Residents: We'll run Portishead Pool ourselves
A community company to take over the management of Portishead's Open-Air Pool has received the backing of more than 250 supporters.
They packed the town's Somerset Hall last night for a meeting called by leaders of the Save the Open-Air Pool (STOP) campaign, backed by the Bristol Evening Post, to discuss the future of the seafront lido.
A resolution was put forward at the meeting, with pool supporters unanimously backing the principle of setting up a community company to run the attraction.
STOP campaign leader Roger Whitfield said after the meeting: "What we wanted was a mandate from the people of Portishead and the surrounding area that they were keen to take the idea forward of setting up a not-for-profit community company to run the pool.
"The support shown at the meeting gives us the backing and support from the community which we needed."
Swimmers said it would be a tragedy for Portishead if the pool, which North Somerset Council is recommending should close to save cash, were to shut its doors forever.
Barbara Waterhouse, aged 61, of Portishead, said: "I swim at the pool every day and do not want to see it close.
"I think setting up a trust is a good way of securing its future. I would even pay more to use the pool if it meant the facilities would be better."
Sheila Coates, 52, of Portishead, said: "The pool is a wonderful facility and must be kept open.
"If setting up a trust is what needs to be done, then that's what we should do."
George Wride, 71, of Fishponds, said: "I am very behind the idea of setting up a trust. The council has shown little support for the pool and hopefully, with a trust running it, it will turn it into a facility we can all be proud of."
Some at the meeting criticised the report by the North Somerset Council review panel, which is recommending the pool should close, claiming it was full of misleading and inaccurate information.
Pool campaigner Annette Hennessey said: "The report is so flawed and contains so much inaccuracy and misinformation, I think it should be withdrawn completely."
STOP campaigner Bill Hunter said he was concerned by the fact that all the review panel members were councillors in Weston-super-Mare.
Mr Hunter said: "It seems the panel members were selected for living as far away from Portishead as possible, with no real local knowledge.
"How can an objective decision be reached by such a panel?"
A final decision on the pool's future is due to be made by North Somerset Council's executive at the end of next month.
Some swimmers criticised the management of the pool, which is run by contractors DC Leisure, saying that the water was cold, the facilities poor and that the number of visitors using the facility was not counted properly.
4 Comments
by Peter, Bristol
Thursday, October 30 2008, 4:46PM
“It should be easy to persuade North Somerset council to keep the pool open. All it needs is everyone who visited the pool last year to give the Council £15 for every visit they made, that should fix the deficit for 2008. Then to promise to do the same next year, and the year after.”
by S.M., Portishead
Tuesday, October 28 2008, 11:13PM
“I must agree. Until an accurate and inbiased review of all matters surrounding the Pools viability, choosing one route blindly is no better than allowing DC leisure to carry on with their council sponsored rundown of the facility.
Sadly the council is no longer a representation of a cross section of local people and it appears that whenever they face opposition from people with differing views they go on an all out offensive to quell public opinion as if it were an uprising.
There is urgent need to discusss the way forward for the pool but it needs more transparency from the council and closure should never be an option when there are so many other possibilities, a trust being just one. The downside to a trust being set up based on emotive reasoning runs the risk of failing in the long term and should not be the only option when it has been proven in the past that with the right management, marketing and support the pool can be both profitable and a major boost to encouraging people to visit the town. Those should also be the objectives of our councillors both Town and District and its time for people to get that message to those councillors who are failing them badly on this issue.”
by C, Lake Grounds
Tuesday, October 28 2008, 7:43PM
“We are not fools. It was clear from the meeting last night that a certain Deputy Leader despite what information is received, wants to close the pool. He attempted to close our pool 3 years ago but because we had politically determined non 'single issue' councillors he did not succeed. He again is trying to repeat history and he appears to have got further due to the strangle hold his party has on North Somerset. Yes we all know the report is flawed, inaccurate and being scrutinized by people who want the pool closed. So we are being forced into offering alternatives. The pool should be run by the council, when I worked there 20 years ago this was the case and it was run well by people who loved swimming and cared deeply for the pool. Unfortunately I feel we are being stitched up by the Tory's in North Somerset you only need to read Cllr. Cameron's letter in the Mercury last week for the proof. So what do we do? I fear if we simply complain that the report is flawed and try to force further re writing we will be playing into the Deputy Leaders hands and it will close. So lets campaign saying the report is flawed demand further research, explore options and as the meeting (nearly) all agreed last night, 'in principle' offer a positive alternative that will keep the pool open”
by Annette Hennessy, Portishead
Tuesday, October 28 2008, 7:08PM
“I must correct the information in this report. The resolution put forward by the STOP campaign at the meeting was not backed unanimously. I personally expressed my reservations about going down one route only when there are several options available. I saw others also who did not raise their hands in support. Furthermore, whilst much of the information in the Review Report is inaccurate and other details relating to the usage, maintenance figures and financial statistics have been omitted completely, there are insufficient facts available to make a rational decision. I remain concerned that the public is being led down a route, possibly blindly, when other directions are possible. We need to slow down the whole process by demanding an extended investigative process (not just the extra month that was allowed) and ensure that everyone, councillors and the public alike, have comprehensive and correct information, substantiated by written evidence. Until the Review Report is corrected and re-issued, scrutiny should be put on hold.”