The future of a Gedling bowls club remains ‘vulnerable’ after a key decision over its inclusion in leisure centre redevelopment plans was deferred.
In September 2025, the fate of Gedling Indoor Bowls Club was left in doubt following a decision by Gedling Borough Council’s cabinet to no longer include the club in its plans to replace Carlton Forum Leisure Centre and the Richard Herrod site with a new building.
Under the plans, a new ‘Carlton Active’ leisure and community facility would be built on the Richard Herrod Site, which could include an eight-lane swimming pool and teaching pool, a 100-station gym, community rooms and a café.
At September’s cabinet meeting, the authority decided to offer what was described as “non-financial support” to the club, for members to look for options to relocate, due to council financial reasons.
Up until that point, the Richard Herrod-based club, that has been running since 1987, had been considered in the redevelopment proposals.
It now has 330 members and a petition was presented to the council in a meeting on Wednesday (November 12), signed by 1,021 people at the time of submission, calling on the authority to “reinstate, retain and protect” indoor bowling within plans. The petition now has 1,181 signatures.
Speaking to the local democracy reporting service (LDRS) back in September, Ian Summerscales, director of the bowls club, said the decision to not include the club in plans was “effectively shortening people’s lives”.
He said it would cause social isolation that “people don’t survive” for long, with the club also offering mental respite for members and provision for disability bowls.
Presenting the petition in Wednesday’s meeting, Jenny Higgins, club director, said the club was a “lifeline” and it wanted to work with the council to find a “balanced solution”.
She questioned the council’s concerns for financial viability, stating the option to include the bowls club would give a surplus to the council in year two.
Speaking during the meeting, Councillor Henry Wheeler (Lab), portfolio holder for lifestyles, health and wellbeing, said a six-rink bowls facility in the plans would add between £5.6 million to £7.7 million to capital costs, leaving the council a subsidy of around £500,000 a year.
He said figures had been “cleared by independent sector specialist consultants using current market rates” and a smaller three or four rink alternative option to include bowls in the plans would not be “operationally viable” for the club due to competition standards.
Cllr Wheeler called for the decision responding to the petition to be deferred to the cabinet – this was later accepted by the council.
The club’s moves to try save its future at the new leisure centre was supported by some councillors.
Cllr Sam Smith (Con) described the club as a “gem” in the borough and called on the council to look at the proposal figures again.
The non-financial support offer to the club was called a “series of words without any substance” by Cllr Martin Smith (Con).
Cllr Darren Maltby (Con) said the council should be looking at increasing its “inclusive” facilities when speaking of the club’s importance in disability bowls, saying: “You can’t measure the benefit people get from this in money, but in the quality of life.”
Speaking on alternatives, Cllr Andrew Ellwood (Lib Dem) said he did have “reservations” financially for a six-rink site but a three or four rink alternative could be looked at, enabling the club to still hold local competitions.
Cllr Andrew Meads (Ind) called it “cavalier” to “rush” any wider redevelopment plans, adding Carlton may find itself under a new local authority with upcoming local government reorganisation plans.
He suggested if people were not happy regarding the subsidy for the Richard Herrod Centre then “lease the whole site to the bowling club, let them run it as a social enterprise and see if they can keep it on its feet on their own”.
Speaking to the LDRS following Wednesday’s deferral decision, Mr Summerscales said he was “pleased” the petition was not immediately rejected but said the club had not been consulted on a smaller-rink option.
He said he believes if the final inclusion decision comes down to the council’s leading Labour group then the “decision won’t change”, saying: “We’re still feeling vulnerable. We really need the council to take on board all those considerations – particularly around the issues affecting health and wellbeing.”
Mr Summerscales says the club is willing to work with the authority on assessing alternative inclusion options and their financial viability on both sides, adding: “We’re fairly confident we would be able to make anything work.”
The club runs 2,200 indoor bowling sessions each month, including sessions offered for disabled bowlers, and members are aged between 25 and 92.
Both leisure centres currently face more than £2 million in backlog works and require a yearly subsidy of around £545,000, making them “unsustainable in their current form”, according to council papers.
The club’s inclusion in redevelopment plans will be discussed further at a future cabinet meeting.
