The Overview and Scrutiny Committee of Tower Hamlets Council met on Thursday 3 March 2022 to consider a call-in regarding the decision on the Leisure Estate Investment Plan. The committee voted to affirm the cabinet's decision, deciding not to send the matter back for reconsideration.

Leisure Estate Investment Plan

The committee considered a call-in regarding the cabinet's decision on the Leisure Estate Investment Plan, specifically concerning the future of St. George's Baths. The call-in was initiated due to concerns about the proposed closure of St. George's Baths for an extended period, the reduction in pool length, and the perceived lack of exploration into refurbishment options.

Councillor Andrew Wood, speaking on behalf of the call-in members, highlighted three main concerns. Firstly, he questioned the significant cost of £9.9 million to temporarily reopen St. George's Baths, contrasting it with the £0.5 million cost to reopen Tiller Road Baths. He argued that the option of a short-term reopening for a couple of years had not been fully explored, which would mitigate the loss of swimming provision for the borough. Secondly, he raised concerns about the proposed reduction in pool length from 33 metres to 25 metres, which he stated represented a 25% cut in overall swimming provision and was not adequately justified. Finally, he called for independent verification of the refurbishment cost estimates, noting that while access to the building for independent assessment had been agreed, redacted cost information from condition survey reports remained inaccessible due to commercial confidentiality.

Councillor Rabina Khan, also speaking for the call-in members, echoed concerns about the potential for housing on the St. George's Baths site and questioned whether housing sketches had been produced. She also raised the issue of the impact of the prolonged closure on local communities, particularly Black, Asian, and ethnic minority communities, and called for a thorough equalities impact assessment.

Councillor Sabina Akhtar, Cabinet Member for Culture, Arts and Sports, responded to the concerns. She explained that the £9.9 million figure for reopening St. George's Baths was based on condition surveys indicating extensive structural and mechanical issues, requiring significant repairs to the building's fabric, plant, and electrical systems. She stated that the existing building was over 50 years old and beyond economic repair, with its design inhibiting necessary upgrades. Councillor Akhtar clarified that the cabinet's decision was to replace the existing centre with a new, modern facility, which would offer a wider range of amenities and a longer lifespan of 40 years compared to a refurbished building. She also addressed the pool length, explaining that while 33 metres was possible, the guidance for new leisure centres often recommended 20, 25, or 50 metres, and that a 25-metre pool would allow for other essential facilities like a larger teaching pool and more gym space. She assured the committee that diving had not been ruled out and could be accommodated in a separate teaching pool with a moveable floor.

During the discussion, Councillor Faruq Ahmed questioned the significant cost of refurbishment and the impact of a six-year closure on the local community. Councillor Gabriela Salva Macallan sought clarity on the documents that needed to be made public for a full review, including the condition survey with financial findings and energy efficiency reports. Councillor Halima Islam raised concerns about why money was spent on maintenance after condition surveys if the building was deemed unfit for purpose, and the impact of service disruption on families. Councillor Mark Francis questioned the detail behind the £9.9 million refurbishment cost and the realism of the proposed timeline for demolition and rebuild. Councillor Faruq Ahmed also inquired about changing facilities for diverse users and the carbon impact of construction.

In the discussion and subsequent vote, the committee ultimately voted three to one to affirm the cabinet's decision, deciding not to send the matter back for reconsideration. Councillors who voted to affirm the decision cited the need for long-term investment in leisure facilities, the potential for a new, modern centre, and the value for money offered by a rebuild over a costly refurbishment. Concerns were raised about the £9.9 million refurbishment figure, but the consensus was that a new build offered a better long-term solution. The committee noted the concerns raised by the call-in members and residents, including those regarding pool length, costings, carbon impact, and resident engagement, and these were to be addressed in future reports to the cabinet.