Talks over Temple Cowley Pools closure

Miah Bunyan, five, front, with aunt Kayleigh Shaw and campaigners, including Nigel Gibson, in the blue-and-white shirt, at Temple Cowley Pools

Miah Bunyan, five, front, with aunt Kayleigh Shaw and campaigners, including Nigel Gibson, in the blue-and-white shirt, at Temple Cowley Pools

First published in News

THE decision to close Temple Cowley Pools will be discussed today.

Campaigners have submitted a petition to Oxford City Council asking it to work with them to keep the facilites in Temple Road open.

Under the council’s constitution, petitions with more than 1,500 signatures must be debated by full council.

Nigel Gibson’s petition, which has 1,587 signatures, reads: “We the undersigned strongly oppose Oxford City Council’s plan to demolish Temple Cowley Pools and Fitness Centre in order to sell publicly owned land for housing.

“We believe this is a short-sighted, destructive policy which will have detrimental effects on health and well-being, particularly of the most vulnerable people who use the centre to maintain their health and quality of life.”

The city council has said it has to close Temple Cowley Pools because it is too expensive to keep running it and it is no longer fit for purpose.

It has designated the pool as a community asset which means campaigners have an opportunity to purchase the facility in the next six months.

The meeting of the council will take place in the town hall in St Aldate’s tonight at 5pm.

Related links

Comments (11)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:23am Mon 14 Apr 14

HomerSimpsonDoh says...

How many of those signatures are fake???
How many of those signatures are fake??? HomerSimpsonDoh
  • Score: 0

11:16am Mon 14 Apr 14

Andrew:Oxford says...

There isn't much to discuss really.

Although one of the bidders, who are planning on building apartments on the site, submitting a petition condemning apartments being built on the site is probably one of the most bizarre conflicts and a bit of a talking point...

I use mirror resources for checking Companies House data, so they may be a week or so out-of-date, but as far as I can see, none of the leading protestors at SaveTCP have registered as a director of a property/leisure Newco in recent weeks. For anyone genuinely planning on being involved in a multi-million pound property development - creating a vehicle to do so would be a good start to the venture...
There isn't much to discuss really. Although one of the bidders, who are planning on building apartments on the site, submitting a petition condemning apartments being built on the site is probably one of the most bizarre conflicts and a bit of a talking point... I use mirror resources for checking Companies House data, so they may be a week or so out-of-date, but as far as I can see, none of the leading protestors at SaveTCP have registered as a director of a property/leisure Newco in recent weeks. For anyone genuinely planning on being involved in a multi-million pound property development - creating a vehicle to do so would be a good start to the venture... Andrew:Oxford
  • Score: 0

12:25am Tue 15 Apr 14

SaveTCP says...

Trolls abounding again. All the signatures on this petition, like those on the six preceding ones, are from members of the public who want health and fitness facilities kept where people want and need them, at Temple Cowley.

Great that our Oxford Andrew has so much time on his (her?) hands that they want to track what the Campaign is doing. But if you were that good at it you would know what the Council's obligations are under the Localism Act for a Right to Bid, and would then know exactly what is happening at the moment.
Trolls abounding again. All the signatures on this petition, like those on the six preceding ones, are from members of the public who want health and fitness facilities kept where people want and need them, at Temple Cowley. Great that our Oxford Andrew has so much time on his (her?) hands that they want to track what the Campaign is doing. But if you were that good at it you would know what the Council's obligations are under the Localism Act for a Right to Bid, and would then know exactly what is happening at the moment. SaveTCP
  • Score: 1

7:30am Tue 15 Apr 14

Andrew:Oxford says...

SaveTCP wrote:
Trolls abounding again. All the signatures on this petition, like those on the six preceding ones, are from members of the public who want health and fitness facilities kept where people want and need them, at Temple Cowley.

Great that our Oxford Andrew has so much time on his (her?) hands that they want to track what the Campaign is doing. But if you were that good at it you would know what the Council's obligations are under the Localism Act for a Right to Bid, and would then know exactly what is happening at the moment.
You clearly have backing for "SaveTCP NewCo" - the 30 or so new apartments you are planning for the site will be much welcomed by people seeking a home in the area.

There are two sides to this purchase though, the councils obligations are clear, I'm more interested in what SaveTCP (Newco) are doing - but for some reason you're not keen on a dual/balanced focus between the groups.

SaveTCP have often condemned the use of a charity vehicle to operate leisure facilities in Oxford, so clearly they are unlikely to go down this route themselves - so a Limited Company will be the most likely route...

There are clearly other stakeholders who will be interested, particularly the current staff. SaveTCP (NewCo) have yet to publish their intentions in this regard. Will it be your intention to TUPE the staff over, what will happen to their pensions?

I note that the placard raised by Nigel Gibson repeats the regular legacy SaveTCP lie about the local authority closing Oxfordshire's only diving pool. Just in case Nigel had forgotten (again). There is a lovely diving pool within a short cycle of the OX1 postcode area. It's open to the public and a quick google search will help anyone in Oxfordshire who is interested in diving get lessons.

As to gender, it's not the first time SaveTCP have questioned what mine is. So here is a question or two that SaveTCP may wish to avoid answering...

Does legacy SaveTCP / "SaveTCP Newco" place a great deal of importance on the gender of the people they interact with? If so, which one is their preference?

It'll probably be helpful to anyone who might apply to work for you or tender for your business if they know their application may fall at the first hurdle.

Personally, it is of no interest to me what the past or current gender of a colleague or any professional that I engage with is.
[quote][p][bold]SaveTCP[/bold] wrote: Trolls abounding again. All the signatures on this petition, like those on the six preceding ones, are from members of the public who want health and fitness facilities kept where people want and need them, at Temple Cowley. Great that our Oxford Andrew has so much time on his (her?) hands that they want to track what the Campaign is doing. But if you were that good at it you would know what the Council's obligations are under the Localism Act for a Right to Bid, and would then know exactly what is happening at the moment.[/p][/quote]You clearly have backing for "SaveTCP NewCo" - the 30 or so new apartments you are planning for the site will be much welcomed by people seeking a home in the area. There are two sides to this purchase though, the councils obligations are clear, I'm more interested in what SaveTCP (Newco) are doing - but for some reason you're not keen on a dual/balanced focus between the groups. SaveTCP have often condemned the use of a charity vehicle to operate leisure facilities in Oxford, so clearly they are unlikely to go down this route themselves - so a Limited Company will be the most likely route... There are clearly other stakeholders who will be interested, particularly the current staff. SaveTCP (NewCo) have yet to publish their intentions in this regard. Will it be your intention to TUPE the staff over, what will happen to their pensions? I note that the placard raised by Nigel Gibson repeats the regular legacy SaveTCP lie about the local authority closing Oxfordshire's only diving pool. Just in case Nigel had forgotten (again). There is a lovely diving pool within a short cycle of the OX1 postcode area. It's open to the public and a quick google search will help anyone in Oxfordshire who is interested in diving get lessons. As to gender, it's not the first time SaveTCP have questioned what mine is. So here is a question or two that SaveTCP may wish to avoid answering... Does legacy SaveTCP / "SaveTCP Newco" place a great deal of importance on the gender of the people they interact with? If so, which one is their preference? It'll probably be helpful to anyone who might apply to work for you or tender for your business if they know their application may fall at the first hurdle. Personally, it is of no interest to me what the past or current gender of a colleague or any professional that I engage with is. Andrew:Oxford
  • Score: 0

9:02pm Tue 15 Apr 14

SaveTCP says...

Trolling again. Well Andrew, whatever your gender, if you wanted to find out more, you (or anyone else) would be welcome to come along to a Campaign meeting - Karma Restaurant, 7pm, Sundays. Have no idea what you mean by a dual/balanced focus - perhaps you could explain to the Campaign when you come and visit us.

As to lies - nope, not the Campaign. The diving pool at Temple Cowley Pools and Fitness Centre is the ONLY publicly funded diving pool in Oxfordshire.

As to the current staff, well the Campaign is bidding to take over a site and centre, not the current service. Mind you, that is another bright idea you've given us Andrew, thanks! Fusion, are able to get rid of 30 employees by closing Temple Cowley Pools and also the existing Blackbird Leys Pool, and increase their profits (sorry, surplus, as they are registered as a 'charity' with non-profit status).

Condemning charities? Only when they are used as a tissue covering an otherwise commercial organisation using the status as a tax dodge - which Fusion are. A charity organisation taking over TCP would have clearly stated and justified charitable aims - like keeping health and fitness services for the Oxford public that want and need them, where they want and need them.
Trolling again. Well Andrew, whatever your gender, if you wanted to find out more, you (or anyone else) would be welcome to come along to a Campaign meeting - Karma Restaurant, 7pm, Sundays. Have no idea what you mean by a dual/balanced focus - perhaps you could explain to the Campaign when you come and visit us. As to lies - nope, not the Campaign. The diving pool at Temple Cowley Pools and Fitness Centre is the ONLY publicly funded diving pool in Oxfordshire. As to the current staff, well the Campaign is bidding to take over a site and centre, not the current service. Mind you, that is another bright idea you've given us Andrew, thanks! Fusion, are able to get rid of 30 employees by closing Temple Cowley Pools and also the existing Blackbird Leys Pool, and increase their profits (sorry, surplus, as they are registered as a 'charity' with non-profit status). Condemning charities? Only when they are used as a tissue covering an otherwise commercial organisation using the status as a tax dodge - which Fusion are. A charity organisation taking over TCP would have clearly stated and justified charitable aims - like keeping health and fitness services for the Oxford public that want and need them, where they want and need them. SaveTCP
  • Score: 0

9:26pm Tue 15 Apr 14

Niko Bellic says...

Can I object to SaveTCP's use of the the diving pit at TCP as an excuse not to close centre? The diving pit has been CLOSED for years due to genuine health and safety concerns (from an secret squirrel perspective... if you drained the diving pit the walls of the tank would collapse in on themselves). In fact, not only is the pool dangerous to use, but even if the pit was open, TCP does not have enough money to pay for the staff to supervise it.

Which brings me to point out that TCP is operating at a loss. How exactly the pressure group would be able to fund the centre I have no idea. I'd love to see a business plan for the place. Genuinely I would.

And finally, please don't confuse the term "trolling" with "commenting". Not every adverse comment is a troll. Perhaps if you learnt to respond to criticism there would be less of it levelled at you in the first place
Can I object to SaveTCP's use of the the diving pit at TCP as an excuse not to close centre? The diving pit has been CLOSED for years due to genuine health and safety concerns (from an secret squirrel perspective... if you drained the diving pit the walls of the tank would collapse in on themselves). In fact, not only is the pool dangerous to use, but even if the pit was open, TCP does not have enough money to pay for the staff to supervise it. Which brings me to point out that TCP is operating at a loss. How exactly the pressure group would be able to fund the centre I have no idea. I'd love to see a business plan for the place. Genuinely I would. And finally, please don't confuse the term "trolling" with "commenting". Not every adverse comment is a troll. Perhaps if you learnt to respond to criticism there would be less of it levelled at you in the first place Niko Bellic
  • Score: 0

9:27pm Tue 15 Apr 14

Niko Bellic says...

...and isn't it odd that NONE of the staff at the pool support this campaign?

Try all you might, Jane and Nigel, but I know this for a fact.
...and isn't it odd that NONE of the staff at the pool support this campaign? Try all you might, Jane and Nigel, but I know this for a fact. Niko Bellic
  • Score: 0

11:32pm Tue 15 Apr 14

SaveTCP says...

Hi Niko - the trolls know who they are, genuine contributors are very welcome indeed; but continual sniping at a group of people, backed by thousands of supporters across Oxford, and doing what they can to keep a community facility open, does no-one any good and is extremely disrespectful. There are surely better things to complain at; or better still, do something about.

It would be really good to hear from someone who actually knows something about the centre, and you clearly know something, but based on your post, we're not sure what. And....we operate on facts:

1. The 'diving pit' has been out of use for diving as you say, since the Council drained it too fast and a crack in the tiling appeared. It could be fixed for £30,000 (Council's own estimate, revealed under FOI, confirmed by several diving pool contractors), but the council is (a) unwilling to increase the popularity of TCP and (b) unwilling to pay the additional rate needed for staff to supervise it. How do you know whether or not we would have enough money to pay the staff? Any plan we put forward will be financially viable, or it won't be put forward.

2. TCP operating at a loss - really? Whose loss is that? The Council has signed away the profits to Fusion, who take all the income, and in addition they pay Fusion £360,000 a year to run it - this is more than Fusion is paid to operate all the other leisure facilities. This amount has been artificially carved out of the total Fusion contract cost to make it look like TCP costs more than it actually does. The actual 'cost' comprised last year :£85,000 maintenance, £100,000 water charges, £150,000 utilities, total £335k. If you'd really like to talk about how the centre could operate if properly run, then come to a meeting - we hold them every Sunday, 7pm.

3. It would be very odd if none of the staff at the pool support this campaign, so it's a very good job indeed that it is not at all odd. Suggest you talk to ALL the staff - but perhaps they feel intimidated to reveal their true feelings to a homicidal game character? You are welcome to your 'facts', the Campaign uses facts which come mostly from the Council. As ever, happy to correct anything that we get wrong.

4. The Campaign is not just two people - if it was, there wouldn't have been over 12,000 signatures on the very first petition, or a total of seven petitions submitted to council so far. Don't limit who you are addressing - we don't want people to feel left out.
Hi Niko - the trolls know who they are, genuine contributors are very welcome indeed; but continual sniping at a group of people, backed by thousands of supporters across Oxford, and doing what they can to keep a community facility open, does no-one any good and is extremely disrespectful. There are surely better things to complain at; or better still, do something about. It would be really good to hear from someone who actually knows something about the centre, and you clearly know something, but based on your post, we're not sure what. And....we operate on facts: 1. The 'diving pit' has been out of use for diving as you say, since the Council drained it too fast and a crack in the tiling appeared. It could be fixed for £30,000 (Council's own estimate, revealed under FOI, confirmed by several diving pool contractors), but the council is (a) unwilling to increase the popularity of TCP and (b) unwilling to pay the additional rate needed for staff to supervise it. How do you know whether or not we would have enough money to pay the staff? Any plan we put forward will be financially viable, or it won't be put forward. 2. TCP operating at a loss - really? Whose loss is that? The Council has signed away the profits to Fusion, who take all the income, and in addition they pay Fusion £360,000 a year to run it - this is more than Fusion is paid to operate all the other leisure facilities. This amount has been artificially carved out of the total Fusion contract cost to make it look like TCP costs more than it actually does. The actual 'cost' comprised last year :£85,000 maintenance, £100,000 water charges, £150,000 utilities, total £335k. If you'd really like to talk about how the centre could operate if properly run, then come to a meeting - we hold them every Sunday, 7pm. 3. It would be very odd if none of the staff at the pool support this campaign, so it's a very good job indeed that it is not at all odd. Suggest you talk to ALL the staff - but perhaps they feel intimidated to reveal their true feelings to a homicidal game character? You are welcome to your 'facts', the Campaign uses facts which come mostly from the Council. As ever, happy to correct anything that we get wrong. 4. The Campaign is not just two people - if it was, there wouldn't have been over 12,000 signatures on the very first petition, or a total of seven petitions submitted to council so far. Don't limit who you are addressing - we don't want people to feel left out. SaveTCP
  • Score: 0

11:18pm Wed 16 Apr 14

Niko Bellic says...

Hi SaveTCP

There really is no need to put "diving pit" in quotation marks, its not meant as a slur, that's really what its called. Anyhow, I'll do my best to respond to your points... and indeed I am in the know. In fact I'll waive the usual fee that I would charge just to make the following comments. Lucky you, this doesn't happen often!

1) The pit needs draining, and as the whole system is quite old and convoluted it would involve draining all 3 pools to do this. Why this is the case I'm not sure, but this is how the plant room is structured. The water cost of backwashing the pools is fairly considerable (the process to clean the filters and therefore the pool water) and this only accounts for perhaps 4-5 inches of water from each pool. The diving pit is 3.8m deep. Then the heating cost of brining the water up from mains water temperature to the operating level of around 28.5c is once again, considerable. I'm sure the actual structural works on this pool could be completed for £30k, but I do not believe that this cost covers the utilities cost required to get the pool back in action again. On top of this, due to the years of neglect, the ladders and boards would be best off being replaced. I'm sure there would be some sort of funding for this in grant form, but then again if you spend money from a grant there, its not available for something else.

In relation to the cost of hiring a new member of staff (assuming that you can recruit someone with the relevant qualifications in place: NPLQ, FAAW) the cost is £8.12 an hour. Fusion Lifestyle are not happy about this rate, but this is mandated by OCC as part of their "living wage". FL would much rather pay national minimum. On a full days operation the TCP can require 3 lifeguards on the main pool (less than this with certain numbers of bathers would require the pool to partly shut) a further lifeguard on the learner pool, and then a with the diving pit in operation another lifeguard (but only one who holds a qualification to work at depths of up to 3.8m. This is an important point. Not all lifeguards can do this. Try swimming to this depth and the pressure is considerable, many lifeguards, wherever they work will only be qualified to work at depths of up to 2m. For the time being lets assume that all staff can work at this depth (although lots of TCP staff actually cannot). Lifeguards are not recommended to supervise a swimming pool for more than an hour, otherwise they risk losing concentration, the heat and humidity (again from neglect to the air handling system at TCP) adds dehydration to the mix. You'd need an additional 2 members of staff. 7 staff at £8.12 (assuming they are all new and haven't had any incremental pay increases - old OCC staff at TCP earn more) that adds up. Its too late for me to do the maths right now.. The diving pit adds two staff to the current structure. At present, managers and gym instructors end up covering due to staff shortage due to FL's insistence on only using the minimum staffing level required and not permitting recruitment. If someone calls in sick, or if the weather is nice and the casual staff simply don't want to work, the place has to restrict entry.

2) Yes - a loss (not taking into account the management fee). The two centres managed by FL which make an operating profit are Ferry Leisure Centre (hugely popular) and Oxford Ice Rink (hugely popular and quite pricey). BBL leisure centre makes a oscillates between profit and loss. These profit making centres cover the losses by the others. The last numbers I saw showed that Hinkey Pool for example, was being subsidised by nearly £15 per visit(!) by OCC. Fusion like to massage their figures so as not to lose their subsidy (they get penalties if conditions are not met).

My line of work means I am in a position to know how to effectively operate facilities of this nature, keeping it going as it is is simply not sustainable from any perspective. To simply refurbish the building would be throwing money away. Knocking down and rebuilding the place to modern standards would be most people's preference and could build an efficient centre, maybe with better parking! Perhaps you could attract an investor to purchase the centre and make a start on that. Perhaps Bannatyes? Don't ask any of the "charitable trusts" as there is nothing charitable in them.

3) I have spoken to ALL the staff. There was one member of staff who didn't want the place to close but retired a couple of years ago. Others are eager to move to centres that haven't been neglected for years, and who could blame them? Why work somewhere that is making people ill (maybe a freedom of information act request can illustrate the long term sickness at TCP?). The older OCC staff still remaining just want to know when its all going to happen so they can claim a handsome redundancy pay out as stipulated by their iron clad contracts that the council used to hand out.

Perhaps being questioned by a "homicidal game character" would be intimidating. Actually I'm flattered that you most likely googled the name to find out what my secret identity might be. Maybe I'm Ian Brooke, or perhaps Steve Holt. In a rather surprising twist, perhaps I'm an alter ego of Nigel Gibson or Jane Alexander. Wouldn't that be funny! Thankfully in the real world, homicidal game characters aren't prone to questioning staff in the leisure industry about their job security.

4) Yes I've only mentioned two names, but those are the names of the most vocal members of the group. It would take me too long to list the other 11,998 reported members.

I hope this has addressed some of the points you bring up. I'd be happy to contribute to any potential plan in some sort of consultancy role (I would charge - you can take the above advice for free!) and please believe me when I say that I am not simply being negative about the SaveTCP stance, I am simply being honest as an outsider with an insider view.
Hi SaveTCP There really is no need to put "diving pit" in quotation marks, its not meant as a slur, that's really what its called. Anyhow, I'll do my best to respond to your points... and indeed I am in the know. In fact I'll waive the usual fee that I would charge just to make the following comments. Lucky you, this doesn't happen often! 1) The pit needs draining, and as the whole system is quite old and convoluted it would involve draining all 3 pools to do this. Why this is the case I'm not sure, but this is how the plant room is structured. The water cost of backwashing the pools is fairly considerable (the process to clean the filters and therefore the pool water) and this only accounts for perhaps 4-5 inches of water from each pool. The diving pit is 3.8m deep. Then the heating cost of brining the water up from mains water temperature to the operating level of around 28.5c is once again, considerable. I'm sure the actual structural works on this pool could be completed for £30k, but I do not believe that this cost covers the utilities cost required to get the pool back in action again. On top of this, due to the years of neglect, the ladders and boards would be best off being replaced. I'm sure there would be some sort of funding for this in grant form, but then again if you spend money from a grant there, its not available for something else. In relation to the cost of hiring a new member of staff (assuming that you can recruit someone with the relevant qualifications in place: NPLQ, FAAW) the cost is £8.12 an hour. Fusion Lifestyle are not happy about this rate, but this is mandated by OCC as part of their "living wage". FL would much rather pay national minimum. On a full days operation the TCP can require 3 lifeguards on the main pool (less than this with certain numbers of bathers would require the pool to partly shut) a further lifeguard on the learner pool, and then a with the diving pit in operation another lifeguard (but only one who holds a qualification to work at depths of up to 3.8m. This is an important point. Not all lifeguards can do this. Try swimming to this depth and the pressure is considerable, many lifeguards, wherever they work will only be qualified to work at depths of up to 2m. For the time being lets assume that all staff can work at this depth (although lots of TCP staff actually cannot). Lifeguards are not recommended to supervise a swimming pool for more than an hour, otherwise they risk losing concentration, the heat and humidity (again from neglect to the air handling system at TCP) adds dehydration to the mix. You'd need an additional 2 members of staff. 7 staff at £8.12 (assuming they are all new and haven't had any incremental pay increases - old OCC staff at TCP earn more) that adds up. Its too late for me to do the maths right now.. The diving pit adds two staff to the current structure. At present, managers and gym instructors end up covering due to staff shortage due to FL's insistence on only using the minimum staffing level required and not permitting recruitment. If someone calls in sick, or if the weather is nice and the casual staff simply don't want to work, the place has to restrict entry. 2) Yes - a loss (not taking into account the management fee). The two centres managed by FL which make an operating profit are Ferry Leisure Centre (hugely popular) and Oxford Ice Rink (hugely popular and quite pricey). BBL leisure centre makes a oscillates between profit and loss. These profit making centres cover the losses by the others. The last numbers I saw showed that Hinkey Pool for example, was being subsidised by nearly £15 per visit(!) by OCC. Fusion like to massage their figures so as not to lose their subsidy (they get penalties if conditions are not met). My line of work means I am in a position to know how to effectively operate facilities of this nature, keeping it going as it is is simply not sustainable from any perspective. To simply refurbish the building would be throwing money away. Knocking down and rebuilding the place to modern standards would be most people's preference and could build an efficient centre, maybe with better parking! Perhaps you could attract an investor to purchase the centre and make a start on that. Perhaps Bannatyes? Don't ask any of the "charitable trusts" as there is nothing charitable in them. 3) I have spoken to ALL the staff. There was one member of staff who didn't want the place to close but retired a couple of years ago. Others are eager to move to centres that haven't been neglected for years, and who could blame them? Why work somewhere that is making people ill (maybe a freedom of information act request can illustrate the long term sickness at TCP?). The older OCC staff still remaining just want to know when its all going to happen so they can claim a handsome redundancy pay out as stipulated by their iron clad contracts that the council used to hand out. Perhaps being questioned by a "homicidal game character" would be intimidating. Actually I'm flattered that you most likely googled the name to find out what my secret identity might be. Maybe I'm Ian Brooke, or perhaps Steve Holt. In a rather surprising twist, perhaps I'm an alter ego of Nigel Gibson or Jane Alexander. Wouldn't that be funny! Thankfully in the real world, homicidal game characters aren't prone to questioning staff in the leisure industry about their job security. 4) Yes I've only mentioned two names, but those are the names of the most vocal members of the group. It would take me too long to list the other 11,998 reported members. I hope this has addressed some of the points you bring up. I'd be happy to contribute to any potential plan in some sort of consultancy role (I would charge - you can take the above advice for free!) and please believe me when I say that I am not simply being negative about the SaveTCP stance, I am simply being honest as an outsider with an insider view. Niko Bellic
  • Score: 0

12:31am Thu 17 Apr 14

SaveTCP says...

Hi Niko:

Thanks for actually contributing - it always helps to add information.

1. Diving pit - an excellent analysis if we may say so. The convolution is down to the design. All three pools are linked - warmest water in learner pool, then diving, then main. The returned water heat exchanges with fresh to reduce cost of heating. The diving pool was drained for a period several years ago, and the council could have fixed things then but decided not to, for reasons mentioned previously. Also agree on renewing diving boards etc - total cost is about £65k (Council's own figure). As to employment, if it's not outsourced by the Council, anyone operating the centre can pay whatever the going rate is. Don't doubt the numbers, we recognise that staff need more qualifications/train
ing to cover diving.

2. I think it depends what you mean by 'loss'. The Council has refused to explain what they mean by 'subsidy'. No reason to doubt what you say about profitability, especially with the huge golden hello payments made to Fusion by the Council. If they would be open and transparent about these costs that would help everybody. The plans for the pools include increased efficiency, building on the low unit energy emissions we know it can achieve, and the high footfall that it can also achieve

3. Good for you - clearly you can only be Tim Sadler :-)

4. If you can name 11,998 other petition signatories that would be truly remarkable, and narrow you down to Tim and only a few others

The Campaign exists for the community, so all information welcome and thank your again for contributing. Not sure any of it is at odds with what information we have. And we are not operating for private profit, so don't expect you to either!
Hi Niko: Thanks for actually contributing - it always helps to add information. 1. Diving pit - an excellent analysis if we may say so. The convolution is down to the design. All three pools are linked - warmest water in learner pool, then diving, then main. The returned water heat exchanges with fresh to reduce cost of heating. The diving pool was drained for a period several years ago, and the council could have fixed things then but decided not to, for reasons mentioned previously. Also agree on renewing diving boards etc - total cost is about £65k (Council's own figure). As to employment, if it's not outsourced by the Council, anyone operating the centre can pay whatever the going rate is. Don't doubt the numbers, we recognise that staff need more qualifications/train ing to cover diving. 2. I think it depends what you mean by 'loss'. The Council has refused to explain what they mean by 'subsidy'. No reason to doubt what you say about profitability, especially with the huge golden hello payments made to Fusion by the Council. If they would be open and transparent about these costs that would help everybody. The plans for the pools include increased efficiency, building on the low unit energy emissions we know it can achieve, and the high footfall that it can also achieve 3. Good for you - clearly you can only be Tim Sadler :-) 4. If you can name 11,998 other petition signatories that would be truly remarkable, and narrow you down to Tim and only a few others The Campaign exists for the community, so all information welcome and thank your again for contributing. Not sure any of it is at odds with what information we have. And we are not operating for private profit, so don't expect you to either! SaveTCP
  • Score: 0

1:09am Thu 17 Apr 14

Niko Bellic says...

I have more hair than Tim Sadler :-)
I have more hair than Tim Sadler :-) Niko Bellic
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree