Agenda item

For Members to debate a Borough Petition.

Ahead of the substantive items of the agenda Madam Mayor advised Council that in accordance with Paragraphs 1.2 and 3.5 of Part 4A of the Constitution she would vary the order of the agenda to consider item 11 (Recommendations of Cabinet to Council) following Croydon Question Time. As such, the order items were considered at the meeting was as follows:

 

·       Item 6 – The Croydon Debate

·       Item 7 – Croydon Question Time

·       Item 11 – Recommendations of Cabinet to Council for Decision

·       Item 8 – Member Petitions

·       Item 9 – Annual Reports

 

Council were advised that with the agreement of the Group Whips the time allowed for the three pools of questions to Cabinet Members had been reduced to 20 minutes each. Madam Mayor thanked the Whips for all their work in reaching cross party agreement on the process to be taken at the meeting to allow for additional time to be given to the debate on the Croydon Renewal Plan and Strategic Review of Companies.

 

Madam Mayor noted that the petition to be discussed had been validated and in accordance with the provisions in Part 4A of the Constitution and invited the Council Solicitor to read the borough petition which read:

 

“I support the Purley and Woodcote and Purley Oaks and Riddlesdown councillors’ campaign to save Purley Pool and Leisure Centre and call on Croydon Council to save them from closure."

 

Ms Theresa Paul, as the lead petitioner, was invited by Madam Mayor to address Council on the petition.

 

Ms Theresa Paul stated Purley Pool was close to her heart, having used the pool since she had been born and having taught a number of children to learn to swim there. Concerns were raised that without a pool in Purley there would be a large impact on people’s access to local pool facilities, including schools which had a statutory responsibility to teach pupils to swim 25 metres unaided. This, it was noted, was an important lifesaving skill and the pool in Purley enabled schools in the south of the borough to provide this training.

 

Council were informed that the average school’s journey time to Purley pool 32 minutes each way on public transport.  If schools were required to use the pool at Waddon leisure centre the journey time would increase to, an average, 52 minutes each way.  The increased journey time, it was stated, would be at the cost of another area of the curriculum. Furthermore, private pools in the area were not 25 metres and were more expensive to hire.

 

Ms Paul stressed that she would like all residents to have equal access to a local pool and the closure of Purley pool would impact not just schools, but all local residents who used the pool.

It was noted, that Swim England had issued research which showed that swimming was ideal for those who could not exercise on firm ground and improved a person’s ability to concentrate and supported the management of long term conditions such as ADHD, obesity and dementia.

 

Furthermore, it was stated that research had shown that swimming had been proven to reduce the symptoms of anxiety or depression for 1.4 million adults in Britain and that over half a million adults with mental health conditions, who swam, said they had a reduced number of visits to health professionals due to swimming.

 

Ms Paul concluded that she, like many others, were keen for swimming facilities to be available now and in the future as a key element in the education of children and as a much needed facility for many adults.

 

The Cabinet Member for Culture & Regeneration, Councillor Lewis, thanked Ms Paul and all the residents who had signed the petition and stressed that their commitment to the local community and local facilities was commendable.

 

Council were advised that Croydon had been through ten years of austerity, underfunding with the council receiving £200 less per person than Lambeth and there had also been the unprecedented impact of covid-19. These factors, it was stated, had a huge impact on the council’s financial position and a Section 114 Notice had been issued. It was necessary for the council to make extremely tough decisions to dramatically reduce the council’s expenditure. Furthermore, the leisure partner, GLL, had additionally been impacted financially by the pandemic.

 

The Cabinet Member stated that considering the above financial position the council was having to consider the sustainability of the leisure contract as a whole, rather than on a site specific basis. It was noted that across the contract some facilities created a surplus and others required subsidies to operate. Initially, at the beginning of 2020 loss making facilities could be subsidised by those which made profits, such as Purley leisure centre which had required a subsidy of £180,000 per annum, however the impact of covid-19 meant the Cabinet Member was unable to provide assurances as to the future of Purley leisure centre. The contract as a whole was being reviewed and the council had been applying for funding and support were possible. Facilities would operate in a more limited way to reduce costs and some potentially, it was stated by the Cabinet Member, may need to close. Purley leisure centre was one such facility which was being considered.

 

The Cabinet Member recognised that residents would need to change routines to access facilities and it may present some challenges but the Administration was required to make decisions in the best interest of the financial sustainability of the council. The Cabinet Member concluded that the council may consider community models of operation which were cost neutral to the council and felt that it was important that all involved looked to the future and started the conversation with residents about the future ambition of having a new facility in the south of the borough.

 

Councillor Quadir noted that whilst other pools in the borough had reopened following the first lockdown during the pandemic, Purley pool had not. This was questioned as Councillor Quadir stated that in his opinion the pool structure was sound and the facility was very popular.

 

It was noted that thousands of residents had signed the petition and that it was important that the council listened to residents. The elderly and vulnerable used the pool and it was an integral facility for school children to learn lifesaving skills. Additionally, many residents used the pool to keep fit and healthy and it was stated by Councillor Quadir that, now more than ever, it was vital to keep fit and as such it was, in his opinion, as disgrace that a much loved and utilised facility would be considered for closure.

 

Councillor Quadir questioned why the health and happiness of Purley residents mattered less than the residents of Waddon or New Addington. Furthermore, Councillor Quadir stressed that closing the pool was not only against the wishes of local people but it was also against the council’s duty to protect the services residents rely upon.

 

It was stated by Councillor Quadir that the Labour Administration was proposing to shut libraries, recycling centres, reduce the number of social workers, streets cleaners and close Purley pool due to financial strategies which had seen the council’s debt rise to £1.5 billion.

 

Councillor Quadir concluded by asking whether the Administration would work with Conservative councillors and the community to save Purley pool or whether it would close the facility and sell it to developers.

 

Councillor Flynn commended the supported of the petition and stressed that she sympathised with their desire to protect a much loved facility.  Councillor Flynn explained that there were four pools open at the time of the meeting in the borough, (Thornton Heath, New Addington, South Norwood and Waddon).  Croydon’s comparator borough, Ealing, also had four pools open.

 

Councillor Flynn referenced the Cabinet Member’s response to the petition that prior to the pandemic GLL, who ran the leisure contract in Croydon, was turning a profit in other facilities in the borough.  This had enabled Purley pool to be subsidised.  For the majority of the year GLL had not been fully functional with restrictions in place requiring full or partial closure of facilities. Whilst the council had worked to support GLL during this period Purley pool had consistently ran at a loss of £180,000 per year.

 

It was noted by Councillor Flynn that due to site restrictions it was not possible to redevelop the leisure or enlarge the gym facilities, which would support subsidising the running of the pool. It was further noted that the facility required considerable investment.  The air handling system and balance tanks required replacement at a cost of £200,000; which could not be covered by the council or GLL.

 

Councillor Flynn concluded by acknowledging the work of Members and residents to present the petition and their clear concerns for the local community. Whilst it would be sad to lose the facility, Councillor Flynn stated there was a high quality facility at Waddon leisure centre which was 16 minute journey on the 289 bus which was popular with residents and school children.

 

It was stated by Councillor Redfern that Purley town centre served as a hub for the south of the borough and served around a quarter of the borough’s population. The statutory duty of schools to ensure all 11 year olds can swim 25 metres unaided and the role of community swimming pools to facilitate meeting that requirement was highlighted by Councillor Redfern. By closing down the pool, which was used by at least ten schools, would restrict opportunities to ensure the safety of children.

 

Councillor Redfern further noted the need for all to remain fit and healthy and the location of Purley pool gave residents in the area, who were unable to do alternative exercise, an opportunity to remain fit. It was noted the Enterprise Swimming Club had provided swimming activities for the disabled at Purley pool since 1982. Concerns were raised that those who had previously taken part in the clubs activities had been without exercise for over nine months and the council, had not discussed alternative venues with the club. Furthermore, Councillor Redfern stated the pool in Purley brought people to the district centre and its closure would have an impact on the local economy.

 

Concerns were raised that for residents of Sanderstead, Kenley or Coulsdon a round trip to Waddon or New Addington would require taking two or three buses. This could take up to two and a half hours, which would not be practical for primary schools. It was stressed the council should be making exercise easier and not harder.

 

Councillor Redfern stated Purley leisure centre had been underfunded and investment in the centre had not taken place during the previous six years and the council had not sought to access alternative funding streams, such as £250m released by Sports England earlier that year.

 

In response to the suggestion by the Cabinet Member that the community should look to the future of a swimming pool in the south of the borough, Councillor Redfern stated that until there was planning permission and ring fenced funding for such a project the people of Purley would not understand the closure of the current facility. Councillor Redfern concluded by reminding Council that in January 2015 it had unanimously voted to keep Purley pool open and appealed to Members that they should not renegade on that decision.

 

Madam Mayor invited Ms Colette Luke to speak as one of the lead petitioners.

 

Ms Colette Luke informed Council that she was representing the children of St Aidan’s who had passionately organised the ‘Walk to Save Purley Pool’ campaign which had been inspired by their role models; Captain Tom Moore and Marcus Rashford. Quotes were read out by Ms Luke from the children who had been involved in the campaign:

 

Jeremy: "Swimming is the only sport that saves lives. I need to practice at Purley pool. One day, I might be in a situation where I need to save my life or someone else's, keep Purley pool open. It's a matter of life or death."

 

Tye: "With COVID, lots of mums and dads have lost their jobs. We don't have money now. This summer, we'll have nothing to look forward to. At least if we have Purley pool, we can still have some fun with our friends." 

 

Abigail: "I watched the news. And I saw that some adults at Croydon Council have made bad decisions about money. That's their fault. And it's not fair that Purley pool is shut and all the children should suffer." 

 

Natalie: "Before lockdown, we used to go every Thursday with our teachers for our swimming at Purley pool. We shared our pool time with a group of disabled people. They used to see us and always smiled and waved at us. I'm so sad that I can't go swimming anymore, but I feel even sadder for them." 

 

Robin: "I live in a flat. There are lots of flats in Coulsdon and Purley. Getting exercise at Purley pool is even more important when people don't have a garden." 

 

Isadora: "My mum told me a very sad story. There was a girl and a boy and their dad and they all drowned in a swimming pool last year when they were on holiday in Spain. That family were from London like us, I think if Purley pool closes forever and the children can't practice their swimming anymore, I feel really scared that that could happen to someone I know around here." 

 

Ms Luke, informed Members that while the children were planning their campaign they had asked whether Purley pool had been open when she had been a child.  She had explained that it had opened when she was their age and how excited she had been to have somewhere local to swim and meet friends. Ms Luke, reflected that she felt sad that if all present at the meeting were champions for the children of Croydon then it was important to ensure children had the same, if not better, provision as they had enjoyed growing up.

 

Madam Mayor invited the Cabinet Member for Culture & Regeneration to respond to the matters raised during the debate.

 

The Cabinet Member for Culture & Regeneration expressed that it had been good to meet with some of the ‘Save Purley Pool’ campaigners, the previous evening, and welcomed the discussion at the Council meeting. Whilst the Cabinet Member stated he had heard the concerns of the petitioners he noted that the council were in a position where it could no longer subsidise the facility.

 

The Cabinet Member committed to continue dialogue with the petitioners and thanked them for raising the voices of the pupils of St Aidans and offered to visit the school and speak with the children.

 

Madam Mayor asked the Cabinet Member for Culture & Regeneration to summarise the Administration’s next steps on the matter.

 

In addition to continuing the conversation with residents in the south of the borough and potentially visiting St Aidan’s to meet the children who had been part of the campaign, the Cabinet Member for Culture & Regeneration restated his commitment to working with the community in Purley to investigate potential alternative models for operating the leisure centre.  This   would be cost neutral to the council and discuss the potential for new facilities in the south of the borough.

 

Madam Mayor informed Council that in accordance with Paragraph 3.18.5, subsection 8 of Part 4A of the Constitution that the debate was brought to a close and that there was no vote on the item. The petitioners were thanked for their participation in the meeting.