Last week, Gedling Eye published an opinion piece by Councillor Henry Wheeler setting out his views on the proposed Carlton Active leisure centre replacement project.

You can read the original article here.

In response, Ian Summerscales, Director of Gedling Indoor Bowls Centre Limited, has contributed the following article on behalf of the bowls club...

We want to make one thing absolutely clear from the outset: we are not opposed to investment in leisure facilities in Carlton or elsewhere in Gedling. We recognise that many of the borough’s leisure facilities are ageing and that the Council faces difficult decisions about the future of its leisure estate.

However, we would urge all parties to step back from the political arguments and focus instead on the evidence, including properly scrutinised assessments of demand for indoor bowls facilities in the borough and the wider conurbation.

If Carlton Active is the right solution for Carlton, then the Council should be able to demonstrate that clearly and convincingly. It should also be possible to explain why the loss of indoor bowls facilities is unavoidable without relying on what we believe to be flawed data. Equally, if there are alternative ways of delivering improved leisure provision that offer better value for residents, those options should be fully considered before any irreversible decision is made.

As a bowls club, our objective is not to prevent investment in Carlton. Rather, it is to ensure that both the future of leisure provision and the future of indoor bowls in Gedling are considered properly, fairly and in the best interests of local residents.

In his recent article for Gedling Eye, Councillor Wheeler suggested that opposition councillors have failed to propose alternative approaches to Carlton Active. This is simply not the case. For example, a proposal was put to Gedling Borough Council’s Cabinet that, rather than spending millions of pounds on consultants and a further £30 million on demolition and new-build costs, work could be commissioned at a significantly lower cost to repair and maintain the existing swimming pools at Carlton Forum, alongside more modest investment at the Richard Herrod Leisure Centre.

Councillor Wheeler appears to treat demolition and rebuilding on the Richard Herrod site as a foregone conclusion. Yet it is notable that, according to an item published by Gedling Eye earlier this week, internal demolition work has already begun despite planning permission still awaiting approval. To many, this creates the impression of predetermination and raises questions about committing substantial expenditure before central government has decided whether to issue a Section 24 notice that could halt the project.

The central question should be straightforward: what facilities are needed, what can realistically be afforded, and how should public money be invested to achieve the best outcomes for residents? Nobody is advocating “sticking-plaster” solutions. Rather, the argument is for the careful and prudent use of taxpayers’ money.

Funding for Carlton Active is expected to come from a combination of reserves, the sale of an unspecified capital asset, and substantial borrowing that council taxpayers will ultimately repay over the next 40 years. It is notable that Councillor Wheeler made no reference in his article to the long-term financial burden that such borrowing could place on future councils and local taxpayers.

Concerns surrounding sewage leaks affecting the swimming pool at Carlton Forum must also be addressed as a matter of urgency, particularly given that any replacement facility on the Richard Herrod site remains several years away from completion.

We would therefore urge a pause in the current proposals and ask all political parties to work together in finding solutions that provide high-quality leisure facilities while making prudent use of public money.

Finally, while the Council has been diligent in attempting to identify alternative accommodation for Gedling Indoor Bowls Club, none of the options proposed to date have proved affordable. We have demonstrated that the club’s operation at the Richard Herrod Centre was, and could continue to be, self-financing. As a result, we would welcome further discussions with the Council about the possibility of securing a smaller, sustainable facility that would allow indoor bowls to continue serving local residents in the future.