Council chiefs told rejecting top-rate pool for Worcester would be "crazy"

9:50am Thursday 7th March 2013 in News By Tom Edwards

DEBATE: In at the deep end. DEBATE: In at the deep end.

COUNCIL chiefs have been told it would be “illogical” and “crazy” to build a scaled-down swimming pool in Worcester not up to hosting competitions.

During a passionate debate at the Guildhall, both swimmers and politicians urged the city council to go all out for a £13.5 million, eight-lane, county-standard pool, as opposed to a cheaper six-lane option.

Neil Monkhouse, of Worcester Swimming Club, said that the downgraded option would be no better than the facility at Sansome Walk.

He told the performance management and budget scrutiny committee (PMBS): “I’m all in favour of a county-standard pool and not just for the swimming club, but for everyone. It would be illogical to go for the second option of a scaled-down pool, which would actually be smaller than one built in the 1970s.

“Clearly, there is a £5.2 million gap, but I would very strongly urge the council to try and fill that gap – it’s crazy to build something actually smaller than what we’ve got.”

Two authors of the report appeared before the PMBS committee to debate the findings. Tom Pinnington, of the Sports Consultancy, said: “You’ve got one option which is affordable, and another which you’d probably like, but at this moment in time is not affordable – that’s the situation the council is in.”

Related links

Councillor Robert Rowden, a former city mayor, said: “We don’t want to end up with a liability in 40 years’ time – whatever decision is made must be thought through carefully.” Coun Paul Denham, deputy leader of the Labour group, said: “Most right-thinking people would agree with Neil Monkhouse – it seems crazy to pay money for a facility smaller than what we’ve got.”

The pool at Sansome Walk has six lanes, but would be marginally smaller than the new one proposed under option two.

The feedback will be sent on to the Conservative cabinet, which is meeting on Tuesday.

 

Comments(5)

Marant says...
11:37am Thu 7 Mar 13

If you're going to do it, do it properly. Become a centre for excellence and attract people in to the county, rather than doing a half-hearted job that is less likely to make a profit. need to think long-term, not just balancing this year's books.

it's a bit like the potholes - councils end up spending a fortune doing cheap patching jobs that need replacing every year, rather than doing a proper job that might be more expensive now, but will last for years and cost less in the long run.

I'd be far happier if councils only had to balance books over a 5 year period, not annually. Give them some freedom to do longer term planning.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

CJH says...
12:10pm Thu 7 Mar 13

Marant wrote:
If you're going to do it, do it properly. Become a centre for excellence and attract people in to the county, rather than doing a half-hearted job that is less likely to make a profit. need to think long-term, not just balancing this year's books.

it's a bit like the potholes - councils end up spending a fortune doing cheap patching jobs that need replacing every year, rather than doing a proper job that might be more expensive now, but will last for years and cost less in the long run.

I'd be far happier if councils only had to balance books over a 5 year period, not annually. Give them some freedom to do longer term planning.
That's the problem though - they have shown repeatedly their inability to do any long term planning effectively.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

i-cycle says...
1:31pm Thu 7 Mar 13

I know its going to cost more, but there seems little sense in building a new pool that isn't of a competition standard.

If not, them the Council may as well stick with what its got.

What's not being considered is how important having a decent modern facility in terms of attracting and keeping residents and businesses.

If I'm correct about the latter the additional cost will be more than covered by the increase income the City Council will get from any uplift in the business rates and the new home bonus.

Even in these difficult financial times there may also be ways of attracting grant income to offset the higher costs.

There are also ways in which the Council could increase the chances of more contracts and jobs created by their investment in both the construction and operation phases going to local firms and residents thereby increasing the local economic impact.

What's not being discussed are the comparative revenue cost (savings?) of having a more energy and staffing efficient pool which is likely to generate higher incomes due to its increased attractiveness to users as opposed to a old pool and leisure centre that will be increasingly expensive to run as operational costs rise.

With over 50% of local residents being overweight surely its important that we have better facilities to encourage more active lifestyles.

Its a tough call for our local politicians. They need all the public support they can get in helping them to make the right decision, so get voting in the Worcester News poll for an eight lane county standard pool.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Landy44 says...
6:49pm Thu 7 Mar 13

Clearly we shouldn't be building any pool as, (I'll say this slowly) WE CAN'T AFFORD IT!

I'd love a new pool, and if we were going to get one it only makes sense to build it properly, but...

Since we can't afford either, it would be best not to build anything until such times as we can.

Here's a better idea.....let a private company come and build and operate it so they make some money - user pays. That will save every taxpayer having to fork out for something that most won't use, and which none of can afford. I don't see any private companies queuing to do this, do you? Maybe that tells us all we need to know.

This crazy idea is like the evil monster in a film that just won't die.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

i-cycle says...
7:14pm Thu 7 Mar 13

Landy44

No public swimming pool makes money. That's why no commercial operator will step in as you suggest.

For a pool to be accessible at a reasonable cost to residents it has to be effectively subsidised by the ratepayer, but this cost is effectively offset by making an area more attractive to live and work in. It also encourages more to learn to swim and take the exercise that is so vital to healthier lifestyles. The cost to the public purse is therefore offset, by a reduction in other costs and an increase in the Council Tax and Business Rates attracted.

It could be argued that the current pool fulfills this role, but its well past its sell by date and I asume the decision to replace is at least partly prompted by the fact that there are growing revenue costs in running it and high capital costs in bringing it up to an acceptable, let alone decent standard.

By not replacing the Perdiswell facility and inviting the private sector to design, build and operate the new pool it should make it more cost effective to run in the medium term than maintaining the existing two facilities. So ironically it may actually be cheaper in the longer term to build a new pool. The real debate is surely not about whether to replace, but how big it should be.

Personally I feel its better to build a competition standard pool as this is likely to generate higher levels of use and income and better fulfil the wider un-costed financial and social benefits which I allude to earlier.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree