Update from Save Radcliffe Pool - March 2014

March has been a mixed month for our campaign, starting with our presentation of the 948 signature petition to RBC's Council Meeting on the 6th March and culminating in a visit to Kenneth Clarke's surgery on Saturday 22nd March 2014. 

Kenneth Clark commented, like Cllr Cutts had done previously, that he couldn't see why the building could not be moved a few metres to stay clear of the pool. However, he thought there was little chance of financial support from Rushcliffe Borough Council but offered to speak to Michael Gove to get assurance that our campaign to save the pool will not jeopardise SNA's rebuild. 

On the morning of his surgery, our group received the official response from the RBC Chief Executive who advised RBC 'cannot make a financial commitment to support retaining the facility, but I am hopeful we can assist it identifying opportunities that might help achieve the petition's aspiration.'

Earlier that week, on Tuesday 18th March 2014 Radcliffe's first leisure committee meeting took place, with some parish and borough councillors present as well as representatives from the Residents Association, SNA, ROTSPA and Save Radcliffe Pool Group. The Parish Councillors started the meeting on the understanding that we all supported the proposal of new pool, however, the Save Radcliffe Pool group explained that they have not given up hope of saving the pool.

Eddy Fearon repeated what he had said at the petition submission in early March that the Borough Council are unable to support either saving the existing pool or 

building a new one and will not support a leisure centre in Radcliffe due to the perceived detrimental impact on other leisure facilities in Rushcliffe. There will be no money from Rushcliffe Borough council, as they are trying to close pools not open them, but he offered borough council input to look at funding options for a new pool.

The key question from ROTSPA and Save Radcliffe Pool group was is there actually any land for a new pool? Without land there is little point in moving forward with the committee. ROTSPA recommended a feasibility survey should take place to assess the possibility of building a new pool where SNA may offer land. SNA's Board of Governor's will contact RBC's Planning department to visit the site and make some observations of suitability for a pool and speak to a representative of Academy Trust about whether leasing land from the Trust is possible.

There was discussion about the cost of a new boiler and associated buildings that would be required if the existing pool could be saved. The meeting also discussed car parking and advised that any pool on the site would need to pay for its own parking. ROTSPA offered the possibility of funding to pay for a feasibility survey and Save Radcliffe Pool Group fed back briefly some options Carl Towner had suggested following his experience of setting up The Lenton Centre in Nottingham.

All agreed this group does not currently have a common purpose.

In the mean time, SNA's Chair Of Governor's committed to contacting RBC re: planned visit to school. School to update community of timescales from DfE for new build, SNA to ask if interested parties i.e. Save Radcliffe Pool, can be invited to any future meetings about new build and SNA to follow up with ROTSPA about i.e. how long pool can stay open.

Having recently lost two of our members, who we must thank for their time and efforts with the petition in January and February, we now require some more of the community to help with the project of researching funding/grants. Those left in the group have limited time available and so any other offers of help will be much appreciated, otherwise there may not be enough time to find out this information before the June/July planning processes in the summer. 

We look forward to hearing from some of you very soon!

Councillor Eddie Fearon sets his leisure agenda

Councillor Eddie Fearon approached members of the Save Radcliffe Pool group on Thursday 5th March at the RBC Council Meeting, before they were due to submit the petition on behalf of Radcliffe community. 

He had been investigating the cost of building a new leisure centre, which he said some of his constituents were asking for in Radcliffe on Trent. He had been advised that a new leisure centre would cost at least £2.2m. He was very clear that he could not support a leisure centre in Radcliffe on Trent because it would compromise the viability of the other leisure centres in the borough. Any new leisure centre would take custom away from the other sites and make them less viable.

The Save Radcliffe Pool group suggested that his comments added weight to saving the current leisure facilities already in place in the village. 

Petition speech to Council Meeting at RBC - 6th March 2014

Following the Radcliffe on Trent Parish Council Open Meeting in early February, the Save Radcliffe Pool group has met twice. At our first meeting, the group felt strongly that the community were not given the opportunity at the Open Meeting to discuss ways to save the pool; after initially being allowed time to express our views we were told that we should forget about saving the pool and look to start fundraising for a new one. 

However, we are not confident that the offer of land which Kay Cutts thought she had secured will come to fruition and, having compared the figures for keeping the current pool and building a new one, we believe our best chance of having a pool in the village is to find ways to keep the current pool.

We therefore agreed to continue our efforts, until all options had been exhausted and decided that the best place to submit our petition was to Rushcliffe Borough Council, who are in charge of leisure facilities in our borough.

On Thursday 6th March 2014 we were invited to submit our petition to the Council Meeting at Rushcliffe Borough Council Civic Centre. One of our group was allowed to speak for 5 minutes about our campaign before the petition was handed over. 

Here is the speech in full.
_______________________________________________________________

I am representing the views of the Radcliffe on Trent community on behalf of the Save Radcliffe Pool group, which was formed spontaneously following publication on 20 December 2013 of the South Nottinghamshire Academy's plan to close the community swimming pool as part of their much needed rebuild.

Our aims were:

a)   to explore how many others in the community feel as we do by the use of a petition, and

b)   to raise awareness of the circumstances surrounding the decision.

Our objectives to the pool closure have been

a)   to demonstrate the support in the community

b)   to encourage SNA to reconsider the closure of the pool, and

c)    to search for funding and seek alternatives to the current management of a pool in Radcliffe .

The Reasons for Objection are:

a)   Community involvement with fund raising for the original build 40+ years ago and since then the voluntary investment as lifeguards, assistants and trainers,

b)   Impact of losing life saving expertise in the area,

c)    Need/demand for leisure facilities in the village

d)   Negative impact on health and well-being of residents, as well as

e)   Consequences on hundreds of families who currently use the pool to learn to swim or to keep fit/socialise.

We are asking support from RBC, in advance of the planning processes in June/July, to ask the Education Funding Agency, DfE and SNA to:

• Reconsider the location of the rebuild, to leave the pool in place, by, for example a) finding the money for temporary classrooms (between £200-500k) or b) looking again at a 3 storey design
• Allow community access to the pool whilst ensuring safeguarding, and
• Give the residents time to search for funding and seek alternative commercial or charitable management of the facility. This includes a potential request to RBC for annual grant funding towards on-going running costs incurred by ROTSPA, the registered charity which has run and managed the pool for many years whilst most of the costs have been met by SNA.

The petition has shown considerable support for a pool in Radcliffe on Trent, as within only two months we have gathered 948 signatures, including around 10% of the village’s population. Interestingly, 16% of the signatures are from outside of the village, some saying that they choose to swim because of the pool’s temperature, cleanliness and teachers after being unhappy with standards at other neighbouring pools.

Our investigations show that the pool would only need around £100k investment initially and then estimated at circa £50k per annum to break even which is much more realistic than starting again and having to raise £2m+ for a new pool. The likelihood of being able to build another such facility in the village would be slim. Initial suggestions that land has been secured on the new SNA site are still to be confirmed.

In light of RBC’s on-going review of the provision of leisure facilities in the Borough, maintaining the existing pool in Radcliffe and providing limited funding towards its running costs would represent a very small amount of the future leisure costs for the borough, being much smaller running costs currently associated with other pools in the area. 

This would also help to redress the imbalance in funding for leisure facilities provided to Radcliffe residents over the 40 years of Rushcliffe’s existence compared with the significant sums incurred on expenditure in comparable sized locations such as Bingham, East Leake, Keyworth and Cotgrave, not to mention the disproportionate element of spending in West Bridgford.

Our community feel strongly that it is such a waste of a very good facility and some initial preliminary findings of the Radcliffe Community Plan Questionnaire indicate that residents are already asking for more rather than fewer leisure facilities in the village.

We would strongly urge RBC to review their funding of leisure facilities, to recognise that Radcliffe deserves a fairer share of the facilities across the borough. If we could gain regular financial support from RBC, we would be in a stronger position to show SNA that we could maintain this facility in the future.

Another way that RBC could show commitment to the village is to step forward and offer the £200-500k needed for temporary classrooms, which the DfE is not prepared to pay, hence why the pool gets knocked down because it will not cost them a penny to do so compared to other options.

We really appreciate being given the opportunity this evening, to tell you about our cause, and look forward to hearing from you in response to our petition very soon.

_______________________________________________________________________________

We have been advised that the chief executive will write to us in the near future responding to the petition. We will update you as soon as we hear more!

Minutes from Open Meeting 5th February 2014

Public Open Meeting: Radcliffe on Trent Pool Closure

7pm Grange Hall, 5^th February 2014

Minutes of Meeting

In Attendance

Radcliffe on Trent Parish Council Cllr David Smith – Chairman Cllr Roger Upton – Vice Chairman Jacki Grice – Parish Clerk	Rushcliffe Borough Council Cllr Eddie Fearon Cllr Neil Clarke MBE
Nottinghamshire County Council Cllr Kay Cutts MBE	South Nottinghamshire Academy Andrew George – Principal Dan Philpotts – Head of Academy Deborah Giles – Chair of Governors
Radcliffe on Trent Swimming Pool Association Ian Torr – Trustee Peter Clarke – Management Committee	Community Approx. 100 residents including some members of the Radcliffe on Trent Parish Council and the  Save Radcliffe Pool Group

Welcome

1.     The Chairman of the Parish Council welcomed all to the meeting and advised that it was an open public meeting and not a formal Parish Council meeting. Residents were introduced to representatives of relevant bodies present and the agenda for the meeting.

South Nottinghamshire Academy

2.     An overview was provided of the complex process of the proposed new school build. The school has been working with the Department for Education since October 2013 on the viability of the different layouts considered and the potential impacts each option would bring.

3.     The Government funded 'Priority Schools Building Programme' (which superseded the 'Building Schools for the Future Programme') remit is to prioritise buildings which are in disrepair with new basic but fit for purpose buildings. The previous programme funded bespoke designed schools, but this is no longer available under the current Government.

8 schools in the East Midlands have planned new builds and the contract is currently out to European tender handled by the DfE.
The approved contractor will then work with SNA on firm plans expected to be in place by summer 2014 for a September build start which will take approximately 18 months. 

4.     The two storey scheme chosen means the pool will have to be demolished. Three potential build options were considered and the complexities of the site already means that the project is ½ million pounds over budget.  Alternative schemes explored which kept the pool in place highlighted the following issues:

·       ½ million pound penalty included in the funding for the artificial pitch from the Football Foundation. This penalty would have to be incurred from the build budget if the new build is sited on the pitches.

·       If the school was located where the artificial pitch is, this would be in too close proximity to the A52.

·       Existing classroom blocks would be lost to make room for the new build, meaning temporary classrooms would be required. This additional cost would again have to be incurred from funds intended for the new build which is already modest as there is a need for a lot of space to be multi use.

·       The funding bid is based on accommodating 750 pupils and there are specific financial entitlements within funding costs available.

·       Access, site security and safeguarding issues

5.     The Governors ratified the difficult decision by the SNA and the DfE for the two storey Option C+ which will ensure that the educational needs of the pupils is not compromised as it is the only suitable scheme within budgetary constraints ensuring that the Academy can still operate during the build process.

6.     The historical relationship between the school and ROTPSA was advised. Noting that the pool was built by public subscription and in 1973 a lease agreement was formed with the County Council and ROTSPA and this agreement expired in 2011. The school became an Academy Trust but the relationship continues via informal contractual arrangements. The School has always financially supported the running of pool and overall running costs currently stand at around £50-£60k per annum.

                  Radcliffe on Trent Swimming Pool Association

7.     The organisation advised that they did apply for a lease extension in 2011 but it was deferred at that time. Current income levels from swim sessions and other income sources is approx. £24k per annum.  Current levels of usage per week =

·       66 adults

·       16 juniors

·       24 under 5's

·       200 (private session swims)

·       Plus school use ( 5 hours a week)

8.     ROTSPA is a group of volunteers and does not feel it has the management expertise or resources to run this or any other pool on a viable commercial basis. Since advised of the schools plans in Dec 2013 income is already compromised as pre-bookings for later dates cannot be taken with confidence.

It is clear that significant capital maintenance to extend the service life of the pool if it were to remain would be in excess of £120k.

Save Radcliffe Pool Group

9.     The group currently has 8 members and was formed on 20^th December 2013 upon hearing about the proposed pool closure. The group feels that the pool is an essential asset to the community as Radcliffe on Trent is in such close proximity to the River Trent.
Aims and Objectives of the Group
        - Explore community support (800 residents have signed a petition so far)

- Raise Awareness

- Seek SNA to re-consider the pool closure

- Seek an alternative

10.   The Group very much supports the new school build and has listened to the difficulties expressed by SNA but noted the potential housing growth in the village, which if it goes ahead would mean that more facilities are needed. The results of the Community Plan is also expected to highlight a growing demand for more leisure and recreational facilities. The view of the group is to save existing facilities, not to lose them.

Question & Answer Session

11.   Residents were invited to speak and ask questions, the following issues were highlighted:

12.   Swimming on the school curriculum – The school has no plans to change the swimming model even though it is not compulsory. There is a budget of £9k for each of the next two years for health and well-being activities. Pupils would be transported to neighbouring facilities.

13.   Safeguarding Issues – The new site layout is intended to provide  for community use and access in a designated area, making better use of the site, there is currently no opportunity for daytime access.

14.   Availability of Land – Other options within the village need exploring.

15.   Olympic Legacy – The scheme doesn't fit with the provision of community sport for all.

16.   Pressurised timeline – DfE is keen to push the build start in a rapid timeline due to Government pressures. The process started in October 2013 but due to all the complexities of the site and all the alternatives explored the final decision took until December 2013. There are concerns that any further delays may impact on the availability of the new build funding.

17.   Rushcliffe Leisure Facilities - West Bridgford Academy – No information available on their business model. Rushcliffe Pool – To be demolished for a new pool at the Arena, this was a strategic decision taken by RBC some time ago. There are currently 6 Public Swimming Pools in Rushcliffe and it was noted that the recommended ratio is actually only 2.

18.   Bingham Road Playing Fields Lease – The School continues to work with ROTSA, there have been no decisions taken on this area of land.

19.   Compensation for Loss of Facility – In essence a legal matter

20.   Funding - Section 106 Funds from New Housing Developments – long term consideration, all depends if/when houses are built.
               -Local Authority Funding – Unlikely due to budgetary constraints already in place,
there are already viability issues with existing Leisure Centres in the Borough.

Moving Forward

21.   The practicalities of keeping the existing pool is an obvious issue.

Matters to consider:

·       Compensation from SNA by way of land for community use made available within new build scheme (would it accommodate a new pool? Confirmation of available land yet to be determined?)

·       Is there any other areas of available land in the village?

·       Capital funding and running costs? Length of time to bid and receive funding?

·       Who would fund? Sport England is oversubscribed and Rushcliffe already exceeds the Swimming Pool ratio?

·       Steering Group to be set up to look into feasibility and exploration of all options?

·       Analyse results of the Community Plan, public demand for pool and or other leisure facilities?

·       Public referendum, public subscriptions?

·       What would be the capital cost of a replacement pool?

22.    ROTSPA were thanked for all their hard work operating the pool on a voluntary basis for the
 past 40 years.

23.   All present were asked to leave their contact details with the Parish Clerk if they wished to
                 be part of a Working Group to look into the feasibility, funding streams and investigations of
                 alternatives for a pool/leisure facilities in the village. The Parish Clerk would contact those interested
                 in due course to set up an initial meeting.

There being no further business the meeting closed at 8.50pm.