Portishead pool still on chopping block despite £1.2m spent on other leisure facilities
NORTH Somerset Council is spending more than £1.2 million each year subsidising the running costs of its nine leisure centres.
The council revealed this week that it was paying £1.23m in subsidies to run its leisure centres in Clevedon, Portishead, Backwell, Nailsea and Weston-super-Mare.
The council also pays staff costs of £143,910 and a maintenance cost of £90,370 on top of the annual subsidies.
The council operates four other dual-use leisure centres at Gordano School, Portishead, Clevedon Community School, Churchill Sports Centre at Churchill School and Wyvern School in Weston-super-Mare.
The subsidy figures are contained in a report which has been put together by the authority as part of a review into all the council's leisure and cultural services. Portishead Open-Air Pool has not been included in the general review and instead, has been the subject of a separate investigation by councillors.
The news that the council is paying nearly £1.5m annually to operate its leisure centres comes at the same time as its leaders are considering closing the Portishead pool, claiming it costs council £130,000 each year and is subsidising each visit by £14.71.
The cost per visit at the other centres is much lower because they are open all day and into the evening all year round, have a wider range of sporting facilities and attract more users.
The open-air pool is only open for 18 weeks, shuts at lunchtime for 90 minutes and is closed in the evening.
Council chiefs have ruled out closing any of the centres to save cash, claiming they "make a major contribution to the overall health and well being of the local communities in North Somerset".
A Save the Open-Air Pool (STOP) campaign, backed by the Evening Post, has been launched to save Portishead's lido from closure by putting it in the hands of a trust.
STOP leader Roger Whitfield said: "I agree the subsidy for the open-air pool is too high, but that is because the council has managed it badly and it is not maximising its potential. What we have to remember is the outdoor pool is only a pool. If it was run properly, with better facilities and an extended season there is no reason why the subsidy couldn't be reduced to the same levels as these other facilities."
How the subsdies breakdown.
Backwell Leisure Centre: Subsidy: £142,400. Number of visits: 112,826. Subsidy per visit: £1.26
Hutton Moor Leisure Centre: Subsidy: £258,370. Number of visits: 561,539. Subsidy per visit: 46p
Parish Wharf Leisure Centre: Subsidy: £205,470. Number of visits: 187,024: Subsidy per visit: £1.09
Scotch Horn Leisure Centre: Subsidy: £83,470. Number of visits: 80,617. Subsidy per visit: £1.03
Strode Leisure Centre: Subsidy: £181,000. Number of visits: 124,794. Subsidy per visit: £1.45
Portishead Open Air Pool: Subsidy: £130,000. Number of visits: 8,802. Subsidy per visit: £14.71.
2 Comments
by Annette Hennessy, Portishead
Thursday, October 30 2008, 1:34PM
“When is Roger Whitfield going to point out to the Evening Post that Portishead Open Air Pool does not require the annual subsidy included in this report? The subsidy quoted for 2008 includes an as yet unsubstantiated, inflated maintenance figure for which estimates and receipted accounts have not yet been made available to councillors or the public. Until accurate and comprehensive information is on the table, including correct usage figures which are currently under question, not only is it impossible to say whether the pool makes a profit or loss, it is also difficult to consider all the options.
The usage figures for September are not included in the report and for the last week in August it states nobody visited the pool, when there is evidence from pool users to the contrary.
Interestingly, the subsidy for the Parish Wharf indoor amenity was £272,677, £216,696 and £166,977 for the years 2004, 2005 and 2006 respectively (reducing each year as per the contract terms). If today's press report is to be believed, why then has the figure for Parish Wharf now increased to £205,470?
Whilst we are all grateful that the Post is supporting Portishead Open Air Pool, please could some energy be targeted towards North Somerset Council in requesting the withdrawal of the Review Report until anomalies are corrected and insist that information and recommendations are substantiated by evidence. Please do not keep printing that the open air pool requires an annual subsidy that has not been backed up with evidence.
Members of the public who are concerned should protest to North Somerset Council and demand answers.”
by George, Bristol
Thursday, October 30 2008, 12:30PM
“The pool is on a prime piece of land. In fact I would go as far as to say it has the best panoramic views in Portishead, but I'm certain that development and money wouldn't be a motivating factor. If a planning application went in, would they dare suggest it would be for affordable housing? Probably.”