Skip to main content
Welcome Guest! You can not login or register.

Notification

Icon
Error
2 Pages12>
Swimming Pools
Options
Previous Topic Next Topic
David Butterworth
#1 Posted : 08 October 2008 09:36:10(UTC)
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 18/07/2008(UTC)
Posts: 5
How long have the council known about the closing of the Ilford pool?
And why is there this late knee jerk promise, to think about maybe one day, think about the possibility of another pool.
If your just thinking about thinking about it, it's at least 5 years off and will probably be forgotten.
Redbridge has been under served with pools for too many years, and now there's only one.
The council seems to me to make little or no effort to improve facilities for it's residents, and it just seems to talk about talks.
Back to top
VerlorenHoop
#2 Posted : 13 October 2008 17:26:23(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 18/07/2008(UTC)
Posts: 225
The reason for the sudden closure of the pool may be explained here,

http://www.redbridge.gov...62dd01e2&version=-1

I'm no surveyor, but it really looks like it would have been potentially disasterous to aloow the pool to remain open any longer once these details were known. My only bone of contention is why this report is, as you can see above version=1, is this the version for public consumption, whereas the version including the "bung" from developers is version=2 ????

Maybe I am just, as you say "putting the cat among the spilled milk"
Back to top
redimanager
#3 Posted : 14 October 2008 10:51:51(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 12/12/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,025
VerlorenHoop wrote:
as you can see above version=1, is this the version for public consumption, whereas the version including the "bung" from developers is version=2


Hi VerlorenHoop :)

Occasionally, documents require updating, if for example, a web address or contact details within it change. At this point, the newer version will appear on the site and would be given the URL ending in version=2,3,4,etc depending on how many times it has changed.

The url is automatically generated from the document management system that is in place. It allows the document manager to determine which version of the same document is being referenced on the site and it is not possible to have two different copies of the same document in the document archive at any one time.

The version shown relates only to when we upload updated versions of documents on the site, and has nothing to do with multiple copies of the same (or slightly different) document that may or may not exist. It is purely a way for the document archive and the site to "communicate" correctly and efficiently.

Sorry to spoil your fun


Redimanager
Back to top
TibbyToes
#4 Posted : 14 November 2008 13:38:24(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/01/2008(UTC)
Posts: 41
It's ridiculous that Redbridge now has only one pool to serve such a massive population.

I have to take my daughter to a pool in a different borough in order to go swimming. Absolutely appalling.
Back to top
Tyler Harrington
#5 Posted : 14 November 2008 17:28:33(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/01/2008(UTC)
Posts: 55
I agree.

LBR now has the worst provision for swimming in all of London

The borough has known about the Health + Safety concerns for years and yet no contingency plans have been made. This is yet another example of our council failing to do there job and provide for the people who pay there wages.
Back to top
 |  Edit by user
desi
#6 Posted : 25 March 2009 23:26:29(UTC)
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 17/03/2009(UTC)
Posts: 6
Hi all,

The report on the Seven Kings swimming pool said that it was very dangerous to keep it open unless major repairs were done. However in its recomendation it says that it would be uneconomical to repair and hence it has been closed down with no viable alternative. The question that comes to mind is "How much is uneconomical". Todays recorder says that there is no money (£35 million) for the new all singing all dancing leisure centre. If we knew what uneconomical meant then surely the cabinet could make an informed choice of whether to procrastinate over the £35 million or repair the existing pool with a potentially a much lower uneconomical amount!
Back to top
mcryan
#7 Posted : 26 March 2009 13:20:32(UTC)
Rank: Member

Joined: 12/05/2008(UTC)
Posts: 12
Would be interesting to know the answer to that one...

It was known for years that the building needed drastic repair and no effective resource or planning appear to have been invested in this - a damning indictment of our leisure services; it seems the 'good stuff' only happens when outsiders become involved - such as Valentines Mansion, the new cycle track + improvements (long overdue) at Fairlop.
Back to top
VerlorenHoop
#8 Posted : 26 March 2009 17:43:29(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 18/07/2008(UTC)
Posts: 225
Perhaps a visit from a 2012 supremo to say that our young people will not be in a position to compete if they do not have any facilities in which to gain an enjoyment of swimming, and later to practise. Can we please have Lord Coe's mobile number ? Or even I hesitate to say this, but get Boris involved ?
Back to top
redimanager
#14 Posted : 27 March 2009 15:49:25(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 12/12/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,025
Hi Velorenhoop, if your last post was tongue in cheek? we have to be helpful, submitted a request to The London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Ltd (LOCOG) to ask if Lord Coe would take a look at the forum thread and perhaps take note of the discussions and concerns raised by our users and residents. We can only wait to see if Lord Coe or his Office decide if they'd like to have a say themselves! Regards, Redimanager
Back to top
vfmctax
#9 Posted : 27 March 2009 17:45:12(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 15/05/2008(UTC)
Posts: 186
VerlorenHoop wrote:
Perhaps a visit from a 2012 supremo to say that our young people will not be in a position to compete if they do not have any facilities in which to gain an enjoyment of swimming, and later to practise. Can we please have Lord Coe's mobile number ? Or even I hesitate to say this, but get Boris involved ?


i think we're more than entitled to a visit from lord coe(not boris as it's not his fault he got saddled with the olympics by ken) as £625 million of londoners money of which each band d householder in redbridge is/has been/will be contributing £ 20 a year until 2017 and for what? will redbridge residents actually benefit from the olympics. it seems that some boroughs will benefit a lot more than others and to my mind should bear more of the cost.
Back to top
desi
#15 Posted : 30 March 2009 09:23:12(UTC)
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 17/03/2009(UTC)
Posts: 6
Redbridge has built new schools to meet the increasing demand for available school places (The impending Academy at Cricklefields, ironically to be built on the site of two astro-turfs and the sports hall at Cricklefields!) however rather than build new services to support these new builds the existing services are being eroded away, i.e. swimming pool, sports fields etc. Consider the following points that have been totally ignored and swept under the credit crunch carpet, where everone is burying bad news at the moment;

• The National Curriculum stipulates that all children should be able to swim at least 25 metres by the age of 11. – How is this going to be achieved?
• Ofsted says "too little time for swimming; staff unable to get children to overcome fear of water in available time; inappropriate curriculum; poor leadership and management."
• Sport England recommends a ratio of 30,000 people per swimming pool. Redbridge has at a conservative estimate, population of around 250000 people, that’s a ratio of one pool to about 250,000 people! – Can we have another 7 (yes seven) pools?

I understand that Redbridge needs to cut its cloth according to what it can afford; but it’s neither pragmatic nor sensible to sway from one end of the spectrum to the other. For 6 years we have been blinded by illusions of grandeur that have been presented to us, now we are told we can’t afford it, and plan B is, well there is no plan B. On one hand we are trying to increase the demand for sporting activities in the borough, on the other we are shutting down the those very facilities that will drive that demand. If we want more people doing sport we need more facilities.

Come on Redbridge, the penny has to drop soon; someone has to have that light bulb moment and realise that we can’t keep building houses and schools (which are needed) without the associated services that form the fabric of society. If we haven’t got the money for the leisure centre at least have the wisdom to find an alternative, simply shrugging your shoulders and blaming it on the credit crunch is not good enough.
Back to top
VerlorenHoop
#16 Posted : 30 March 2009 12:35:37(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 18/07/2008(UTC)
Posts: 225
If you're reading this Lord Coe, may I first say I thought you were brilliant in "Brideshead Revisited". But seriously, the Ilford pool saga has dragged on for too long now. I think there should have been plans in place for a replacement a long time before the old pool was condemned as it was quite obvious that it wouldn't be long before the old one was past it. the fact that it closed a few months before expected doesn't mean that plans should not have already been made.
Back to top
dopeyf
#17 Posted : 30 March 2009 13:30:05(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 29/07/2007(UTC)
Posts: 554
Cllr Huggett said, “While we appreciate the need to impress a worldwide audience, £251million is an excessive amount to spend on the design and building of what is clearly intended to be an iconic structure.

“A fraction of that amount would enable us to build a much-needed modern, fully equipped leisure facility in the south of our borough.”

There a number of people in the borough who think £38m or £25M is an excessive amount to spend on the design and building of what is clearly intended to be an iconic structure

The Lead Leisure Officer managed to buy a swimming pool for £4.5 million when he worked at Newport, why dont we get this option, rather than an all singing all dancing Leisure Centre which we patently cant afford?
Back to top
desi
#19 Posted : 14 April 2009 10:42:35(UTC)
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 17/03/2009(UTC)
Posts: 6
Just seen this on the Ilford Recorder site:

(COUNCIL chiefs have been given an ultimatum by the man who holds the covenant for the Ilford swimming pool site - you can build your academy but the baths must stay.
Baron Rowallan met with council officers and members of Redbridge Swimmers Association on Friday at the site of the pool in High Road, Ilford and issued a strong message of support for the pool.
"I will not give permission for that building to be knocked down and something like shops built in its place," he told the Recorder.
"It's very important for the community for there to be access to swimming.")


Maybe, just maybe, the delusions of grandeur can be replaced with something more practical like a replacement pool which we can afford! Its sad that these people will not listen unless forced into a corner with no alternatives.
Back to top
dopeyf
#20 Posted : 14 July 2009 12:34:42(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 29/07/2007(UTC)
Posts: 554
It is interesting that Bristol are having a new leisure centre and a 50m pool and a learner pool all for £22million
http://www.thisisbristol...829-detail/article.html

"Swimmers have reacted with dismay to news that two pools in south Bristol will close to make may for the Hengrove Healthplex.
Plans to build an Olympic-sized swimming pool in Hengrove moved a step closer last week when the city council announced its preferred developer for the scheme.
The £22 million leisure centre is set to include a 10-lane pool – the biggest in the South West – as well as a learner pool, a gym, a fitness education zone, a cafe and a creche."

Why is it that Bristol can manage to buy what Redbridge wants but for £22 million and not £35 million as Redbridge predicate.
Back to top
cllrbond
#22 Posted : 14 July 2009 13:34:52(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 01/10/2007(UTC)
Posts: 124
A good question - particularly as the last figure we were given for the original proposal was £38m and I expect would have passed £40m by now.

However the better news is that the new administration has finally accepted that a single leisure project of this scale is not a realistic prospect given the financial position of the Council. Despite this having been perfectly obvious from the beginning we should of course welcome this new reality. The Leader is quoted in the local press as saying that he is willing to look for a more affordable proposal, so watch this space....
Back to top
dopeyf
#18 Posted : 14 July 2009 17:06:40(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 29/07/2007(UTC)
Posts: 554
dopeyf wrote:


The Lead Leisure Officer managed to buy a swimming pool for £4.5 million when he worked at Newport, why dont we get this option, rather than an all singing all dancing Leisure Centre which we patently cant afford?


The council has the answer within its own ranks
Back to top
Morris Hickey
#23 Posted : 14 July 2009 19:04:53(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 06/06/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,400
Location: Too close to Redbridge-i censorship
cllrbond wrote:
A good question - particularly as the last figure we were given for the original proposal was £38m and I expect would have passed £40m by now.

However the better news is that the new administration has finally accepted that a single leisure project of this scale is not a realistic prospect given the financial position of the Council. Despite this having been perfectly obvious from the beginning we should of course welcome this new reality. The Leader is quoted in the local press as saying that he is willing to look for a more affordable proposal, so watch this space....


Yes, but the current Cabinet Member for Leisure is hardly a break with the past.
Back to top
VerlorenHoop
#24 Posted : 15 July 2009 11:43:03(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 18/07/2008(UTC)
Posts: 225
I saw a rather innovative idea on my travels a while back, a warehouse/factory unit had been converted into a swimming pool, albeit only 25 metres, but almost as wide, with plenty of room for a good number of swimmers. I don't know how much it cost, but doubt it was very much at all when compared with the £35M+ we are talking about. I can't find anything online about the likely costs, but it may be an option for the short term until we can find the money and will to build what we all need.
Back to top
vfmctax
#25 Posted : 15 July 2009 16:26:24(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 15/05/2008(UTC)
Posts: 186
VerlorenHoop wrote:
but it may be an option for the short term until we can find the money and will to build what we all need.


which means it will be wasted money. if we're going to spend money it should be on something that's going to last and be low maintainance.
Back to top
Rss Feed  Atom Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
Powered by YAF | YAF © 2003-2011, Yet Another Forum.NET

All areas