Lambeth want to sell YOUR swimming pools

[lang rabbie]

The claim being made is that most of the mechanical and electrical equipment in the Rec - electrics, air conditioning, boiler house kit* , the escalator, lifts etc. has reached the end of its life (in some cases prematurely because of lack of previous maintenance).

[* although I thought they replaced the boilers not so long ago ]

The question is whether you automatically commit to refurbishing the building - which in my experience of lottery funded projects would mean either closing the whole place for up to a year or two-three years of chaos with a phased refurbishment - or whether you look at options for a replacement building.

I think that some people in Lambeth Council did see the option of a lucrative property development paying for a new leisure centre. Personally, I'm more sceptical, but I do know that there are a lot of people who still don't use the Rec because they don't feel safe approaching the high level entrance after experience with dealers and other local lowlife who used to congregate around there a few years ago.

Whether a major refurb or new build, IMO any future leisure centre for Brixton needs a main reception at street level.

 

[Tricky Skills]

But the building and facilities per se are fine. Knocking them down, re-building them (or not as the case often is with these PP projects) would just be a waste of time.

 

[rennie]

and money!

 

[Gramsci]

Havent had the chance to read all of this yet.However as a Brixtonian ive followed some of this in officers reports.

If the Brixton rec is closed a likely alternative site will be Somerleyton road.The officers report states that the facilities will be smaller.Therefore a smaller pool etc.

The sale of the Brixton and Clapham sites is driven by the Councils "Office Accomodation Strategy".As the Council have already bought a big office block in Vauxhall the sales of land are more then likely as this is the only way the finance of it will work.

Ive attended a few meetings where the Officer in charge of "Revitalise" has come to try and sell this to residents.("Revitalise"=selloff of land in practise).I did question the officer on the fact that equivalant rec in Brixton will be smaller-she had to admit this was the case.

As it appears residents arent that keen of sale of Brixton rec the Council have fallen back on using MORI poll.A well tried consultation tactic if residents dont show themselves as "representative"=ie agreeing with Council.Surprise surprise the MORI poll shows that Brixton residents want new Rec .

IMO anyone opposing sale of Rec will be labelled as "against change" in Brixton not "represntative" and "someone who prefers to work on the outside" and not with the Council.

Doesnt help that the Council have put one of their more "dynamic" officers in charge of Revitalise.As one Councillor said --someone who can push forward controversial schemes.""One of the best officers the Council has."

 

[RushcroftRoader]

Havent had the chance to read all of this yet.However as a Brixtonian ive followed some of this in officers reports.

If the Brixton rec is closed a likely alternative site will be Somerleyton road.The officers report states that the facilities will be smaller.Therefore a smaller pool etc.

The sale of the Brixton and Clapham sites is driven by the Councils "Office Accomodation Strategy".As the Council have already bought a big office block in Vauxhall the sales of land are more then likely as this is the only way the finance of it will work.

Ive attended a few meetings where the Officer in charge of "Revitalise" has come to try and sell this to residents.("Revitalise"=selloff of land in practise).I did question the officer on the fact that equivalant rec in Brixton will be smaller-she had to admit this was the case.

As it appears residents arent that keen of sale of Brixton rec the Council have fallen back on using MORI poll.A well tried consultation tactic if residents dont show themselves as "representative"=ie agreeing with Council.Surprise surprise the MORI poll shows that Brixton residents want new Rec .

IMO anyone opposing sale of Rec will be labelled as "against change" in Brixton not "represntative" and "someone who prefers to work on the outside" and not with the Council.

Doesnt help that the Council have put one of their more "dynamic" officers in charge of Revitalise.As one Councillor said --someone who can push forward controversial schemes.""One of the best officers the Council has."

Bloody typical!!
Right who is going to put a FoI request in to get results of Mori poll? In fact, I will do it now!

 

[RushcroftRoader]

Havent had the chance to read all of this yet.However as a Brixtonian ive followed some of this in officers reports.

If the Brixton rec is closed a likely alternative site will be Somerleyton road.The officers report states that the facilities will be smaller.Therefore a smaller pool etc.

The sale of the Brixton and Clapham sites is driven by the Councils "Office Accomodation Strategy".As the Council have already bought a big office block in Vauxhall the sales of land are more then likely as this is the only way the finance of it will work.

Ive attended a few meetings where the Officer in charge of "Revitalise" has come to try and sell this to residents.("Revitalise"=selloff of land in practise).I did question the officer on the fact that equivalant rec in Brixton will be smaller-she had to admit this was the case.

As it appears residents arent that keen of sale of Brixton rec the Council have fallen back on using MORI poll.A well tried consultation tactic if residents dont show themselves as "representative"=ie agreeing with Council.Surprise surprise the MORI poll shows that Brixton residents want new Rec .

IMO anyone opposing sale of Rec will be labelled as "against change" in Brixton not "represntative" and "someone who prefers to work on the outside" and not with the Council.

Doesnt help that the Council have put one of their more "dynamic" officers in charge of Revitalise.As one Councillor said --someone who can push forward controversial schemes.""One of the best officers the Council has."

OK, just put in an FoI request to get hold of this Mori poll. From past experience of these polls, it is not the answers that are important but the questions!
Will post details here when I get them!

 

[g force]

Please do...it does seems that Revitalise essentially means developments that shut out the local community and closing their resources in favour of building new, poorer quality builds (but look it's got glass...and steel...) to entice the more moneyed people.

 

[Winot]

OK, just put in an FoI request to get hold of this Mori poll. From past experience of these polls, it is not the answers that are important but the questions!

"Q1. Do you want a bright spanky shiny new rec OR DO YOU WANT THIS FURRY BUNNY RABBIT TO DIE hmmm?"

 

[RushcroftRoader]

"Q1. Do you want a bright spanky shiny new rec OR DO YOU WANT THIS FURRY BUNNY RABBIT TO DIE hmmm?"

lol

 

[netbob]

I love google:

moridetails (PDF)

 

[colacubes]

I love google:

moridetails (PDF)

I'd forgotten about this (I went to one of the presentations and remember being shocked at how small the sample was). From the figures I can see on this:

516 interviews conducted
69% of those being Lambeth residents

Therefore total lambeth residents interviewed: 356

What an in depth survey

 

[Winot]

Quick work memespring.

There are certainly stats in their they could plum to back up a case for a new centre, but the overall picture is one of a well-used, generally satisfactory existing centre, and loss of amenities is clearly off concern even before people start really thinking about it.

 

[Winot]

OK, just put in an FoI request to get hold of this Mori poll. From past experience of these polls, it is not the answers that are important but the questions!

The worst example of this I've seen recently is with the post-service Toyota questionnaire:

"If you are anything other than delighted with our service please call us on 0870 etc."

Presumably no one bothers and this allows them to say that 100% of their customers are "delighted" .

 

[aurora green]

I can't seem to find the 'tables' that show the replies to Q33 and 34, (the ones that directly relate to the Recs' closure)
Can anyone tell me exactly where to look?

 

[RushcroftRoader]

The question in the mori poll basically asks: "The Rec is old and we might actually have to spend money to make it better. Therefore are you open to the idea that the Rec is replaced by something better?"
Unsurprisingly, the answer is "yes".
If the question asked was: "Do you think that the Rec should be replaced by something smaller, further away from the centre of Brixton, and cheaper?"
The answer would be "NO!!"

However the council will misrepresent the findings of this report and claim it backs their case for moving to a new location. They will probbaly say: "But we asked residents about this, and the Mori poll showed that they are happy for the Rec to be replaced."

Eh, no, that's not what the poll showed at all. In fact a great many respondents were deeply concerned that a move would reduce leisure facilities in the community.
Local governmnet spinners learn this shit in "PR for muppets class". Lets not let them get away with it. I bet there won't be another poll produced when a concrete alternative for the Rec is quietly introduced.

 

[Ms T]

And who did they ask in this Mori poll anyway? I use the Rec several times a week and nobody asked me my opinion.

 

[Farmer Giles]

they (tesco's AND some councillors) are trying VERY hard to weasel on that one.

Sounds very much like the Savacentre in Colliers Wood. They promised a lesiure centre for locals, that mysteriously never got built. Cunts.

 

[Bob]

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?

All I'm saying is that sometimes it's better value for money if you want to improve something to start all over again. A really positive example of this is in Kennington where the old completely inappropriate but listed Lilian Baylis couldn't be refurbished in a way appropriate for a new school and has been relocated to a good new school a few hundred metres away.

 

[RushcroftRoader]

All I'm saying is that sometimes it's better value for money if you want to improve something to start all over again. A really positive example of this is in Kennington where the old completely inappropriate but listed Lilian Baylis couldn't be refurbished in a way appropriate for a new school and has been relocated to a good new school a few hundred metres away.

I can not for the life of me believe that incorporating modern disabled access etc and giving the Rec a makeover would cost more than building a whole new centre with comparible facilities.
Please, don't make me laugh!

 

[Bob]

I can not for the life of me believe that incorporating modern disabled access etc and giving the Rec a makeover would cost more than building a whole new centre with comparible facilities.
Please, don't make me laugh!

I genuinely don't know - and neither does anyone on here.

Anyway that's not really the point - the point I'm trying to make is that Labour are claiming there's a plan to close swimming pools in Lambeth when there isn't. That's all I'm getting annoyed about - it's a nasty smear.

 

[Gramsci]

However the council will misrepresent the findings of this report and claim it backs their case for moving to a new location. They will probbaly say: "But we asked residents about this, and the Mori poll showed that they are happy for the Rec to be replaced."

QUOTE]

They already have done this.The 3 out of 5 figure is already being bandied about-for example in the Lambeth Life mag free at the library.(The Councils version of Pravda ).

Doubtless senior officers given the task of selling this to residents will be endlessly quoting this figure.Cunts.

Thanks for link Memespring.As I thought people interviewed were given a very biased quote.I notice the Council are playing the equal rightts card as well.Saying that the Rec is not accessible for the disabled.In what way?I use the swimming pool and regularly see a disabled woman swimming in the main pool.

 

[Gramsci]

I genuinely don't know - and neither does anyone on here.

Anyway that's not really the point - the point I'm trying to make is that Labour are claiming there's a plan to close swimming pools in Lambeth when there isn't. That's all I'm getting annoyed about - it's a nasty smear.

Im not a Labour supporter but in their defence to all intents and purposes the intention is to sell the Brixotn Rec/Popes road car park site to a developer.You only have to read the officers reports and see what the tone of the "consultation" means to see this.Look at the Mori link the Memespring put up.

Its like living under East European Communism."They" tell u one thing but u now it means something else.You learn to read between the lines.

 

[Bob]

Im not a Labour supporter but in their defence to all intents and purposes the intention is to sell the Brixotn Rec/Popes road car park site to a developer.You only have to read the officers reports and see what the tone of the "consultation" means to see this.Look at the Mori link the Memespring put up.

Its like living under East European Communism."They" tell u one thing but u now it means something else.You learn to read between the lines.

The problem with your line of argument is that there is absolutely nothing anyone could say to persuade you otherwise. For instance all three parties could say 'Brixton will have continuous leisure facilities at or very close to the current Rec site of at least the current quality' and you'd start picking apart the 'or very close' until the only thing that satisfied you was no change at all.

Incidentally no change at all is impossible if there has to be refurbishment since that would inevitably mean bits of the centre being closed while it went on.

Oh I give up, nobody seems inclined to believe anything the council says so it seems pointless discussing this.

<flounce>

 

[Gramsci]

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.

Exactly.I was watching the news a few days ago and saw this has happened at Camden.A scheme that sounds remarkably like the one the Council envisage.

 

[RushcroftRoader]

The problem with your line of argument is that there is absolutely nothing anyone could say to persuade you otherwise. For instance all three parties could say 'Brixton will have continuous leisure facilities at or very close to the current Rec site of at least the current quality' and you'd start picking apart the 'or very close' until the only thing that satisfied you was no change at all.

Incidentally no change at all is impossible if there has to be refurbishment since that would inevitably mean bits of the centre being closed while it went on.

Oh I give up, nobody seems inclined to believe anything the council says so it seems pointless discussing this.

<flounce>

Yes, but phrases like "continuous leisure facilities.... of at least the current quality" don't mean anything. It says nothing about capacity of facilities, breadth of facilities or cost of facilties. Its a PR phrase. In itself it is meaningless without any supporting detail.
That is why so many people on this forum, who have painful experience of past council shinannigans, are so concerned.
I know how the PR industry works, I encounter it on a daily basis at work and the language eminating from the Lambeth Bastille is typical of a public organisation that is trying to put up a smokescreen. This is not about the community, this is about money and Lambeth's obsession with tarting up Brixton.

 

[Gramsci]

The problem with your line of argument is that there is absolutely nothing anyone could say to persuade you otherwise. For instance all three parties could say 'Brixton will have continuous leisure facilities at or very close to the current Rec site of at least the current quality' and you'd start picking apart the 'or very close' until the only thing that satisfied you was no change at all.

Incidentally no change at all is impossible if there has to be refurbishment since that would inevitably mean bits of the centre being closed while it went on.

Oh I give up, nobody seems inclined to believe anything the council says so it seems pointless discussing this.

<flounce>

I must admit im sceptical of any parties when they are in power.However I base my opinion of what Council policy is on offcers reports.Lang Rabbie linked up the relevant reports a while back.Also Memespring has linked the MORI analysis."The Office Accomodation Strategy" is quite clear.Now that the new Offices have been bought in Vauxhall I find it hard to see how the Clapham and Brixton sites cannot be sold as this is how the long term financial plan is set out.
What im saying is that the ball has already started rolling.Even if Labour get back into power their hands may be tied.Unless Gordon bails them out.
What i dont believe is the propaganda put out in Lambeth Life.The selective us of stats(3 out of 5 want a new Rec-when they were given a leading statement to comment on etc).Also can you tell the Council not to inflict slimy officers who job it is to "consult" with the "community" on Brixton?They are one reason why people get cynical about consultation.

Also at one "consultation" meeting I did ask the officer what residents were being asked about,

a)residents were being asked if they wanted the Brixton Rec/Popes Road car park sold or kept.
or b)If this was already decided and we were being consulted about how the "partner"(developer who buys the site) will redevelop it.

I couldnt get a clear answer other then than it hadnt been decided yet but this(the sale of the Rec site) would be a great "oppurtunity" for Brixton.Also the officer went on that we might get an arts centre out of it.

I got the distinct impressin that the Council was telling its (slimy) officers to get us to back the sale of the Rec so that politically the Council can say they have the support of the community on this.

 

[Ms T]

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.]

There have been a lot of Leisure Connection bods sniffing around recently. One of them got an earful from me the other day about the woefully inefficient admission system which they've introduced, which leads to queues a mile long. VERY annoying when you're trying to make a class on time.

 

[Tricky Skills]

Yeah the queues are a bit crap during peak hours. It doesn't help that yer man Ken or the charming Teresa have to answer phones at the same time. One of the worst user problems at the Rec could be erased overnight for the price of a FT phone person.

 

[Chrysanthemum]

All I'm saying is that sometimes it's better value for money if you want to improve something to start all over again. A really positive example of this is in Kennington where the old completely inappropriate but listed Lilian Baylis couldn't be refurbished in a way appropriate for a new school and has been relocated to a good new school a few hundred metres away.

This is a brilliant example of why we should all be really worried about the council's plans to sell our pools. The new Lilian Baylis only has places for 120 kids a year, while the old Lilian Baylis took 210. The new Lilian Baylis is a PFI school that charges you through the nose to use the facilities after hours, so lots of people who run community groups (like basketball for teens) can't afford it anymore. The new building is really nice, but "better value for money"? If the pools are smaller and more expensive to use, is this better?

And another thing!! The council is so terrible at listening to anyone, and so sure they know best in spite of the evidence all around us, I just KNOW they'll make a mess of these projects and then blame everyone and everything in sight.

 

[Tricky Skills]

Ah, the thread that refuses to die...

The Rec was closed for three hours this afternoon. 'Boiler problems with the building next door' being the official reason.