Agenda item

For Members to debate a Borough Petition and a Local Petition.

-        

A Borough-wide Petition had been  received by the Monitoring Officer as follows:

 “Croydon Council please re-open Purley Leisure Centre”.

Mr Richard Willmer introduced the petition by stating that support for retaining Purley Leisure Centre was overwhelming in the community with over 3000 signatures on the petition. This had been further shown by the demonstration before the start of the meeting. He also stated that the assumption that people could use Waddon instead was not the case for many and that as it would be catering for 40% of the borough’s residents if it took on Purley’s, Waddon’s position would become untenable.

Mr Willmer continued by stating that the statement in the Cabinet report that Purley was the oldest leisure centre was not the case as South Norwood had been built about ten years earlier but this site had undergone a refurbishment in 2002. The cost of £3 million to refurbish Purley Leisure Centre was a huge increase from the £200,000 quoted in 2019 and the report made much of loses at Purley Leisure Centre when there had been loses at the other leisure centres. There had also been no mention in the report of the increase in users such as the swimming school and the gym or of any of the opportunities to increase income. For example, the over 60s now pay for swimming or that the contract with GLL had a cost subsidy model built in so that those facilities that make a profit subsidise those that do not.

In his response, Councillor Lewis thanked Mr Willmer and the other campaigners and accepted that there was great sentiment and affection for Purley Pool but that the decision to close the pool had already been taken and it would not be possible to reopen it. It was an aging facility which required a significant investment and it was lose making. It had also been put forward for closure around a decade ago. It would also require ongoing investment over a number of years and there had been degradation of the building which could put public safety at risk. Even if all the work required was carried out to allow it to reopen it would still be a loss making facility.

Possible solutions had been looked at to make the facility more sustainable in the future but this had not been possible due to the layout. It was not possible to keep pumping money into it which is why the decision was made to close it. A consultation had been carried out on ways to mitigate the loss of Purley Leisure Centre and a report will be published in due course. Work will continue with the community to provide them with a new leisure centre in that location in the future. The Local Plan which would be voted on later in the meeting, made provision for a new pool to be provided on this site.

In conclusion Councillor Lewis stated that it had not been an easy decision to make and appreciated that the closure would make it difficult for some residents to access leisure facilities but emphasised that work would continue to deliver a leisure facility on the site.

Councillor Brew stated that it was an outrage that Purley Leisure Centre had not reopened in 2020 when local residents thought that it should. Councillor Perry has pledged to reopen Purley Pool if he is elected as the Mayor in next years’ election. Purley Pool had been a focal point for the community since it opened and some groups have not been able to use the alternative sites. Businesses in the Purley BID (Business Improvement District) also want the centre to be reopened to boost footfall locally.

In addition Councillor Brew also stated that he had inspected the building and that the only issues that needed to be addressed were the air handling units and two leaks in the roof which was caused by a lack of maintenance.  He suggested that the sum of £3 million was ludicrous.

Councillor Clark joined Councillor Lewis in thanking the residents and stated that every resident should have access to leisure facilities. However, Sport England had expressed concerns at the number of swimming pools that have closed due to a lack of Government funding. He asked Members to remember that the previous Tory administration had planned to close Purley Pool but that the current administration had kept it open until it was forced to close due to Covid.

Councillor Clark continued by acknowledging that people did need to travel further and thanked Councillor Canning, Councillor Pelling and Councillor Prince who had called for better public transport to Waddon and this administration will be putting forward a case for this with TfL (Transport for London) and the council will work with any community groups or schools to provide a solution. The Croydon Local Plan also sets out plans for the redevelopment of the site, which included a new state of the art swimming pool.

Councillor Perry stated that the funds needed to reopen the pool was not £3 million as stated by the Administration but much lower. He continued by saying that the Administration did not apply for funds from the Government to allow Purley Pool to reopen and that it had been a purely political decision, as had the degradation of the building. Some of the most vulnerable in the community had been affected such as the elderly who used it as a social hub and had nowhere else to go and the school children who can no longer have swimming lessons as getting to the alternative facilities involved getting two or three buses.

Councillor Perry continued by stating that the closure had ripped the heart out of Purley and had decreased footfall just at a time when businesses needed more help to survive. Also as part of his Mayoral campaign he pledged to reopen Purley Pool and Leisure Centre as the facility must remain open until any new facilities were brought forward.

Mr Willmer welcomed Councillor Perry’s pledge and was disappointed that the council was not looking into the options that were around. Redevelopment would leave this part of the Borough with no facilities for many years and it would not guarantee a six lane 25 metre pool which is what is required for the school children and other users of the pool. He went on to state that with the increase in housing developments coming through in the south of the borough, there would be a need for facilities for these new residents as well as those already living in the area.

Mr Willmer continued by stating that these developments had greatly increased the amount of Community Infrastructure Levy funds that the council had and that the money should be going to provide infrastructure in that part of the borough. There were also other sources of income such as Section 106 money which also had to be spent locally so there were other ways of proceeding other than full redevelopment.

Councillor Lewis reiterated his thanks to Mr Willmer and the other campaigners for their desire to see a pool in Purley. He continued by confirming the national picture given by Councillor Clark where pools could close due to lack of funding nationally.

In conclusion, Councillor Lewis stated that the choice was either to continue putting money into “sticking plaster” measures or choose to have a new state of the art leisure centre.

The Mayor thanked Mr Willmer and all the residents who had signed the petition.

Local Petition

A Local Petition had been received by the Monitoring Officer as follows:

 “We call on Croydon Council to allow access for all. We demand the removal of the road blocks on Holmesdale Road and Albert Road and no replacement with ANPR cameras across South Norwood, Woodside, Addiscombe and Crystal Palace.”.

Ms Carolyn Kellaris introduced the petition by stating that the petition did not just represent the 1250 people who had signed it but the 70% of respondents to the consultation that were being ignored by those elected to represent them. Specifically over 50% of residents on her road did not want ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) cameras and this was clearly apparent when speaking to the residents who signed this petition.

Ms Kellaris continued by stating that the area did not suffer from excessive traffic and that it was difficult to understand why this scheme was put forward and that the residents could not be dismissed as a vocal minority. The scheme would only serve to push more traffic on to already congested roads where vulnerable people live and make side roads unsafe for women at night.  She asked how this sits with the Labour Party strapline of “For the Many, Not the Few”.

In conclusion, Ms Kellaris stated that the example of Waltham Forest showed that air quality had worsened following introduction of the LTN (Low Traffic Neighbourhoods)so cautioned on using this as a way of improving air quality and questioned the Council’s motives and presumptions made in wanting to introduce this scheme when no data had been made available or any measurable targets for reduction quoted. She asked the Council to work collaboratively with the community to design a scheme rather than imposing one on the community.

In his response, Councillor Muhammed Ali thanked the petitioner and acknowledged that there were strong views on both sides with this proposal and that he would be  taking these into account before making a decision.  A decision had not yet been made and the proposal had been put before the Traffic Management Advisory Committee in November and their views were also being taken into account. He confirmed that he intended to make a decision this week and amending the scheme from temporary to experimental to include monitoring which the petitioners had been asking for. This would also allow air quality monitoring to take place. The schemes would still allow direct access for residents living in the Healthy Neighbourhoods along with direct access for emergency vehicles and for disabled people to still be able to use their blue badges and access Dial-a-Ride and taxi services.

The schemes are about ensuring access for all and it should be noted that only a certain proportion of Croydon residents can drive or have access to cars and children and young people have been impacted the most by private cars taking over the streets. In addition, they are the generation who will benefit the most if we are able to minimise the scale of the climate crisis that the whole country is facing. The Prime Minister had given his support to all councils who want to promote cycling and bus schemes and that those that oppose these schemes need to come up with alternatives.

In conclusion, Councillor Ali stated that moving this scheme from temporary to experimental will give the council the data needed.

Councillor Perry stated that once again this Administration had not been listening to residents whilst still pushing ahead with its own agenda and it was therefore no surprise that yet another petition regarding the removal of road blocks and against the installation of ANPR cameras had been received. He continued by stating that no clear evidence had been presented to show the schemes across the borough were making any tangible difference to air quality or that LTN’s had reduced the number of unnecessary car journeys. These schemes had been forced upon communities with no consideration of the impacts on those communities and it was clear that this had been just a money making exercise.

In conclusion, Councillor Perry stated that the residents of Holmesdale Road and Albert Road deserved better.

Councillor Muhammad Ali, in his response stated that he agreed that monitoring and evaluation was important and confirmed that this would be exactly what this scheme had been designed to do and would follow TfL guidance.

Secondly, Councillor Ali stressed the importance of air quality improvements and questioned Councillor Perry’s commitment to making improvements.

Councillor Ben-Hassel then requested a point of order regarding the atmosphere in the chamber.

Councillor Ali then reiterated his previous statement that these experimental schemes will give the council the data it needs on improving air quality

The Mayor thanked Ms Kellaris and all the residents who had signed the petition.