The Save Victoria Baths campaign have learnt that Nottingham City Council intend to close Victoria Leisure Centre on 31 March 2010, despite having no approved plans for development and no planning permission to demolish what is already there and in contravention of the wishes of local residents. On Saturday (6 February) the campaign are organising a march from Market Square to Sneinton Market to protest against the plans. In order to find out what's going on, I interviewed one of the campaigners.
1) Can you set out the background to recent developments? What was the situation before the council's recent announcement?
In April 09 the council approved a plan to demolish 95% of the current building and replace it with a new building against the wishes of the majority consulted. They put money in place to keep the current centre open until March 2011. A few days before Christmas we learned that, without public announcement or any further consultation, the council were going to close the centre on April 1st 2010, before any new plans for development had been submitted for a planning permission, a process which allows members of the public to comment on new designs and which involves seeking permission for the government to demolish what is already there.
2) What has been the role of the Save Victoria Baths campaign in all this?
Exposing the council's double dealings, firstly by making people aware that if the centre shuts and no plans are in place, there is nothing to stop the council simply allowing the building to become derelict; secondly by forcing the council to come clean about its actions (they haven't, preferring to hide behind fluffy pr statements); and thirdly by reminding people that the majority voted for modernising what is already there, not to knock it down.
3) What has been the reaction to this new development?
The council have as usual tried to say that they represent the views of the majority who want the centre to close and be demolished to make way for the new building, which will be smaller, offer fewer facilities and lose all of the things that the community enjoy about the current facility such as the Turkish baths, the sports hall and the big pool. There are simply no facts to support the council's view. There are a great many people who feel both cheated and belittled by the council's conduct.
4) The council is apparently intending to replace Victoria Baths which, as the campaign website puts it, "offers fewer facilities, will cost more to run and end up being private." Do you have any opinions on why this is being pushed for?
It is to release land for development. The footprint of the current building is large and sprawling and the council thinks that it doesn't lend itself easily to regeneration. With a smaller more 'blocked' site far more land (especially the prime bits on Bath St) becomes available. However this is an intellectually lazy view of regeneration and completely disregards the local communities wishes for the facilities it pays for with Its council tax.
5) What's your relationship with the council been like?
We are struggling to find common ground at the moment.
6) Do you have any relationship with other local campaigns against council cuts (Stonebridge, Wilford and Beechdale libraries etc.)?
We have close links to Stonebridge.
7) Does the campaign have any plans beyond the 6th February demo?
Yes – we are presenting a petition of all signatories against the closure at the next council meeting on Feb 8th.
8) What can readers do to support the campaign?
Sign the petition on our website www.savevictoriabaths.org.uk and turn up to the march on sat with goggles!
In April 09 the council approved a plan to demolish 95% of the current building and replace it with a new building against the wishes of the majority consulted. They put money in place to keep the current centre open until March 2011. A few days before Christmas we learned that, without public announcement or any further consultation, the council were going to close the centre on April 1st 2010, before any new plans for development had been submitted for a planning permission, a process which allows members of the public to comment on new designs and which involves seeking permission for the government to demolish what is already there.
2) What has been the role of the Save Victoria Baths campaign in all this?
Exposing the council's double dealings, firstly by making people aware that if the centre shuts and no plans are in place, there is nothing to stop the council simply allowing the building to become derelict; secondly by forcing the council to come clean about its actions (they haven't, preferring to hide behind fluffy pr statements); and thirdly by reminding people that the majority voted for modernising what is already there, not to knock it down.
3) What has been the reaction to this new development?
The council have as usual tried to say that they represent the views of the majority who want the centre to close and be demolished to make way for the new building, which will be smaller, offer fewer facilities and lose all of the things that the community enjoy about the current facility such as the Turkish baths, the sports hall and the big pool. There are simply no facts to support the council's view. There are a great many people who feel both cheated and belittled by the council's conduct.
4) The council is apparently intending to replace Victoria Baths which, as the campaign website puts it, "offers fewer facilities, will cost more to run and end up being private." Do you have any opinions on why this is being pushed for?
It is to release land for development. The footprint of the current building is large and sprawling and the council thinks that it doesn't lend itself easily to regeneration. With a smaller more 'blocked' site far more land (especially the prime bits on Bath St) becomes available. However this is an intellectually lazy view of regeneration and completely disregards the local communities wishes for the facilities it pays for with Its council tax.
5) What's your relationship with the council been like?
We are struggling to find common ground at the moment.
6) Do you have any relationship with other local campaigns against council cuts (Stonebridge, Wilford and Beechdale libraries etc.)?
We have close links to Stonebridge.
7) Does the campaign have any plans beyond the 6th February demo?
Yes – we are presenting a petition of all signatories against the closure at the next council meeting on Feb 8th.
8) What can readers do to support the campaign?
Sign the petition on our website www.savevictoriabaths.org.uk and turn up to the march on sat with goggles!
Closure has always been the plan
03.02.2010 16:34
WARDS AFFECTED: Item No:
ALL
CULTURAL & COMMUNITY SERVICES STRATEGIC BOARD
28th March 2002
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF LEISURE AND COMMUNITY SERVICES
NOTTINGHAM CITY LEISURE MANAGEMENT
BEST VALUE REVIEW
1. SUMMARY
1.1. This report provides the results of the Best Value Inspection of Leisure Management undertaken by the Best Value Inspection Service between 3rd and 7th December 2001.
1.2. The report has been prepared by the Audit Commission under Section 10 of the Local Government Act 1999 and issued in accordance with its duty under Section 13 of the 1999 Act and was published on 12th March 2002. (Copy attached as appendix).
[...]
From above document - point 155:
* The Leisure 2000 strategy identified as surplus to requirements:
* Bestwood Swimming Pool;
* Northern Swimming Pool;
* Victoria Leisure Centre;
* Lenton Swimming Pool;
* Elliott Durham Swimming Pool;
* Portland Leisure Centre; and
* Noel Street Leisure Centre (main pool).
Northern Baths has already gone of course in spite of a long campaign to save it - it was let rot for years making it being more and more easy to justify closure on economic grounds. Noel Street was fought for. The idea of a leisure complex on the Forest was mooted by previous Leader of NCC John Taylor as a replacement for facilities to be closed but noone ever trusted the council to go ahead and would in any case have meant the loss of 5 a side pitches.
Also from above document:
"149 There was a strong belief that the only acceptable way to close any of the old facilities was by building new ones, such as the proposed new centre on the Forest Recreation Ground, for example we heard of:
Reluctance to shut Victoria and Noel Street before the Forest Leisure Centre has been built because ‘promises have been given’."
Not surprising then that the promise of a new facility as per
is being greeting with skepticism.
anarchist
Homepage:
http://www.afed.org.uk/nottingham