A motion calling on the City of London Corporation to reopen the Golden Lane Leisure Centre has been rejected, sparking accusations the authority is preventing “democratic debate”.
By Ben Lynch, Local Democracy Reporter
A motion calling on the City of London Corporation to reopen the Golden Lane Leisure Centre has been rejected, sparking accusations the authority is preventing “democratic debate”.
The motion, proposed by Alderwoman Martha Grekos and seconded by Deputy Marianne Fredericks, had received the requisite number of signatures for it to be tabled and debated at the next Court of Common Council meeting on Thursday (May 21).
It was however rejected by the Corporation due to it being deemed unlawful, with officers claiming a lack of detail around issues such as the cost meant the proposal was not reasonable.
Alderwoman Grekos told the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) the motion was submitted in full compliance and warned its rejection will prove to be a “massive own goal” by the Corporation.
A Corporation spokesperson said they have a duty to ensure value for money for local taxpayers, and that the motion would have instructed officers to reopen the centre without explaining how it would be paid for.
The Golden Lane Leisure Centre, the only state-funded facility in the Square Mile, was shut on April 30 after operator Fusion Lifestyle went bust. The decision to close the site, which hosted activities from swimming for children with SEND (special educational needs and disabilities) to elderly gym sessions, has come under intense scrutiny from users and residents on the estate.
The concerns have primarily related to the process, with the Save Golden Lane Leisure Centre campaign group revealing the Corporation knew of Fusion’s financial challenges back in February, and the impact on vulnerable groups who used the facilities.
Alternative sites have been identified, though the Corporation has said the centre will remain shut until a refurbishment is complete.
This was initially intended to begin in December though is expected to be delayed, in-part due to a decision to revisit the designs.
Alderwoman Grekos submitted the proposed motion to the Corporation in an effort to get it onto the Court of Common Council meeting agenda for this week. If accepted, this would have given members the opportunity to debate and potentially agree to instruct officers to act on its contents.
The proposed motion as put to the Corporation read: “That this Honourable Court resolves that officers be instructed:
(a) to take all necessary steps to reopen Golden Lane Leisure Centre as soon as possible, and to keep it open until refurbishment begins; and
(b) to engage with the centre’s users on a genuine co-design basis when re-designing the refurbishment and to constitute the advisory board on the basis of community proposals.”
Amendments were suggested to make the proposal valid, such as by instead instructing that a report on the issue be brought to the relevant committee. Alderwoman Grekos has, however, contested the reasoning given for the rejection.
The LDRS has seen several emails from members raising concerns, claiming they are being prevented from having the opportunity to debate a matter of significant interest.
Alderwoman Grekos told the LDRS: “The rejection by unelected officials of a grassroots motion that was submitted in full compliance with the City Corporation’s standing orders will prove to be a massive own goal by the City Corporation. It prevents democratic debate, and thus supports the argument of those who call for the Corporation’s abolition.”
A City of London Corporation spokesperson said: “A proposed motion on the temporary closure of Golden Lane Leisure Centre ahead of our £10.4 million refurbishment was not included on the Court of Common Council agenda because, having taken legal advice, it was considered unlawful.
“We have a legal duty to take decisions on the basis of all relevant considerations, including costs and practical implications, and to ensure we achieve value for money for local taxpayers.
“This motion would have instructed officers to reopen the centre without explaining how this would work or be funded, given the operator’s failure and the planned closure for refurbishment. Alternative, high quality provision is already in place a short distance away.
“This is not about preventing debate. The mover of the motion was offered the chance to amend it so it could be properly considered, for example by requesting a report on the options. That offer was not taken up.”
