ESCSC Meeting

On 7 November 2023, the Environment, Sustainability, Culture and Sports Committee met with these members present:

Councillors were asked to leave the room for a private meeting beforehand. The meeting started 20 minutes late. Cllr Julia Neden-Watts announced that there was unfortunately no live webcast due to ‘technical problems’.

We were later informed by a Richmond Council employee that the delay and lack of live webcast was not in fact due to ‘technical problems’ but due to the unexpected death of vice chair Cllr Martin Elengorn that afternoon which had not yet been publicly announced so it had been considered insensitive to do a live webcast.

However this does not explain why the meeting was not recorded locally for later upload, after his death had been announced by the council. We have not been satisfied with multiple responses from the council on this matter and are pursuing it further.

Fortunately we made an audio recording of the meeting and have generated a transcript. Since there is no webcast of the meeting and the official minutes for the debate is only one paragraph long, here is a transcript of what was said by the five public speakers followed by a detailed summary of what was discussed:

Philippa Edmunds
Good evening everybody. Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to make the case for the retention of the health suite. My name is Philippa Edmunds, I am the swimming rep at Pools on the Park.

First thing we would say is, thank you very much for our fantastic swimming pools, we really love and appreciate them and appreciate you keeping them for us. So… and particularly the outdoor pool. Really Pools on the Park is an absolute gem. It’s the jewel in the crown to say we want it to be community, but also competitive with other leisure facilities. So as I said, it’s very popular, it was very popular the health suite. I get asked every week what the story is and when it’s coming back, and I think your consultation bears that out actually, because almost 80% of the respondents said they wanted to be replaced. And it really is an integral part of the centre, whether it’s the swimmers, and the gym users and, and the people who do various courses.

And and so one question is why is the health suite right at Teddington, at Isleworth, Hanworth, Chiswick? I did research all the pools around, but not for Richmond, because we believe it still is a very important part, particularly for older people, because it helps you if you’ve got joint problems and muscular problems. And also Richmond is affordable whereas private clubs like the Nuffield and Virgin Active. It’s quite expensive for a lot of people like myself and I’m retired. So it also fits with your policy. As gentlemen said, to get older people more active, it helps with respiratory problems as well.

So we would also question whether there really is a case for an additional group exercise room. Because if you look at the bookings for the existing exercise room, there are lots of gaps every day for several hours and it’s not used. And some of the classes are very popular, oversubscribed. Quite a lot of them are not popular and they’re almost empty, so we don’t see that there’s that need. But we do feel it’s disappointing that the report didn’t evaluate the benefits of the health suite. So we would ask that that is done before any decision is made. And that actually fits in with your paragraph nine three, which says, I quote, “there is evidence to suggest the health suite will be beneficial.”

So please, we ask you please to consider seriously, as I said, people have given up their membership because they haven’t had the health suite and other people haven’t joined. And I said it’s a very big issue. People feel very disappointed. But the fact is they’ve taken part in the consultation, and then it appears as though they’re being listened to. So I would ask you to consider very carefully, it is a very popular facility and it fits with the rest of the activities at Pools on the Park. But thank you very much for listening to me.

Cllr Julia Neden-Watts
Thank you very much Philippa. Are there any questions from committee members for clarification? No? That’s very clear, thank you very much. And now please may I invite Alan Fransman to come and speak to us. Before, make yourself comfortable. The red light is always on. You’ll have three minutes starting.

Alan Fransman
Dear members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak on the, on this agenda item. I know that I do not stand alone, and in fact, I stand with many others in this room who would say that the recommendation for the health suite to be replaced with a new exercise studio at Pools on the Park is based on flawed advice.

Firstly, the benefits of saunas and steam rooms are widely documented and the facility would make a contribution to the council to strive for a healthier borough and the sports and fitness aim… service aim to increase and widen participation in physical activity.

Secondly, in comparison to an exercise studio, a health suite can be accessed by a wider range of people, wider age range of people and mobilities and obviously would drive up membership and income. Pools in the Park management will be aware that many people have suspended or cancelled their memberships since their health suite closed down. Reinstatement of the health suite would see these members return. Also, a new health suite would reignite interest in Pools on the Park and drive up membership, especially when that membership fee is at a competitive rate.

I know the concern about the carbon footprint of the health suite, but decarbonisation requires a whole systems approach. Denying members and residents an accessible facility with a vast array of health benefits does not resolve the carbon footprints of a 1960s leisure centre.

Hounslow Council made their leisure centres more energy efficient by applying to the government’s Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme. It enabled them to install solar panels and modern air source heat pumps, which together supply super-efficient, low cost, energy saving heating and hot water. Also, the council… the council should install an infrared sauna, which is more energy efficient than the traditional sauna and is cheaper to run.

I know that the health suite would be £23,000 more than the approved budget, but the council could be delivering a more affordable solution by leaving out the spa bath, the cost of the health suite can be reduced by £23,000 or more. And finally, the committee will be aware that the council has run two consultations and questions regarding the health suite, and on both occasions, respondents asked for the health suite to return at Pools in the Park.

These are residents, members and voters who pay for these facilities through their leisure centre subscriptions, council tax payments and tax contributions to fund the government grant to the council. With this evidence of demand, the denial of the health suite would be disempowering and, dare I say, it would also be anti-democratic.

Cllr Julia Neden-Watts
Thank you very much. Are there any questions for clarification? So John Coombs has a question for you.

Cllr John Coombs
Thank you. Chair. You mentioned than an infra red sauna would be a good solution. I never heard of an infra red sauna. Do you know of any facility which has one in, it’s just so that I can research it.

Alan Fransman
Sure, absolutely. So I believe, I believe the one in Isleworth is.

Cllr John Coombs
Yes. Yes. So that’s an infra red one?

Alan Fransman
Yes.

Cllr John Coombs
OK thank you. Thank you for that.

Cllr Julia Neden-Watts
Thank you. Any further questions? Councillor Warlow.

Cllr Chas Warlow
Yeah. You mentioned that the costs could be reduced by… is it £23,000 or more by removing the spa bath. I just wanted to… do you have anything more to say about that? Or is that….

Alan Fransman
I did, I did some rough research on, on, on… look, I looked at Google and I researched it. So maybe maybe it won’t be £23,000. But I mean, the plant that is associated with the spa bath is, is is an expensive piece of equipment. So it’s not just the box. It’s you know, it’s the chlorine supply and and the heating and all of that. So it is significant and maybe we don’t need it. Because because the key the key thing about the hot and cold therapies are the warm rooms, and then the the drench shower in order to, to get the health benefits from it.

Cllr Chas Warlow
Thanks.

Cllr Julia Neden-Watts
Thank you very much.

Alan Fransman
All right.

Cllr Julia Neden-Watts
Yeah. Thank you.

Alan Fransman
Sorry can I have just one more thing?

Cllr Julia Neden-Watts
OK go on then…

Alan Fransman
So it’s only because the three minutes is so short. I mean, as you know, there is there is a studio two right next to studio one. It’s been turned into an office. There’s no reason why we couldn’t have both.

Cllr Julia Neden-Watts
Okay. Thank you. Now, may I invite Mary Higgins please. For… make yourself comfortable. And when you start speaking, the Democratic Services officer will give you three minutes. No, the button is already pressed.

Mary Higgins
I’m going to speak on a more personal level because all the research and findings have been [inaudible] the speakers who have been very eloquent on the matter. And so, personally, I would like to say that I’ve been a member of Pools on the Park for many years, and it’s dearly loved by the people who use it. And it’s very sad that many of those people no longer use it, because they feel that they have been denied something that they’re very used to having and have enjoyed for many years, which is the spa, because it’s not just having the obvious well-documented health benefits that a spa has — if you speak to anybody from Finland or Sweden, but also it’s a social hub.

So people who have used this facility over many years have met there and spent time with one another and supported one another and carried on sustained friendships. And and so this is very good for communities where people can be known or where people can have problems that they want sorted out. It’s cheaper and better than going to therapy. So it is important that it is all important for community, mental health and just well-being generally. So generally that that is the case I want to make for having our spa back. I want to read my colleague, my friend and colleague’s personal statement because she unfortunately didn’t get to register to speak tonight. So on behalf of Wendy, who is a fellow user. She has written it down and I’ll be quick.

So most of the time that Wendy has been a member, she has used the health suite so you can become… and this has become more significant to her since 2016. In 2016, she was suffering from Lyme’s disease, which was a result of receiving a tick bite in Richmond Park. I was unable to do strenuous exercise so the classes and gym were not an option for me. My gradual rehabilitation began through lying on the sunbed, which is another facility that’s been taken away from us. But we’re not talking about that tonight. Also, cold water swimming and the health suite. Pools on the Park and the facilities there were essential to my feeling and getting better. It was a combination of these elements that was important and and was somewhat unique. However, two of those facilities, essential services, are no longer available to us.

There is much medical evidence to support the benefits of not only swimming in cold water outdoors, but the role of saunas, steam rooms and social areas. For anyone who has been unwell, either physically or mentally, you have taken away an important rehabilitation opportunity and more importantly, with the straining NHS, a place where people can maintain and improve their own wellbeing.

Although I’ve never seen the reasoning for ripping out all these facilities, Richmond Council now has a great opportunity to put a completely new one… solution in, a sustainable and workable solution. Whatever funding model you choose to use, I feel that it is an investment that will pay back, because people will come back to the centre and it will once again be used and be well maintained, and that’s what we as a community members, council taxpayers, membership fee payers…

Cllr Julia Neden-Watts
I’m sorry…

Mary Higgins
Have gone over my time?

Cllr Julia Neden-Watts
You’ve had four minutes. But we’ve found it interesting I’m sure. So do committee members have any questions for clarification? No? Thank you very much. And may I now invite Martin Baker to come and speak to us please. As before, the microphone is all ready for you. So whenever you’re comfortable, please start.

Martin Baker
This three year saga has been an absolute disgrace — an exercise in how to sacrifice a valued leisure centre facility on the altar of net zero, whilst maintaining the illusion of being responsive to the needs of the of residents.

The first red flag was the delayed end of life announcement in July 2021, after the health suite had been closed due to 16 months of lockdowns, so valuable time had already been wasted. A survey was announced. I spent over two years trying to get the results of that original survey, which was finally made public last Friday. In July 2022, members were told, quote,

“contractors will be attending Pools on the Park in the coming weeks to remove the existing equipment”

end quote. A second red flag, because the contractors didn’t just remove the existing equipment, they stripped the entire room back to the shell at some unknown cost. If you follow the health suite signs that are still in place in the facility, this is how it looks today. I consider this to be a deliberate strategy to level the playing field between the two options, and vastly increase the cost of refurbishing the room back to its original purpose.

After getting nowhere with the council’s complaints process. I filed an FOI request to see the survey results. My request was refused, using an exemption clause in legislation that doesn’t actually apply to this situation.

After an internal review, Richmond Council conceded that the exemption had been incorrectly applied, but again refused my request, this time changing the exemption reason to a risk of interfering with the decision making process. They told me that the survey results will be published before the February 2023 meeting of this committee. I’m sorry. April. No. June. No. September. Oh and here we are nine months later, where I discover last Thursday that these survey results are still not published in the background papers.

Having read the survey results on Friday, I now fully understand why Richmond Council wanted to conceal them for two years. 54% of respondents said they used the health suite before it was closed. An overwhelming 84% of member respondents wanted to see the health suite restored. Even 68% of non-members wanted that. Only 8% of respondents cited a lack of space in classes as a reason for not attending. There is overwhelming support for retaining the health suite, and many people who say they will cancel their membership if it does not happen. Yet the council is baffled why membership fell by more than 40%!

But not what I’ve said in the last 2 minutes 40 seconds really matters. Tonight, the members of this committee will inevitably vote for this unpopular proposal because they’ve been told that by removing a sauna, jacuzzi and steam room from TW9 2SF, they will have played their part in the fight against climate change. Thank you.

Unknown
Hear! Hear!

Cllr Julia Neden-Watts
Thank you very much. Are there any questions for clarification?

Cllr Chas Warlow
Yes.

Cllr Julia Neden-Watts
Chas.

Cllr Chas Warlow
You said that the cost of ripping everything out had added to the cost.

Martin Baker
We don’t know what the cost is, it’s not been disclosed.

Cllr Chas Warlow
Okay. Right.

Martin Baker
So who knows? I know. My point is that it was not… the statement made was that the equipment would be taken out of the health suite. That’s not what happened. The entire room was gutted, as you can see. And it’s been like that for almost a year and a half now. I don’t think that’s acceptable.

Cllr Chas Warlow
Okay. That was all. Yeah. Okay. Good.

Cllr Julia Neden-Watts
Okay. Anything further? No. Okay. Thank you.

Martin Baker
Thank you.

Cllr Julia Neden-Watts
Okay. Thank you. And now we have Councillor Hale, you have three minutes.

Cllr Andy Hale
Okay. Thank you. I’m just going to start by looking at this from the chief perspective of health that’s been brought up and it’s been brought up by a number of other speakers as well. But I’m also going to bring up an affordability perspective from a point of service purchase of this work — our residents being able to afford to use services.

There’s a lot of spas in the area, but not necessarily affordable. We have an opportunity to make sure that we provide a facility that is affordable and therefore drum up the service amount that we need to keep it open. Another element of that is going back to the health thing and to the accessibility side of things. It’s an opportunity to look at the whole site, the whole site as one thing and think not just as a sports facility, but as a wellbeing centre for the benefit of residents across the borough working potentially with FiSH, for example, who could help transport people with needs to the centre to essential to coming and have access to or may not get the ability to have access to depending on a decision within the borough. So there’s an opportunity for wider partnership working to make it a really accessible place for members across the borough, including in Barnes.

I also just make a brief comment about… I know there is a fair base of people that do know about it and use it, but these days we’re not very good at advertising as a council, and I question whether we’ve really been very effective in keeping our promotion of the site up in terms of making sure that we are able to then generate and make sure that there’s a continued awareness, including to those who are new to the borough, people are in out all the time. So I don’t think we really necessarily have kept pace with that.

For me, the paper doesn’t really solidly encapsulate the business case, as it were, for not going for the spa. And behind that, what I mean is that I don’t really feel that the paper has provided the supporting evidence needed, but let’s say we went for the extra money, we put the investment in, and then we set a really affordable price. Would we actually grow the custom more than if we go through the cheaper option and therefore have a more viable scenario going into the future? It’s something I just don’t feel really quite got to. we’ve heard a few other things I would [inaudible].

Cllr Julia Neden-Watts
And thank you, Andy. Any questions for Councillor Hale? For clarification? No. Thank you very much for your contribution. Do you want to just switch off the microphone. Thank you very much.

After the five public speakers spoke out against the proposal, Matthew Eady, Assistant Director of Leisure, introduced his report and stated that the council’s objective is to get more residents engaged with physical activity.

No-one would argue with that goal but should it deprive us of an existing health suite facility?

Cllr Zoe McLeod asked Matthew Eady what assessment had been done on the demand for a health suite and the health benefits of such a facility, particularly on the Richmond area of the borough.

He did not answer the question. Instead he replied that the council had used ‘latent demand analysis’ (i.e. computer modelling) to show that more fitness classes would increase POTP membership.

We note that Richmond Council is only estimating a 1% increase in membership (£8000 increase in revenue) from the addition of a group exercise studio which is hardly a compelling business case when we know that overall Pools on the Park membership is currently down by a staggering 42% when compared with 2019.

The loss of 831 Gold members paying £55/month (£660/year) means that annual membership revenue at Pools on the Park is down by nearly £550K.

Who is steering this ship?

Cllr Zoe McLeod restated her question, adding that she was aware of many places that offer group fitness classes but her question was about demand for the health suite, not fitness classes.

Again Matthew Eady did not answer the question. He restated that this ‘latent demand analysis’ takes into account all the other fitness classes in the area.

Committee Chair Julia Neden-Watts stepped in at this point and asked Matthew Eady if they were to understand that an assessment on the demand for a health suite hadn’t fully been done yet but could emerge from the leisure strategy work.

Matthew Eady replied that there isn’t a tool available to demonstrate the demand for a health suite in a public sector asset. He said that they are quite rare.

This is a very revealing statement. It shows that Richmond Council has no interest in looking at what residents actually want (i.e. from the two surveys already done), but instead relies on computer modelling to create the ‘evidence’ they want in order to push ahead with a proposal.

As can be seen from the comparison with neighbouring boroughs, health suites in council leisure facilities are not “quite rare” at all. 71% of facilities in neighbouring boroughs have a sauna and 65% have a steam room.

It is also very interesting that Cllr Julia Neden-Watts mentions the leisure strategy here. This is same leisure strategy we had previously been told would be completed before any decision was made on the health suite…

In any case, Richmond Council has known since September 2021 how large the demand for a health suite is, but is choosing to ignore it.

Cllr Alan Juriansz noted that paragraph 9.3 of the report says there is some evidence to suggest that the health suite would be beneficial for the leisure provision and a full feasibility study will be taken as part of the leisure strategy.

Matthew Eady replied that work is being done to explore what is possible at Pools on the Park and other centres in order to increase access to physical activity. He said that the full leisure strategy will be presented in Spring 2024.

So why then did Richmond Council break the commitment made to former health suite users in August 2023 that no decision would be made on the health suite until the leisure strategy work was complete?

Cllr Chas Warlow asked if we could have both a health suite and a group exercise studio.

Matthew Eady replied that if there is enough funding and demand then we could have both. He mentioned space constraints at Pools on the Park and said that running costs would be much lower for a group exercise studio.

Cllr Chas Warlow asked if membership fees could be raised to cover increased costs and questions if the existing building could be made more energy efficient which would be a worthwhile investment and inline with the climate emergency strategy.

Matthew Eady said that he imagined there would need to be quite a significant increase in fees to cover the gap. He supported making centres more energy efficient to reduce energy usage.

No actual data, only a ‘feeling’ that there would need to be a significant increase in fees.

Cllr Chas Warlow asked about the unused Studio 2 room, currently used as an office, and whether that could be used for a group exercise studio.

Matthew Eady didn’t answer the question. He said that leisure consultants had suggested that the former health suite should be used as a flexible space for group exercise or meetings etc.

At this point, we were beginning to wonder if council officers attend special training courses on how to avoid answering awkward questions in committee meetings…

Cllr Alan Juriansz asked for some data on how well used the health suite was and how that compares with forecasts for the proposed group exercise studio.

Matthew Eady said he didn’t have any usage statistics for the health suite specifically but went on to state how many POTP members there were for years ending March 2017/2018/2019.

Cllr Julia Neden-Watts said that some further details on attendance had been circulated to help with this discussion.

We don’t know what data Cllr Neden-Watts was referring to, but we later filed a FOI request for total Pools on the Park memberships and were given the following:

  • 30/09/18: 1943 total members
  • 30/09/19: 2004 total members
  • 30/09/20: 1046 total members
  • 30/09/21: 944 total members
  • 30/09/22: 1115 total members
  • 30/09/23: 1173 total members

So 831 members have left Pools on the Park – a 42% DROP in total members between 2019 and 2023, which is extraordinary. We wonder what factor could have contributed to membership cancellations…

Cllr Fiona Sacks said that Matthew Eady circulated some information on use of private sector health suites and asked if there has been any exploration of using these for people who are referred by their GP for arthritis or mental health issues etc.

Matthew Eady didn’t answer the question. He said that physical activity is often prescribed to support wellbeing and a group exercise studio would enable that.

Cllr Fiona Sacks said that she understood the goal for more physical activity but that for some people a health suite is what they needed and she would appreciate if usage of private sector facilties could be looked at.

Matthew Eady said that there is a hydrotherapy pool in Teddington and there is a hospital and GP referral programme.

There was an alarming confusion at the meeting from both Matthew Eady and committee members about what the health suite actually was or even should be.

Lack of clarity on what is being discussed is not helpful for the decision making process.

Cllr Zoe McLeod asked about membership numbers since it was stated by one of the public speakers that membership had fallen by 40%. She asked if that was across the board in the borough or specific to POTP. Also if there was any sense of how many members have been lost at POTP due to the closure of the health suite.

Matthew Eady did not have this data. He said that the leisure sector has taken a long time to recover from Covid although swimming has exceeded pre-Covid levels.

No data available.

Cllr Zoe McLeod asked for clarification on why the health suite is no longer fit for purpose.

Matthew Eady replied that he wasn’t sure but thought it was due to the age of the facilities. He went on to do a sales pitch for the group exercise studio and said that income from it will exceed the expenditure.

No evidence available.

Cllr Zoe McLeod asked if there had been any investigation into making a more energy efficient and sustainable health suite by looking at other facilities in other boroughs.

Matthew Eady replied that he had no data on running costs. He said that water, electricity and gas are all required for a health suite and costs had increased significantly. There may be an option for solar panels at POTP but he said it would cost tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds to install sustainable measures. He didn’t rule this possibility out but said that in the short term, a group exercise studio had more merit for increased participation and greater financial return.

So Richmond Council have absolutely no data whatsoever on running costs of the 28 year old health suite but they are convinced that closing it down is going to help save the planet.

Really?

A reminder that we know Pools on the Park membership is down by 42% since 2019 (actual data) but Richmond Council are hugely excited about a (predicted) 1% increase from adding a group exercise studio!

Cllr Alan Juriansz said that was a difficult decision since a lot of people think a health suite is important to them but he supports conversion to a group exercise studio due to the number and age range of people who could benefit from it.

Cllr Chris Varley agreed that it was a difficult decision and that members would feel more comfortable if there was a clear commitment to the feasibility study mentioned in paragraph 9.3 on whether a health suite could be implemented in a different form, perhaps in a different location but one that people can travel easily to.

There was some confusion amongst committee members about Pools on the Park not being a suitable site for a health suite. This was a misunderstanding.

The only mention of “location” in the report is in paragraph 9.3 which says that if the proposal for conversion to a group exercise studio goes ahead and it is later decided that a new health suite is desired, then it would have to be in a different location (within the Pools on the Park site) since the original room would obviously no longer be available.

The idea that members are supposed to do a swim or gym session at Pools on the Park and then travel to another location to use a health suite is completely ludicrous. No-one picked up on this point in the meeting because members were not fully informed and didn’t understand what they were debating.

Cllr John Coombs said that it was vital for residents to know that the council is properly looking into something that has been much-loved by the people who have used it in the past. He said that such a commitment must be firmly written in, else residents will think that it’s a stitch up.

Too late! We already know it has been a stitch up… We enjoyed a health suite for 28 years, now it’s been closed for three and a half years and has been reduced to a mere “long-term ambition”.

Cllr Julia Neden-Watts summarised by saying that what the committee was being asked to do is make a hardheaded commercial decision and they were were feeling uneasy about that. They were considering what is cost-effective and inline with the various strategies that the council have adopted. She said there had been a lot of sensible discussion about the need for leisure to be working with other partners in the council, specifically health colleagues. She recognised the need for a more holistic approach with many people valuing the social element of a health suite.

Cllr Zoe McLeod said that despite the budgetary challenges the council faces she was not able to support the proposal. She didn’t have confidence that there was enough understanding of the benefits, costs, opportunities and strategic link with taxpayers.

Cllr Chas Warlow said that he also had reservations and didn’t think there had been enough investigation despite three years. He said he’d only been elected in 2022 and didn’t feel he knew enough and wasn’t given sufficient grounds and reassurance. He liked the idea of a feasibility study but didn’t think that building a new facility would be compatible with the climate emergency strategy.

Cllr Julia Neden-Watts said that the challenge is that the site of the previous health suite is constrained due to the building being Grade II listed. The cost of putting in sustainably acceptable heating measures into this facility could be considerable and there may be a better location to do that, maybe other sites within the borough. The recommendations on paragraph 9.3 were adopted.

Six members voted FOR the proposal:

Two members voted AGAINST the proposal:

We thank both councillors for voting against the proposal.