|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The William Penn Leisure Centre
NOTES TAKEN AT A PUBLIC MEETING HELD ON 6th JANUARY 2005 AT THE WILLIAM PENN
LEISURE CENTRE
The meeting was called by Three Rivers District Council, (TRDC), jointly with
the Management of the Centre, but was not widely publicised. It was chaired
by John Welham and attended by Chris Hope, TRDC Head of Leisure Services and
Jane Hilton, Manager of the Centre. 30 persons attended the meeting, the majority
ladies and most were regular users of the swimming pool.
The meeting had been called to brief the public on the proposal to refurbish
the Centre's "wet" facilities, i.e., the swimming pool and supporting
infrastructure. TRDC's Leisure and Community Policy Panel had met on the 9th
November 2004 to discuss the feasibility report on the options developed by
the Council's consultants. The consultants had been appointed to advise on extending
the life of the wet facility, but not the Centre's Health and Fitness area.
Three options were offered to the Council for consideration:
Option A - Minimal Refurbishment:
This would involve altering the pool changing rooms into a "changing village"
with a unisex changing area and separate cubicles that opened up to the pool
surround. The existing plant room would be retained, but new equipment would
be fitted as maintenance is becoming more expensive with the passing of time.
The "wet" health facility would be incorporated into the changing
room area. The pool hall and pool tank would be completely refurbished, to include
a new staircase and lift to the first floor spectators' gallery for the benefit
of disabled patrons. The estimated cost of the workpackage would be £2.02M,
simply to sustain the existing facility over the next 20 years.
Option B - Full Refurbishment / Part Redevelopment:
This option included work in the foyer and on some of the "dry" facilities.
(The term for the squash courts, health and fitness facilities, etc.). A new
reception area would be re-provided on the left side of the existing entrance
to make space for a new "learners' pool" and a vending / catering
function. The fitness studio would be consolidated into one area. The existing
"wet" side changing rooms would be demolished and redeveloped with
group changing and unisex changing areas visible from the pool. (The lifeguards
will be able to monitor the changing area from the pool). Two new aerobics'
studios would be provided on the first floor. The "wet" health facility
would not be moved, but it would be refurbished. The pool hall, plant room and
pool tank would be completely refurbished, to include a new staircase and lift
to the first floor spectators' gallery for the benefit of disabled patrons,
as in Option 1. The estimated cost of the workpackage would be £3.25M.
Option C - New Build (Wet Side):
This proposal would involve a new build for the wet side of the Centre, covering
the changing rooms, pool, and health area. The opportunity would be taken to
install a new 25m tank and to raise the level of the "wet" side to
the level of the foyer. Additional facilities would include a cafÈ overlooking
the poolside, a new entrance lobby, a crËche / party room on the left-hand
side of the foyer, a dance studio at the rear of the foyer and a new function
room. The first floor would incorporate the relocated fitness area, sited partly
over the pool. The estimated cost of this option would be £4.46M.
Before speaking, John Welham displayed diagrams of the options and stated these
would be displayed in the foyer for public viewing. In his opening remarks,
he stressed that the Council was committed to retaining the Centre as a public
amenity and announced that the Leisure and Community Policy Panel intended to
recommend to the Council that Option B be approved as the preferred option.
He added that the proposed refurbishment had been under discussion for nearly
two years, because surveys of the "wet" side suggested that the area
was approaching the end of its natural life. Other major considerations included
the increasing cost of maintaining the pool and associated plant, the inadequacy
of the changing facilities and the effort required to keep the area clean. It
does appear that more ladies use the pool than gents do, and at times the ratio
is 75% ladies to 25% gents. John Welham invited those present to consider the
benefits to be derived by having a crËche and a learners' pool, plus the
increased "dry" facilities.
When invited to comment on Option B the audience reacted immediately, and unfavourably,
to the idea of the unisex changing facility. This aspect of the presentation
may have been ambiguous and misinterpreted by the audience, but it was self
evident that the concept of modesty was important to those present at the meeting.
The Centre's management team will no doubt be asked to clarify this aspect of
the proposal as more people are made aware of Option B.
Inevitably there were questions on costs and the implications for prices of
admission to the refurbished pool. Chris Hope informed the meeting that he did
not have details of future prices but was able to say that the pricing regime
would be "cost neutral", i.e., income should meet costs. When asked
for clarification about the existing contractual arrangements between the Centre's
management and the Council, Chris Hope implied that, as written, the Council
was accountable for some of the Centre's running costs. It appears that the
Council has been providing a subsidy of the order of £150,000 per year
to the Centre's upkeep.
The audience asked questions about the refurbishment programme and use of the
"dry" facilities during the refurbishment period. Chris Hope explained
that the existing management contract would be renegotiated during 2005, so
work would not start before 2006 and would take about eighteen months to complete.
In that period the "dry" side would continue to function, but inevitably
with some restrictions at certain stages of the refurbishment. The audience
enquired if the Council would be arranging an alternative venue for those who
wanted to continue swimming. It became apparent that among those present were
people who used the pool to improve fitness and mobility. Some feared if they
were unable to swim for eighteen months they would find it difficult to re-start
swimming when the pool becomes available. Chris Hope was able to offer some
re-assurance on this point when he stated that the Council was trying to make
arrangements for the use of a local school's swimming pool. He did not believe
that the Sir James Altham pool at South Oxhey could accommodate a large number
of additional swimmers.
Other topics covered during the discussion included improving hygiene by the
use of foot baths and showers as swimmers entered the pool, the charge for using
lockers, the likely outcome of an application for National Lottery funding,
the advisability of the life guards having to monitor behaviour in the open
plan changing village and the intention to discontinue the use of the kitchen
in favour of the vending area.
One member of the audience, a lapsed swimmer, expressed some concern about the
overall cost of the refurbishment. He questioned the need for such a large work
package and suggested that Chris Hope's mention of £2M for the cost of
upgrading the pool's plant seemed excessive. He expressed surprise at the size
of the subsidy given by the Council under present arrangements and linked this
thought to the impending closure of Watersmeet. He asked the audience to consider
this point and did get some support from others who did not want to see Watersmeet
close.
Before the meeting was brought to a close at 9pm, members of the audience expressed
their appreciation for the commitment and the service provided by the staff.
NOTE: The architect's plan for Option B will remain on display in the foyer,
together with other information for the foreseeable future.
The views expressed on this website are those of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the R&DRA Committee as a whole.