in Central Brixton then there will be continuous provision of swimming and leisure facilities so that nothing will close until new services are open."

No plans have been developed yet about this - this will be done in the coming four years.

 

[aurora green]

But if the libdems intend to knock down Brixton Rec and sell off the land to developers, they should surely be open about it, so people know whether to vote for them or not?
Regardless of whether they intend to build a new center or not.

 

[MrBC]

I can't believe people are still banging on about this. The Liberals and Tories are promising continuity of leisure facilities even if one or more new leisure centres need to be built to replace the old ones. In Clapham, the tories promise to keep the existing pool open, but revamp it.

 

[aurora green]

And I can't believe you guys think it's so ludicrous that people want to keep hold of the existing leisure centers, thankyou very much.
I mean how much is it going to cost to bulid a new one in Brixton? Are there guarantees that any new center will it offer the same breadth of services as the existing one?

 

[RushcroftRoader]

This is where the Lib Dems are at the moment, using your suggested words...

"We will maintain and enhance leisure facilities, including swimming, in Central Brixton for the benefit of the whole community. If this is at another site in Central Brixton then there will be continuous provision of swimming and leisure facilities so that nothing will close until new services are open."

No plans have been developed yet about this - this will be done in the coming four years.

thank you for not providing a direct answer to a simple question. Clearly, judging from your answer, the question of whether the council intend to keep the Brixton rec site is "no".

Can anybody suggest an alternative site, or equal size, in the central Brixton area where a leisure centre can be built???

 

[MrBC]

thank you for not providing a direct answer to a simple question. Clearly, judging from your answer, the question of whether the council intend to keep the Brixton rec site is "no".

Can anybody suggest an alternative site, or equal size, in the central Brixton area where a leisure centre can be built???

Surely this is why there is a review of all the options??? Are people really so attached to that expensive monstrosity? Christ, I thought I was the conservative. You lot take the 'no change' biscuit!

 

[rennie]

why fix something that isn't broken?

 

[RushcroftRoader]

Surely this is why there is a review of all the options??? Are people really so attached to that expensive monstrosity? Christ, I thought I was the conservative. You lot take the 'no change' biscuit!

I can't believe you believe all the council guff at face value. This is about property values and how the council can make a quick buck.

 

[rennie]

The Rec needs a revamp but it's great and is home to lots of sports n leisure activities. Why not give it a face lift instead of closing it and then opening another center somewhere else?

 

[Tricky Skills]

Absolutely no point in pulling down the Rec. The infrastructure is fine, albeit a little topsy turvy with the pool in the wrong place. Plus the place is HUGE. So many sports are catered for.

As well as the more visible football, basketball, swimming, squash, badminton, gym etc, I’ve also encountered korfball, softball, wall climbing, fencing, cricket, bowls, table tennis, many fitness classes plus ample meeting space for various religious nutters / University of Dub mash ups.

I can’t see some squeaky clean new facility built under Mr Tony’s PPP bollocks being so open minded or community based.

And what of the gap in-between the pulling down and building of a new facility? People will look elsewhere for sports provision and then probably won’t return, when (or even if) the new facility is ever built.

Any new building is going to need private investment, and with that comes a private agenda. Leisure Connection may be crap, but at least they seem containable.

There's a definite low staff morale there over recent months, probably something to do with all the uncertainty.

Now then...

It's all gone a little quiet on the Lido front, hasn't it?

Three years ago and the first swim of the summer was on Good Friday.

 

[rennie]

is the Lido not gonna re-open? I thought it was taken over by Evian or something.

and yeah bloody PFI!!!!

 

[Tricky Skills]

The Lido has had so many false starts since Fusion took control that it's never quite clear what the current situation is.

Some Fusion Suit claimed at the BLU AGM last September that the signing of the contract was 'imminent.'

He said the same thing 12 months previously.

Fusion has always stated that nine months of building work is required for the Lido to re-open. It's been all quiet down there this winter.

 

[rennie]

Boooo Booo Booo.

 

[aurora green]

Absolutely no point in pulling down the Rec. The infrastructure is fine, albeit a little topsy turvy with the pool in the wrong place. Plus the place is HUGE. So many sports are catered for.

As well as the more visible football, basketball, swimming, squash, badminton, gym etc, I’ve also encountered korfball, softball, wall climbing, fencing, cricket, bowls, table tennis, many fitness classes plus ample meeting space for various religious nutters / University of Dub mash ups.
...

This is exactly my worry. Any new build sports center is very unlikely to accomodate such a diversity.

I've even been to the rec to hear my children participate in special concerts.
It's a fabulous space, that people living around here in densely crowded estates, most often without gardens, richly deserve and need, for the good health of everyone.
Far from being a monstrosity, Brixton rec is a community resourse that is very much needed and appreciated, and would be a great loss for Brixton.

Demolition, and selling off the site to the highest bidder, would benefit who exactly?

 

[gaijingirl]

Absolutely no point in pulling down the Rec. The infrastructure is fine, albeit a little topsy turvy with the pool in the wrong place. Plus the place is HUGE. So many sports are catered for.

As well as the more visible football, basketball, swimming, squash, badminton, gym etc, I’ve also encountered korfball, softball, wall climbing, fencing, cricket, bowls, table tennis, many fitness classes plus ample meeting space for various religious nutters / University of Dub mash ups.

I can’t see some squeaky clean new facility built under Mr Tony’s PPP bollocks being so open minded or community based.

And what of the gap in-between the pulling down and building of a new facility? People will look elsewhere for sports provision and then probably won’t return, when (or even if) the new facility is ever built.

Any new building is going to need private investment, and with that comes a private agenda. Leisure Connection may be crap, but at least they seem containable.

There's a definite low staff morale there over recent months, probably something to do with all the uncertainty.

Now then...

It's all gone a little quiet on the Lido front, hasn't it?

Three years ago and the first swim of the summer was on Good Friday.

Completely agree - I really like the Rec and would hate to see it close.

As for the Lido I will be completely devastated if that closes - I can't wait for my outdoor morning swims to start again!

 

[Bob]

Completely agree - I really like the Rec and would hate to see it close.

As for the Lido I will be completely devastated if that closes - I can't wait for my outdoor morning swims to start again!

But nobody is proposing to close the Rec! All that is being proposed is that there is an open mind that if a better facility was available in roughly the same location minds are kept open. For instance you might be able to get something better on the site of the Popes Road car park.

This really is a classic Labour smear that makes me really angry. On the level of their claim in the 2003 Stockwell by election that the council were about to abolish green boxes for recycling.

As some of you may have noticed:
a) This was never the plan
b) It didn't happen (unless I'm hallucinating the green boxes)
c) The Standards board for England found Labour councillors guilty of being misleading.

By the Standards Board for England
Member: Councillor Peter O'Connell
Authority: Lambeth, London Borough of
Date received: 03 Sep 2003
Date completed: 14 Jan 2005
Allegation: A member failed to treat others with respect, compromised the
impartiality of council employees, brought his office or authority into disrepute and
improperly secured an advantage for himself or others.
The complainant alleged that Councillor Peter O'Connell, an opposition member
on Lambeth Council, misquoted council officers in two election letters. The letters
were sent in a mailshot to electors in the run-up to a council by-election in August
2003.
One letter was about the ruling administration's plans for recycling collections. A
named council officer was quoted as saying:
"We've got to tell the public to stop using the green box. We are going to make
sure that physically, householders find the space to put the waste instead into
plastic bags ... This is to save the time of the council collectors, who won't bother
to separate the waste in future."
The other letter quoted another named council officer as saying, in relation to
crime and anti-social behaviour: "We will not use the Labour Government's new
power to issue penalty notices." The letter also claimed that the council did not
routinely pass information to the police.
Councillor O'Connell claimed that the quotations were accurately taken down in
shorthand during or immediately after conversations with the officers.
Item 4 – Standards Committee (17.05.05)
Reference from Council (23.02.05) 14
The Ethical Standards Officer was unable to determine whether the officers were
quoted accurately. However, the Ethical Standards Officer noted that Councillor
O'Connell did not check the accuracy of the quotations with the officers, who did
not know that their comments were going to be quoted at all, and certainly not in
election material. Moreover, the Ethical Standards Officer considered that the use
of the quotations in the letters was misleading. The letter about recycling gave the
impression that council employees were uncommitted to recycling and that all
recycling was going to stop. The other letter gave the impression that the officer
was politically biased and had been improperly concealing embarrassing facts.
The Ethical Standards Officer considered that it was unacceptable for a councillor
to draw council officers into an election campaign by quoting them in election
material without checking that the quotations were accurate and fair. The Ethical
Standards Officer concluded that Councillor O'Connell failed to treat the officers
with respect and compromised their impartiality. The Ethical Standards Officer
also concluded that Councillor O'Connell improperly conferred an advantage on
the candidate in the by-election and a disadvantage on the council officers. The
Ethical Standards Officer considered that Councillor O'Connell's conduct brought
his office and authority into disrepute.
The Ethical Standards Officer did not believe that Councillor O'Connell would act
in this way again and took into account the need to maintain effective working
relationships within the authority.
The Ethical Standards Officer found that no action needs to be taken.
Member: Councillor Gary Follis
Authority: Lambeth, London Borough of
Date received: 03 Sep 2003
Date completed: 14 Jan 2005
Allegation: A member brought his office or authority into disrepute.
The complainant alleged that Councillor Gary Follis, an opposition member on
Lambeth Council, printed and published two election letters that misquoted
council officers. The letters were sent to electors in the run-up to a council byelection
in August 2003. Councillor Follis was the candidate's election agent and
a member of the by-election committee that approved the letters, which were
written by another councillor.
One letter was about the ruling administration's plans for recycling collections. A
named council officer was quoted as saying:
"We've got to tell the public to stop using the green box. We are going to make
sure that physically, householders find the space to put the waste instead into
plastic bags ... This is to save the time of the council collectors, who won't bother
to separate the waste in future."
Item 4 – Standards Committee (17.05.05)
Reference from Council (23.02.05) 15
The other letter quoted another named council officer as saying, in relation to
crime and anti-social behaviour: "We will not use the Labour Government's new
power to issue penalty notices." The letter also claimed that the council did not
routinely pass information to the police.
The Ethical Standards Officer was unable to determine whether the officers were
quoted accurately. However, the Ethical Standards Officer noted that the officers
did not know that their comments were going to be quoted at all, and certainly not
in election material. Moreover, the Ethical Standards Officer considered that the
use of the quotations in the letters was misleading. The letter about recycling
gave the impression that council employees were uncommitted to recycling and
that all recycling was going to stop. The other letter gave the impression that the
officer was politically biased and had been improperly concealing embarrassing
facts.
The Ethical Standards Officer considered that it was unacceptable for a councillor
to draw council officers into an election campaign by quoting them in election
material without checking that the quotations were accurate and fair. The Ethical
Standards Officer concluded that Councillor Follis brought his office and authority
into disrepute.
The Ethical Standards Officer considered that Councillor Follis did not intend to
breach the Code of Conduct, but made an error of judgement in relying on the
councillor who wrote the letters. The Ethical Standards Officer noted that
Councillor Follis has acknowledged his mistake.
The Ethical Standards Officer found that no action needs to be taken.”

And if you don't believe me read here

 

[lang rabbie]

There's a definite low staff morale there over recent months, probably something to do with all the uncertainty.

That may have more to do with the imminent announcement of the result of retendering of the Borough's leisure centres contract (expires in November IIRC).

Lambeth Council has finally got a full time team in their own "client side" in sports and leisure. I get the impression that it is only recently have they got the evidence (from "mystery shopper" visits and the like?) that Leisure Connection have been allowing some staff to treat the public abysmally. Lambeth have started issuing penalties to Leisure Connection, which means that the staff are getting kicked by their bosses.

[To be fair, some of the Rec staff are really dedicated, and I hope they'll stay on if there is a change of contractor.]

 

[aurora green]

But nobody is proposing to close the Rec! All that is being proposed is that there is an open mind that if a better facility was available in roughly the same location minds are kept open.

eh?

For instance you might be able to get something better on the site of the Popes Road car park.

You're seriously think that demolishing the existing rec and building another not 50meters behind the old one is a good idea.? For the life of me I can't see what the point of it would be, even if it were to be even better. Which I think would be highly unlikely.

Please could someone give us a straight answer to why this would in any way be a good idea, and how it would benefit Lambeth council tax payers?