The Knowle Focus e-newsletter, compiled and circulated by Liberal Cllrs Gary Hopkins and Chris Davies, contains a long article about Jubilee Pool including copies of correspondence between the Mayor and the cross party working group. Below we reproduce key elements of the article.
___
STOP PRESS
Since this account was written this morning we now have confirmation from Jubilee members that their membership direct debits are being restarted. No official white flag from the Mayor but we wish to thank campaigners, helpers and the operators Parkwood for their cooperation.
JUBILEE POOL
It now looks like Jubilee will reopen but we cannot declare victory until local swimmers are actually back in the water. This has been the third battle to save the pool.
Throughout this campaign the Friends of Jubilee Pool have campaigned energetically and made the positive case.
MOTION TO COUNCIL
On 8th Sept 2020 a motion to council calling for the reopening of jubilee pool was replaced by one that required the setting up of a working group that was to work on both the short and long term options for jubilee pool and report back. The amended motion also called for the extension of the consultation until early November (despite repeated requests no results of the consultation have to date been released to the working group).
The group have met on a number of occasions, taken evidence from the public, the present operators, potential new operators and council officers. The group have been very clear in their findings and on more than one occasion have written to the mayor with a strong recommendation for an early reopening and with assurances that if this is complied with that there are a number of attractive, sustainable options to be chosen from for the longer term.
CROSS PARTY WORKING GROUP ON JUBILEE POOL
INTRODUCTION
At Full Council on Tuesday 8th September, the following motion was passed:
“This Council is concerned that the future of this much-loved south Bristol swimming pool is regretfully under a cloud of uncertainty because of rising costs due to the coronavirus (covid-19) pandemic.
The last review, conducted in 2017, over the cost of running this heritage facility, resulted in a plan and a promise to subsidise it for a further five years.
This Council notes:
(i) a consultation has now been launched around its proposed closure, with the Mayor indicating a willingness to consider other options including a community asset transfer (CAT);
(ii) the impact of the Hengrove PFI deal, signed in 2010;
(iii) more than 1,000 new public swimming pools opened under the previous Labour Government, contrasted with numerous pool closures and cuts under Bristol’s Lib Dem administrations;
(iv) the loss of at least 300 public owned and state school pools since 2010, contributing to more than one in three children leaving primary school unable to swim, following a decade of Tory cuts to local government;
(v) the unforeseeable and far-reaching impact of the pandemic on leisure facilities in Bristol and around the country.
Given that this leisure pool serves some of the most economically deprived parts of the city, it seems unlikely and unrealistic to expect local users to muster sufficient finance to secure such an acquisition.
Consequently, Council calls on the Mayor to:
(i) extend the current consultation for a further month to enable further exploration of options;
(ii) establish a cross-party group comprising relevant cabinet member(s) and councillors, working to look at potential solutions including those discounted in the consultation (reopening with additional funding; finding a new contractor; taking the service in-house; awarding the service to a community trust; and a CAT);
(iii) continue to work to assess options on how to honour the previous agreement made with the provider Parkwood Leisure to maintain this public amenity until at least 2022.
Council further resolves to:
(i) Support the Mayor and Bristol in lobbying in national Government to follow through with their original promise to do “whatever it takes” to compensate councils for the impact of the pandemic;
(ii) Support the Mayor and Bristol in lobbying in national Government for sector-specific support for particularly-affected industries, including the leisure sector, to support Jubilee Pool and countless other swimming pools in similar situations.”
A working Group was duly established by the Mayor to fulfil (i) and (ii) of part 2 above.
Following the directive in this motion, the Working Group established Terms of Reference as below:
TERMS OF REFERENCE
MEMBERSHIP
Membership as set out by the Mayor consists of the Councillors from the following wards:
Stockwood
Brislington East
Brislington West
Knowle
Windmill Hill
Filwood
Hengrove and Whitchurch Park
The group will elect a Chair and Vice-Chair.
Substitutions will be allowed
PURPOSE OF MEETINGS
The group will meet to consider the following:
- UNDERSTAND CURRENT SITUATION
What has happened so far, what decisions have already been made and why?
- What are the current contractual arrangements with Parkwood Leisure
- What costs have already and continue to be incurred by the Council and Parkwood?
- CONSIDER THE SHORT-TERM FUTURE OF THE POOL
- Consider whether there is a case for re-opening the pool in the short term under present circumstances.
- CONSIDER THE LONG-TERM FUTURE OF THE POOL
- Examine the cost/benefit analysis for all long-term options for the pool including alternative ideas that may not yet have been considered.
- If considered viable, look in detail at how to achieve (for example) a Community Asset Transfer or any other proposed alternatives.
- Interview any interested third parties to find out whether these ideas are feasible.
- Consider the equalities impact of a possible closure
- Consider the environmental impact of a possible closure
- Consider the health impacts of a possible closure
- MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS
- Make an early recommendation to the Mayor on re-opening of the pool in the short-term.
- After considering all long-term options, make a further recommendation to the Mayor on the long-term future of the pool.
DATES OF MEETINGS
Future meeting dates will be agreed by the Group.
BACKGROUND
It is important when making a decision on the future of Jubilee Pool to fully understand the local context of the pool and the people who use it.
The following information has been put together both from interviews conducted by the Cross-Party Working Group and from the knowledge of the Pool and its users held by local Councillors.
Jubilee and Hengrove – Complementary, not in Competition
Jubilee and Hengrove pools are very different facilities and can be regarded as complimentary rather than as competitors. Hengrove has a 50M pool which is vital for higher standard competition and is a sub-regional facility. It has large gym facilities. Users come from a wide area and a very sizeable percentage arrive by car. It was financed through a PFI deal and eight of the 25 years have passed. There is an annual PFI fee payable by the Council of £662,000 for the next 17 years.
Jubilee Pool was opened in 1937 and is Art Deco in style. It is much smaller than Hengrove and the vast majority of its users either walk or cycle to it. There is no debt on the building, which is on the Bristol List but as yet not nationally listed. It is kept several degrees warmer than Hengrove and many users prefer its small, community feel. It caters for older residents, the very young, disabled groups and many who would not cope with Hengrove.
Jubilee has a small Gym that was installed eight years ago.
There are several local schools which use the pool who would find it extremely difficult to transfer to Hengrove.
These are:
Wicklea Academy (Brislington)
Holymead Junior (Brislington)
Cleve House School (Knowle)
New Fosseway (Hartcliffe)
Ilminster Avenue (Knowle)
Woodlands Academy (Stockwood)
New Fosseway is a Special Needs school and Ilminster Avenue has a Special Needs unit.
The head teacher of Holymead Juniors has confirmed that the school would find a move to Hengrove extremely difficult to manage given the significant extra journey times there and back for multiple classes.
Condition
The working Group were presented with two conditions reports on Jubilee Pool, both from 2018, which recommended significantly different sums required to be spent.
The report by SDS carried recommended a minimum spend of approximately £30,000 within 10 years on essential maintenance.
The second report carried out by ST1 Property Management in October 2018 recommended essential maintenance of £125,000 be carried out within 5 years, with a further £65,000 being desirable within 10 years (total £190,000).
For comparison purposes, maintenance work on Bristol South pool between 2017-2020 is estimated at £260,000, on Easton Leisure Centre at £90,000 and at Kingsdown Leisure Centre at £115,000.
Additional improvements to the pool have also been suggested by Parkwood to enhance the customer service experience, including moving to a village-style changing area and extension to the Gym. In total, Parkwood estimated the refurbishment works would costs a total of £500,000. This would be borrowed by the company at commercial rates, resulting in a total cost of £540,000 (8% interest).
It is important to note that Friends of Jubilee Pool stated that most users are happy with the pool in its current condition, provided it is safe and clean. Therefore, the large capital spending costs suggested by Parkwood are not an absolute requirement for Jubilee’s continued operation.
Equalities Issues
Because of its higher costs, Hengrove is significantly more expensive to use than Jubilee.
Transport and environmental Issues
The data here is very clear. Jubilee pool users are local and largely walk or cycle to the pool. This has great environmental benefits and fits with Bristol’s ambitions to encourage active transport and to create “25 minute” neighbourhoods.
Jubilee is also well served by bus services. The Broadwalk area, where Jubilee is situated, is the major shopping and service centre for South East Bristol, and so is relatively well served by buses such as the 2 and 2A, 376, 92, 96, 513 and 514.
By contrast, the only bus services that will get users from the catchment area of Jubilee to Hengrove are the 92 or 96, both of which are infrequent and have been under regular threat of closure. Evenings and weekends have a poor or no service on these routes.
Stockwood and most of Brislington have no direct service to Hengrove Pool.
Health Issues
Whilst it is acknowledged that Hengrove Leisure Centre is a fantastic facility, it’s the most expensive one situated in the poorest and unhealthiest part of the city. South Bristol has the City’s highest rates of cancer, cardiovascular and respiratory diseases; 22% of adults and 22.2% of young children are obese; and, the life expectancy of men and women here are 9.8 yrs and 7.7 yrs lower. Having sufficient swimming pools is therefore an important part of addressing social inequality in South Bristol. This continuing public health crisis will not be addressed by closing a perfectly adequate swimming pool in South Bristol.
Swim England have published significant research into the social value of swimming (Value of Swimming | Research into the benefits of swimming on society[TR4] ) – it has been shown to bring health savings, increase educational attainment, reduce crime levels and improved life satisfaction. The NHS also promotes swimming (Swimming for fitness – NHS (www.nhs.uk)) and Swim England estimates that swimming saves our Health and social care system more than £357m annually.
The Covid crisis has brought with it a range of public health issues that are exacerbating existing issues. Jubilee Pool provides a wide range of health benefits – as well as enabling disabled users to swim and supporting children learning to swim, it also supports those that are using the pool as part of their therapy recovering from sexual assault trauma and PTSD and those that are managing significant pain and recovering from operations and long-term debilitating illness back into its warmer waters. Due to its warmer water (32 degrees) the NHS Central Bristol Chronic Pain Clinic specifically recommends Jubilee Pool to its South Bristol patients for their therapeutic recovery, rehabilitation and debilitating chronic pain management. Jubilee is also a designated ‘dementia’ friendly pool, unlike Hengrove Leisure Centre and Bristol South.
Usage
The table below shows use of Jubilee Pool from 2017-2019, prior to the coronavirus outbreak:
| Year | 2017-18 | 2018-19 | 2019-20 |
| Total number of swim attendances | 35,892 | 42,436 | 55,394 |
As can be seen from the above, the number of people using Jubilee pool had been increasing significantly up to the point of the pandemic.
The Current Operator
The operators Parkwood Leisure are willing to continue running the pool and lobbied the Working Group to recommend an extension to their contract. Their current contract until 2022 involves no subsidy, although they did ask for a contribution while Covid-19 restrictions apply.
Parkwood were very keen to stress that they did not request the closure and could reopen within two weeks. They currently get a monthly payment to keep things safe during closure but there is no reason to believe they could not return to a non-subsidy position once Covid restrictions are removed.
If the Council were to decide to keep the current operator and ask the operator to carry out substantial work to the pool this would make a non-subsidy position impossible, as figures provided by Parkwood have indicated – however, this would be a subsidy on capital spend rather than revenue.
Moving Customers to Hengrove
The Council have stated that the closure of Jubilee pool would mean the transfer of swimmers to Hengrove, improving its profitability. The closure consultation did not ask if Jubilee swimmers would transfer but some research has been done since then by the Friends Group..
No of responses: 219
Stop swimming – 180 / 82%
Swim at Hengrove – 15 / 6.8%
Other options – 10 / 4.5%
Swim at Easton – 8 / 3.6%
Swim at Longwell Green – 2 / 0.9
Swim at Bristol South – 2 / 0.9
Swim at Keynsham – 2 – 0.9
This is not a large sample so we should be careful not to rely on the exact figures. The pattern though is clear and given the close relationship between the Friends Group and the local community, it is likely to be reliable.
Note from the Friends: “Of the comments that we got back on those that would go to Hengrove, it was made clear that they would do so reluctantly, would swim less often and would not transfer membership but would pay as they went. As feared the majority of people said they would just stop swimming.”
It is feared many Jubilee users would struggle with the costs and many do not have their own transport to drive to Hengrove and so would not be able to swim. Given the profile of the users of Jubilee we can easily see older users and youngsters missing out and fitness levels decreasing.
Hengrove users use the car far more and if Jubilee users transferred in any numbers, car use would increase.
WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS
The Working Group met a total of 6 times between October and December, examined data and heard from a variety of witnesses including:
Bristol City Council officers
Parkwood -Leisure (Commercial Managers of Jubilee and Hengrove pools)
Friends of Jubilee Pool
South Bristol Sports Centre
Neptune Aquatic Solutions
Data on the current financial situation of Jubilee Pool, going back to 2017, was provided by the Council. Some performance data is confidential but a lot of the story is contained within the relevant Cabinet documents.
SHORT TERM
The working Group understands the extreme financial difficulties faced by the Leisure sector as a result of the pandemic. It further acknowledges that, until recently, there has been no financial aid from government to help the sector.
Examination of the financial data shows, however, that the Council is already paying a significant amount of money each month to keep the pool closed whilst its future is being determined (approx. £5,000). On this basis the Working Group wrote to the Mayor urging that the situation be looked at again, and recommended the soonest possible reopening under the present Management whilst the longer-term options are weighed up.
We repeat that recommendation and state that any other course would be damaging to the pool’s future and to physical and public health in the area. The cost of re-opening is likely to be little more than the cost of keeping the pool closed, but the benefits to the surrounding community will be significant.
Whatever the long-term future of the pool, keeping it open in the short-term will make any permanent solution far more viable.
LONG TERM
It is clear that the local community do not want to see the closure of Jubilee Pool. The use of both the pool and the gym has actually been increasing in recent years. The Save Jubilee Pool from Closure Facebook page has gathered over 1,500 followers since September when the proposed closure was announced.
It is also clear that the local community does not want to go through a continuous cycle of campaigns to keep the pool open, and so would be very receptive to alternative models which might help not only secure the long-term future, but see it grow and prosper.
The Cross-Party Working Group therefore examined whether a Community Asset Transfer might be a viable alternative to the Council continuing to own the pool or, as is currently proposed, to closing it altogether.
Friends of Jubilee Pool
The group interviewed representatives of the Friends Group and found them very open to the idea of a CAT. It is clear that they have many good ideas for how the pool might be operated and improved and that they do not think the current operator has put much thought or effort into this.
The group would welcome continued dialogue on how to bring this about if the Council does not determine to continue running the pool itself. In the eventuality that the current operator is offered an extended contract, the Friends group would welcome a closer dialogue with Parkwood to help boost pool usage and thus secure its future even more.
Stockwood Sports Centre
Stockwood Sports Centre were invited to present to the group on how they have revived that centre since its devastating fire, and also to put forward their thoughts on taking on the running of Jubilee Pool. The Trustees Group is currently very small and the Group would like to see this expand, possibly in conjunction with the Friends Group if the two are to work together.
Neptune Aquatics
The group met with representatives from Neptune Aquatics who made a very strong case for running the pool as a Hydrotherapy Centre, which would draw in participants from a much wider catchment area, as well as continuing to keep the pool available for Jubilee’s regular swimmers, many of whom are already going there because of the warm water temperatures and for health reasons.
Neptune Aquatics made some persuasive arguments as to why the pool might be underperforming in terms of income. They argued that the current service providers are marketing the pool to serious swimmers, which is not the right demographic due to the already high water temperature, confirming that these swimmers will most likely use Hengrove. Friends of Jubilee also made this point and both organisation argued that this pool needs to be marketed differently.
The Working Group was enthused by the hydro-therapy idea and would recommend further dialogue with Neptune about how this might work in practice, possible in conjunction with a CAT to the Friends Group.
RECOMMENDATION:
The One City Plan aims for a City where “Everyone can play their part in powerful, connected, inclusive neighbourhoods with access to the things needed for a good life.”
The One City Plan also has a target by 2022 of “All citizens can access sports amenities within 15 minutes from their home due to a network of high quality indoor and outdoor multi-sport community facilities”.
Continued operation of the pool by the current operator
Jubilee Pool is a great example of a neighbourhood facility and should not be allowed to close. From the evidence received, the Group believes that the pool still has a viable future under Council ownership. Whilst large sums of capital investment have been discussed, these are not imminently required and could be delayed until a time when finances are in a healthier position. Most users of Jubilee Pool simply want to be able to access a clean and safe pool in the short term. The pool was run on a non-subsidy contract before the pandemic so there is no reason why this could not be the case again once the health crisis is over.
Advantages:
The advantage of having the same operator run both pools is that there would be no chance of the PFI competition clause being invoked.
The Council is more likely to be able to guarantee the long-term future of the pool, should it choose to do so.
Continuing to run the pool helps the Council to meet its stated goals via the One City Plan.
Disadvantages:
The pool’s future under council ownership has been uncertain for some time, and political changes or economic conditions could well bring that future back into question again.
Community Asset Transfer
The alternative of a Community Asset Transfer appears to be a feasible alternative, and the evidence suggests that it could even result in a better facility with increased health benefits and increased usage. There is definitely good will within the community towards this approach and, we believe, residents with sufficient business experience to ensure a successful transfer. A final capital investment from the Council would certainly make this a much more feasible option. The Council would need to consider whether there would be any significant risk with this option of the PFI competition clause being invoked by Hengrove. During meetings of the group officers suggested that this is unlikely.
If the Council decided to go down this route, the existing operator would need to be enabled to continue to operate the pool until such time as an Asset Transfer can be successfully negotiated and completed. This may require a short-term extension of the contract beyond 2022 due to the current limitations of Covid-19.
Advantages:
An enthusiastic community operator could bring a new lease of life to the pool. It would bring certainty to the pool in the short-term and would enable local people with local knowledge to market the pool in the way they feel would benefit. A link up with Neptune Aquatics could bring with it new life and additional custom to the pool.
Disadvantages
A community organisation taking over an ageing building that could require expensive maintenance in years to come .
APPENDIX ONE – correspondence
Letter #1
Dear Marvin
JUBILEE POOL – RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CROSS-PARTY WORKING GROUP
The cross-party working group on Jubilee pool has now met on 3 occasions. We were very careful when agreeing our terms of reference to separate out the short /medium term from the long term plans for the pool, and so our initial focus has been on the reasons why the pool is currently closed.
We have listened to all the evidence from officers, particularly [name of officer] who is the officer on the ground, as well as taking into account the views of the operators Parkwood.
In the light of the evidence we have heard it is our unanimous decision that we request a rapid re-opening of the pool. This request is based on the fact that the monthly operating costs of Jubilee are very similar to the cost involved in keeping it ready to open. We have also been told that re-opening could be achieved by Parkwood within 2 weeks and that they are enthusiastic to make progress. We further recognise that a continued increase in Covid-19 cases could result in a further closure, but this should not prevent us from preparing to re-open and doing so if it is still allowed.
We accept that re-opening now does not amount to a commitment to the longer-term future of the pool beyond March 2022 and that a cabinet decision to close before then is still possible. Keeping the pool closed for no good reason whilst it’s long term future is considered does not seem reasonable in the circumstances, and so the option of waiting for a cabinet meeting next year was unanimously rejected by the group.
We will continue our work whilst the pool is re-opened and will be looking at all aspects and options and will take specific advice from a range of groups and officers. We will report to you as soon as we can but matters like CAT do require very careful consideration and appraisal.
Could you please confirm your response as soon as possible?
Response #1
Dear Jos
Thank you for your email. I hope you will share my response with the group.
I am surprised by the group’s reasoning for an immediate re-opening of the pool. It is based on a suggestion that the costs of keeping the pool closed are very similar to the costs for reopening. This is not the case.
On top of this, you will know from your conversation with [name of officer] that we have serious concerns regarding the veracity of Parkwood’s forecasted numbers. It’s is unwise to accept these, just because they tell us what we want to hear. They need to be tested. Parkwood are of course the operator for both Jubilee and Hengrove and benefit from subsidy to both pools with the council picking up the shortfalls. In essence, they do not have too much risk. That is carried by Bristol City Council which may create a situation in which they can be more optimistic.
You may want to explore with them, if they and you have confidence in the numbers they have forecast, the potential of taking on the risk. I would add, in the name of creating solutions, that a future this positive would be very attractive to a national funder and/or national operators. I hope you have taken the time to explore the full range of potential solutions, including these.
I will also share my belief that the framework you have put around your discussion, namely separating what we do today from the need from a long term plan, is the wrong approach. Historically, Bristol has been short-changed by a leadership that has expended its finite resources (time and money) on short term popularity over long term planning and delivery. We will not do this. As we have said repeatedly, it’s important we listen to the city, but it is also important we are honest and open in sharing the way the world is rather than the way we would all want it to be. It is important that while we must remain open to all feasible possibilities, we prioritise our finite resources toward solutions that will be with us for the long term.
It is important to acknowledge that Jubilee Pool was closed because of lower numbers of usage due to the current health pandemic. The pandemic situation remains the same.
Moreover, you will be aware of pressures toward closure that sits in the background to these lower numbers. I reference to the business case for Hengrove being predicated on the migration of swimmers from Jubilee, Bishopsworth and Filwood. When the Hengrove PFI was signed in 2010, the logic of this business case was put into play. Bishopsworth and Filwood were subsequently closed by previous administrations. For reasons I am not privy to, a decision was made at this time to put short term measures in place to temporarily protect Jubilee Pool from the consequence of the business case while remaining earmarked for closure. We are dealing with the consequences of this 2010 PFI today.
It is impossible and irrational to separate the two pools when considering costs and revenue, short term and long term. Under the PFI agreement, signed by the Lib Dem administration in 2010, we are currently liable to cover losses against a benchmark for Hengrove pool, and those costs are mounting. The migration of swimmers to Hengrove Pool has a direct correlation with costs to the council. If all the current swimmers remain at Jubilee, that will cost the taxpayer just sort of half a million pounds of revenue costs, undermining the original business case. You will know a majority of swimmers in Knowle and Brislington have already migrated and usage at Hengrove is up to 5x as popular with a large majority of schools having also migrated, including schools like Knowle Primary.
All of our leisure centres and pools require investment. It is of course, essential in a health pandemic, that minimises attendance for sessions and also makes pools less popular with reduced demand, that we prioritise those pools that offer the biggest service to the greatest number in city. In the south of the city, this is by far Hengrove and we must ensure there is no risk to Hengrove’s future operation.
I would ask that you consider the wider picture of swimming and leisure facilities in the city. As leaders, we must sometimes make difficult decisions and it is essential we make them in an evidence based way, rather than with emotion or electoral fear. With lower demand and scare recourses, it is sensible to prioritise the pools that provide the greater level of service.
On the basis of the above, I would ask the group to focus on grappling with the very real challenges of securing a long term solution for Jubilee. Of course, the long term presence of Jubilee goes against the business case for Hengrove but I have said I am open to offering political support for Jubilee as a hyper local pool that doesn’t incur ongoing costs against the public purse. On that basis, we need to find a community based solution that has a sustainable business plan. The community were able to secure a number of petition signatures that far outweighs the usage of the pool. I would suggest that a sustainable future rests on the community’s ability to convert that campaign support to usage. Elected councillor support for the community in meeting this challenge would increase the chances of success.
I will consider the outcomes of the current consultation along with your own proposals on a community led solution, and I expect to make a decision on the future of Jubilee by the January 2021 cabinet meeting. This is in line with the timeframe for the extended consultation that was requested.
I met with community campaigners last week and they were already in conversation with community funders and support groups. Can I request you join with them to use your efforts to find a long term offer and meet that timescale, where possible.
Kind regards
Marvin Rees
Letter #2
Dear Mayor
Thank you for your response dated 2/11. There are a number of points that as a group we would wish to respond to.
Firstly, it is clear that the trading position of Hengrove is very important in your thinking and you request also that we take that fully into account and say that the 2 pools are linked. However, information relating to the financial performance of Hengrove pool has only just been released to us and some is still held back and we will be considering this over the following week. We trust that can use your influence to clear the path.
What we do appear to know from the information provided to date is that Hengrove was outperforming projections by 6% prior to the pandemic, even though the original forecasts were based upon Jubilee Pool closing. Jubilee Pool has also increased its swimming and gym numbers significantly, which strongly suggests that it has proved not only possible but desirable to have both pools operating as the community have asked for.
As you and officers have said, the present contract with Parkwood runs until 2022 and switching before then would create complications. The Council’s pool policy says that other options would need to be looked at after that and in fact a number of us had already been considering the ownership vehicle to run from then. We are yet to be convinced, however, that a CAT would be a better option than Parkwood continuing to run the pool on an extended non-subsidy contract. Parkwood are enthusiastic about the prospects for both Hengrove and Jubilee and would welcome a longer contract at Jubilee. Parkwood are very clear that the present campaign will give a significant boost to trade upon reopening and whatever the final ownership model local involvement should be harnessed.
Our assertion that the cost of reopening and keeping the pool closed are similar was based on information supplied by officers to us and that was confirmed again at out meeting on the 6th where a figure of £80,000 was given for each scenario up until March 2022. We recognise that the further lockdown now in operation will likely mean an increase in this figure, and we discussed with Parkwood this week about whether they are applying to the government for funding to offset losses between now and March. They confirmed that either they or the council will be doing so, depending on the requirements of the funding. We fully expect the Council and Parkwood to work together to apply for any funding available. It was also clear that the monthly holding fee that the council are paying to keep the pool shut could not be stopped without significant damage to future prospects of re-opening.
You say that Parkwood figures cannot be relied upon and they should be tested but we do have information from other pools which re-opened after the first lockdown, and these indicate that swimming was at near full capacity during that time – capacity was of course reduced to between 40-50%, but that gives a good indicator of how Jubilee could expect to perform after re-opening. We discussed these projections with Parkwood this week and they confirmed that any models that they submit and are accepted by the Council would be honoured, regardless of whether the final performance was better or poorer, so there would be no further risk to the Council beyond what is agreed. They were able to quote from their experience around the country where 98% of their operations reopened and in fact peak usage periods have lengthened.
We recommended that the pool should re-open asap and of course we anticipated the possibility of a national lockdown. This inevitably means a few weeks delay but the principle is the same. What is not clear from your letter is exactly what will be considered in January. We all know that asset transfer and a business plan cannot be ready by then so we would seek assurance that the target for that becoming operational remains March 2022. Clearly in March 2022 any new operator has a massively greater chance of success if they are taking over a going concern. Closing now will damage the long-term prospects and we would seek your views on that.
We would also seek clarification on why, given the current contract was successfully operating on a non-subsidy basis up until March 2020, you are only supporting an asset transfer. You suggested to the Friends group that the Council’s position would be substantially improved by the transfer of swimmers to Hengrove, yet the logic of an asset transfer is that this would not occur, and so the Council would not benefit financially. This has been confirmed by [name of officer]. Indeed, the more successful the new operator was, the fewer customers would transfer. We would therefore seek clarity on why you would support a CAT but not the continued operation on a non-subsidy basis for the current arrangement post-Covid?
Concern has been expressed about us externalising costs. The residents pay the financial cost of travelling to Hengrove, if they do at all, and all of us pay the environmental costs. We have not yet been able to devote enough time to the equalities and health impacts of potential closure but that factors are clearly going to be significant.
Response #2
Dear Lord Mayor,
Thank you for your recent e-mail, in which is welcome to see you acknowledge that the forecasts and business case for Hengrove were predicated on the closure of Jubilee Pool – as well as Filwood and Bishopsworth, which were shut by a previous administration. Establishing a shared understanding of the facts and numbers is always important and it is good to know that the depth of the financial link between the two pools has been clarified.
I share the operator’s enthusiasm for Jubilee Pool which, despite its lack of viability, is much-valued by the local community. Jubilee pool’s pre-pandemic losses have also already been set out to you, which have previously been covered by the Council. We remain in dialogue with Parkwood – and have continued to clarify – that if they cover revenue shortfalls over the costs needed to keep it closed, and underwrite the risks, then the Pool can reopen.
In the meantime, you will have seen recent reports in the MJ that district councils are warning that leisure centres will collapse without further support from national government. We long lobbied for and warmly welcomed the £100 million pot announced last month (for groups of pools), but fear that it will barely touch the sides. My letter to Government with Core Cities detailed how, before the current lockdown, around half of swimming pools in similar cities had been unable to reopen. The situation facing Jubilee Pool is shared by countless other pools around the country – what is unique is that, prior to the 5 November lockdown, Bristol reopened the vast majority of our swimming pools despite the immense challenges posed to the sector by the covid-19 pandemic. This achievement is only bolstered by recent positive news about the completion of renovations to South Bristol Pool.
There remains no doubt that the community are best placed to grow usage and turn a popular pool into a profitable pool. I would continue to encourage you to work with the community and potential funding groups to find a long term sustainable future for Jubilee Pool. I suggest you look at case studies of CATs, including Jacob Wells Baths and the Ardagh here in Bristol and community-run pools in the city-region, particularly Paulton pool which is now community led. I have already offered officer support with business planning.
For the longer term, we will bring a cabinet paper forward in the new year that will set out our long term strategy for investment in our leisure centre offer. I have offered to meet with the community group again ahead of that cabinet paper and perhaps, as Chair of the working group, you could join us?
Kind regards,
Marvin Rees