How and why did it happen?
 
1999   the toddlers' pool closed 

1999 - 2009  pool maintained with minimal repairs  
      
2008  site surveyed and included in Broxbourne's 
Draft Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment [SHLAA]
It was proposed that the land could be used for 42 homes.
So the site was ear-marked for housing months before
Councillors decided to close the pool.

13th Jan 2009  Community Services Committee Meeting at which the future of the pool
was discussed despite not being an agenda item. Councillors were unable to reach a decision but pool closure was recommended by the Director of Community Services on account of lack of funding for capital modernisation, despite Broxbourne Council being eligible to apply for funding under government's Swimming Initiative.
No funding was ever applied for. [Action for HOAP checked this under the Freedom
of Information Act with both Sport England and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.]
    
February 9th this same Community Services Committee resolved to close the pool 
4 votes in favour [Tory] with 1 against [Labour] and 4 abstentions [Tory].
The pool was closed with a majority of just 3 votes.    

This decision was made without any public consultation. One would have expected a ruling of this import would have been put before the full council.

17th March  The decision was called in for scrutiny by Labour Councillors Aitkin and Greenhill. 
The Scrutiny Committee  with only 4 members of the Committee eligible to vote [all Tory] rejected 
the proposal that the decision be reexamined.   

11th March Planning and Licensing Committee withdrew the Spinning Wheel site from
the Sustainable Housing Land Availability Assessment [SHLAA]
but the decision is to be reviewed in a year's time.

Future proposal is for some type of recreational facility e.g. a park with or without a water feature,
a BMX cycle track.
"The decision to close HOAP has been made and the interim use of the site will be part
of the strategy to demonstrate that the pool was not closed to build on the site"
[A council spokesman, 3rd April '09 submission for Informal Meeting of Chairmen]

From this, it appears that the recreational facility is intended as a cynical and temporary gesture to placate the public, paving the way for the ultimate objective - site use for building.

Read about our campaign and how you can help
in Campaign News and Take Action


The so-called comparative costs of swimming in Broxbourne 2008/9
The alleged subsidies for each of the pool sites were given by the council as follows:
Grundy Park Leisure Centre [GPLC]        £0.50 per person
John Warner School Centre [JWSC]       £2.00 per person
Hoddesdon Open Air Pool [HOAP]          £13.22 per person
The subsidies for GPLC & JWSC are based on each person using the site 
including gym and class clients not just swimmers.
A real comparison of swimming costs cannot be made on the available data.

Why is the HOAP subsidy so high?
This is partly as a result of the way council running costs [departmental support costs] 
are apportioned.  These costs are added to all leisure facilities in the borough. 
In the case of pool sites, the 08/09  dept. support costs were allocated as follows:
GPLC - £114,000
JWSC - £114,000
HOAP - £80,000 [only open for 4 months each year]
The number of people using each site were as follows: 
GPLC - 464,905
JWSC - 522,849
HOAP - 12,000
Therefore each person using GPLC paid £0.25 towards dept. support costs
                 each person using JWSC paid £0.22 towards dept. support costs
                 each person using HOAP paid a staggering £6.33 towards dept. costs

Despite strenuous efforts, Action4HOAP has been unable to establish the rationale
for apportioning these costs.
The claim that running costs  for HOAP were far too high appears to have been based on
unsatisfactory data, unfair loading of departmental costs 
together with reducing clientelle by closing the toddler pool and minimal maintenance. 
[the figures are available at www.broxbourne.gov.uk/PDF/MS-CS-030909-part2.pdf
  Appendix C p22/3].
In a letter to The Mercury earlier this year, Councillor Martin Kennaugh [vice-chair of Finance and Personnel] used similar data to claim that "the considerable extra cost" could not be justified and so HOAP should close.
However, the way these costs have been derived have not yet been justified by the council.