The City of London Corporation’s decision to close the Golden Lane Leisure Centre has been called into question after it emerged the operator involved warned of its financial difficulties two months before any details were made public.
By Ben Lynch, Local Democracy Reporter
The City of London Corporation’s decision to close the Golden Lane Leisure Centre has been called into question after it emerged the operator involved warned of its financial difficulties two months before any details were made public.
The Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) also understands that a fortnight later, on February 24, Corporation members in consultation with the Town Clerk formally agreed to close the site.
This was weeks before the public announcement on April 2 when the Corporation revealed operator Fusion Lifestyle was entering administration and that the site would have to shut from April 30.
Rajesh Thind, a spokesperson for the Save Golden Lane Leisure Centre campaign group, said those using the facility were given “no warning” about its impending closure despite the City of London having already made its decision.
He said: “A mother whose SEN son depends on this pool for his wellbeing was given no warning. Cardiac patients referred here by their doctors were given no warning. The staff who run these sessions — some of the most dedicated people on this estate — were told at half an hour’s notice on April Fool’s Day.
“The City of London Corporation is the richest local authority in the country. This is not a resource problem. This is a choice.”
A City of London Corporation spokesperson said while the local authority was aware of Fusion’s financial challenges in early February the operator was in confidential discussions to secure a buyer, and so it could not comment publicly.
They added the decision to close the centre was taken under delegated authority as there was “a realistic prospect” Fusion would enter administration before the next relevant committee meeting.
The needs of vulnerable groups were carefully assessed, they said, and securing quality alternative facilities has been a priority.
The planned closure of the leisure centre, which is in the middle of the listed Golden Lane Estate, was announced by the Corporation in early April.
The City said operator Fusion Lifestyle was entering administration, and that due to the site’s condition and fact it was scheduled to shut in December to enable a refurbishment, “no financially viable alternative to closure could be identified”.
That decision, which will see the centre close its doors on April 30, has however come under significant scrutiny from campaigners.
The Corporation has since said users will be able to access the Finsbury Leisure Centre and Ironmonger Row Baths under a deal with Islington Council, though these alternatives have been described as “inadequate for the facility’s most vulnerable users”.
The Golden Lane Leisure Centre is the only publicly-funded provision in the City, delivering classes to groups including the elderly and children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND).
The campaign group has now said that, following a meeting with the Corporation last week, further details on the timeline of events have been revealed.
These include that the Corporation was warned by Fusion of its financial challenges on February 10, and that 14 days later, the Town Clerk, in consultation with Deputy Helen Fentimen and Common Councillor Steve Goodman, made the decision to close the centre under delegated urgency authority.
Deputy Fentimen and Cllr Goodman are the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Community and Children’s Services Committee.
No information was communicated to families or users of the facility though campaigners have claimed a private briefing was held with ward councillors. The decision was then announced on April 2.
‘No one told the staff or the community’
Mr Thind said: “For five weeks, Helen Fentimen and Steve Goodman knew this centre was closing. In those five weeks, no committee was convened, no alternative operator was approached, no equality impact assessment was completed, and no one told the staff or the community. They found time to privately brief ward councillors, but not to ask a single alternative provider whether they could keep the doors open.”
The campaign group is in the process of preparing a formal proposal for a “community-led interim management model”, which they say would be able to keep the centre open until the refurbishment starts.
A City of London Corporation spokesperson said: “We were aware in early February that Fusion Lifestyle faced serious financial challenges. At that stage Fusion was in confidential discussions to secure a buyer, and the City Corporation was not party to those negotiations and could not comment publicly.
“The decision to close the centre was taken under delegated authority, and in line with Standing Orders, by the City Corporation’s Town Clerk in consultation with the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Community and Children’s Services Committee.
“This was because Fusion Lifestyle’s financial position indicated a realistic prospect of imminent administration before the next committee cycle.
“We did consider temporary operation, including approaches taken with Fusion-run centres in other areas, and had the redevelopment already been completed, we would have taken whatever measures were necessary to keep the centre running.
“However, the condition of the building as it is meant there was a real risk of unreliable service for users. On balance, a planned and managed closure, with alternative provision secured nearby, was considered a more reliable option for users.
“Officers considered equality, safeguarding, legal and financial risks as part of the decision making process and continue to do so as mitigations are put in place.
“We’ve looked carefully at the needs of vulnerable groups, and finding alternative provision for them has been our priority. We know closure impacts some more than others, which is why we’ve worked to secure quality local alternatives, and will continue to work with groups and individuals needing support where there are any gaps.”
