FAQ and Facts

We aim to provide facts and evidence to prevent misinformation being spread throughout the community.

Friends of Southwell Swimming Pool want all interested parties to work together to reopen Southwell Swimming pool as soon as possible and to ensure that it will be enjoyed by future generations for many years to come.

We are urging Newark & Sherwood District Council & Southwell Leisure Centre Trustees to fully explore all potential solutions to repairing the original pool.

We broadly support the Newark & Sherwood District Council proposals for a new pool, but have concerns that the proposal does not represent best value for money.

Let's consider the Facts

Following closure of Southwell Pool in October 2023 NSDC have proposed building a new pool at a cost to the taxpayer of £5.5 million. Southwell Leisure Centre Trust (SLCT) and Southwell Town Council (STC) own the Leisure Centre and surrounding land. In October 2021 Newark & Sherwood District Council (NSDC) signed a 25 year lease with SLCT to take over the running and costs of Southwell Leisure Centre (SLC). SLC is managed by Active4today (the leisure arm of NSDC) and benefit from the memberships.

There has been lots of social media activity regarding the situation and we are aware that there is some misinformation being spread throughout the community. We have prepared this information based on fact and evidence available to us at the time of writing.

Who are FOSS? What is your agenda?

Friends of Southwell Swimming pool (FOSS) are a group including members of Southwell Swimming Club and other stakeholders. Our overall aim is to ensure that the optimal value and service provision is obtained for Southwell residents in the short, medium and long term. In the short term we want to reopen Southwell Swimming Pool as soon as feasibly possible and to ensure that it is available for many generations to come.

We are a totally independent group of concerned residents, we have no political affiliation and we are not working with the trustees or council.

We want NSDC to repair the pool. We believe that the old pool is repairable, at a fraction of the cost quoted by NSDC and within a much shorter timescale. We believe that repairing the current pool will quickly restore the pool and revenue from it, minimising the detriment to the health and well-being of the residents of Southwell, as well as paying for itself in a year.

We want a guarantee. We do not believe that the Southwell Leisure Centre Trust (SLCT) or the Southwell Town Council (STC) should be forced to hand over the land, as demanded by NSDC, without any real guarantee that the new pools will be built.

We want stakeholder representation. We want the Southwell Leisure Centre Trust to undertake a comprehensive review to ensure alignment with its operational objectives, to include refining the constitution to ensure that all stakeholders are represented.

We urge NSDC to take adequate time for consultation, planning, and construction of the new pool to ensure it meets the needs of stakeholders and is executed with quality, sustainability, and safety in mind.

As evidenced by recent headlines, all councils are under severe financial pressure with many conflicting demands on their revenue streams. FOSS are concerned that NSDC will be unable to fulfil their commitment to complete a new build, and have put forward proposals that they believe will offer a more financially viable solution.

Do the numbers add up?

To repair the pool would cost £249k. Active4Today (A4T) are losing £260k per year in swimming memberships and NSDC are paying A4T that amount to make up for the lost revenue. At the moment it is costing the taxpayer extra not to repair the pool. The pool could be re-opened in as soon as 6 weeks and in one year, the repairs would pay for themselves. Every year after that, the pool would be adding £260k to the A4T budget and saving NSDC £260k per year in compensating A4T for their loss in revenue. Even if the pool repairs only lasted a year, a repair makes sense. However, the NSDC engineers as well as the contractors engaged by SLCT say the building, tank and pool surround are in good condition and could last many more years. The leak is caused by leaky pipes which can be repaired.

Current Pool

Who owns the pool/leisure centre?

The pool was built in the 1960s following a groundbreaking crowdfunding initiative by the community to raise £40k - worth £800k in today’s terms. At that time, the people involved set up a Trust (now known as Southwell Leisure Centre Trust - SLCT) which is a charity with the express aim of establishment and maintenance of the pool and leisure centre for the public benefit, in particular the inhabitants of Southwell and district (Charity Commission website). After many years of doing this successfully, forced closures during the pandemic meant that Southwell Leisure Centre (SLC) was closed for many months, putting a huge strain on its finances. In October 2021 NSDC signed a lease with SLCT to take over the running and costs of SLC, and they also benefited from the memberships. SLC is managed by Active4Today (the leisure arm of NSDC) under the terms of a lease, with SLCT and Southwell Town Council retaining ownership of the leisure centre and land surrounding.

Why was the pool closed?

NSDC suspected a leak so the pool was closed in October 2023 to investigate. The engineers found that water levels were dropping by approximately 2% (8750L) per day, which is considered beyond the average for this type of pool. They used dye tests, camera surveys and trial pit investigations and found that there were no leaks in the pool tank or the surround (i.e. the pool itself and the building it is in is secure) but that pipework was corroded and highly likely to be the cause of the leak. NSDC have said that operating the pool in its current condition is not viable.

Was the pool a risk to the public?

During the NSDC cabinet meeting on 19th December 2023, Cllr Paul Taylor mentioned that the main pool had been closed because it is not safe to be used by residents, and that NSDC couldn’t risk any “loss of life” by keeping the main pool open. However, later in the same meeting Mark Eyre stated that the structural engineers’ report had confirmed that the structure of the Leisure Centre building is stable and so is the area surrounding the pool itself. We requested to see any paperwork from Mark Eyre and his team, which states that using the main pool at Southwell Leisure Centre might endanger someone’s life – other than by drowning, which is a risk at every swimming pool. NSDC have not provided us with any further information.

Was the leak costing NSDC money?

No. The Pool Water Treatment Advisory Group Code of Practice (May 2023) provides a practical summary of the recommendations and guidelines in swimming pool water for swimming pools in public use. It states ‘as part of the water treatment regime, pool operators should replenish pool water with fresh water at a rate of 30 litres of water per swimmer per day.’

With an average of 300 swimmers per day at Southwell, 9000 litres of water should be taken out and refreshed every day. So the leak was not costing anything in terms of replacing the water.

What is the environmental impact of the leak?

The leak is no more than the daily refresh requirement, so 9000L would be taken from the pool, leak or not, and replenished, so there is no additional water wastage. Water samples from the ground surrounding the pool, conducted by NSDC, found that chlorination levels were negligible, barely registering on their tests, so concluded there has been no contamination into groundwater and is further evidence that the source of the leak is the pipework (verbal statement from Mark Eyre, cabinet meeting 19th December 2023)

Can the pool be repaired?

NSDC obtained a quote to repair it from one company, and produced an estimate for the repair of £645k and taking a year to complete. They have twice refused a Freedom of Information request to see this quote, but the estimate states the quote is from a domestic pool and hot tub company called Asher Pools. SLCT has obtained a second quote for £247k. This company has the repair and maintenance contract with Gedling Borough Leisure Centres and recently completed a similar repair at Arnold Pool. They are collaborating with a company who have the contract with the leisure pools at Centre Parcs, and so both companies are extremely experienced in this area. They estimate the pool can be repaired in 6-8 weeks. NSDC cabinet voted not to repair, because of the cost and the time it would take, and said it was not a good use of taxpayers money. They voted to close the pool and build a separate modular pool for £5.5m on ‘land adjacent to SLC’.

Is repairing the pool throwing good money after bad? The pool is 60 years old!

Although the original pool was built in the 1960s, the pool building was renewed in 2004 when the teaching pool was added. So, the pool building is only 20 years old. Though the pipework is corroded, the pool tank and surround has been checked by NSDC engineers as well as the repair contractors and has been found to be in good condition with no leaks. The contractors believe that the pool can last another generation at least. We feel that a repair is the most financially and environmentally sound option.

What are NSDC planning to do with the old pool?

NSDC propose to fill the pool with 88 tonnes of ballast (sand) in order to safeguard the structure of the pool, at a cost of £12,300, and leave it like that. They have recently installed opaque panels in the reception in order to hide the view.

What are the health and wellbeing costs of closure?

NSDC don’t seem to have done any impact assessment on their decision to close Southwell Pool, ignoring 2 requests from us to see one. As far as we know, Southwell Swimming Club are the only ones to have conducted any sort of assessment, hosting a 30 day online survey. There were 240 respondents who were swimming pool users until its closure last October. The impact has been detrimental overall, with respondents citing decline in their mental health, decline in their daily activity, increased isolation as a result of losing the social aspect of swimming, children failing to progress in swimming lessons, deterioration in mobility.

What are the financial costs of closure?

The estimated loss of income figures provided by A4T are based on forecasts using the company’s latest performance figures is £260k per year. The NSDC 2024/25 Budget, reported to Full Council on 7th March 2024 (page 9 and 10 of the budget book), indicates that due to losing £260k per year in revenue from memberships NSDC are paying A4T £260k per year to compensate for the closure of SLC pool.

NSDC said they’ve made provision for us to swim at other pools in the district

NSDC have pointed out that we can use either of the other A4T pools at Newark (9.2 miles away) or Ollerton (11 miles) and has put on some extra swimming sessions at these pools. The impact survey found that half of respondents who were previously swimming regularly at Southwell are no longer swimming and haven’t found a suitable alternative. Reasons include lack of transport, unsuitable times of sessions, the cost (time and financial) to travel, no room in classes at these centres and there was no point because the social aspect had been lost with groups scattered. The environmental impact of 300 daily pool users having to travel an approximately 20 mile round trip is unmeasured by us, but obviously significant. The local schools are paying for coaches to take the children to Calverton for swimming lessons. Southwell Swimming Club has moved to Calverton (because the time slot offered at Newark was inappropriate) and the pool is not suitable for competitive training. In short, the alternative provisions are woefully inadequate, causing additional cost to swimmers and resulting in half stopping swimming altogether.

Proposed new pool

Are NSDC going to build us a new £5.5m pool?

NSDC cabinet have voted to build a new pool in Southwell, on ‘land adjacent to the leisure centre’ – we don’t know the intended footprint of the pool as NSDC haven’t shared that despite numerous requests for information. As they are discussing needing a transfer of lands from STC and SLCT, it could be assumed they mean the land where the overflow carpark is currently (between all-weather football pitch and the new skatepark). They promise this will be a 25m pool and a separate learner pool (though we don’t know what depth, they haven’t sent us any specifications).

Can two new pools be built within two years?

Here's an example of the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) planning stages for a public swimming pool with estimated time frames for each stage, adding up to 36 - 75 months:

Strategic Definition (Stage 0):

Duration: 3 - 6 months

Assessing need and feasibility, identifying objectives, and conducting initial site assessments.

Preparation and Brief (Stage 1):

Duration: 3 - 6 months

Developing a detailed project brief, conducting site feasibility studies, and engaging stakeholders.

Concept Design (Stage 2):

Duration: 6-12 months

Developing initial design concepts, exploring architectural styles, and gathering stakeholder feedback.

Developed Design (Stage 3):

Duration: 6-12 months

Refining concept designs into a detailed developed design, incorporating stakeholder input and finalising technical aspects.

Technical Design (Stage 4):

Duration: 6-12 months

Preparing detailed technical drawings, specifications, and obtaining necessary approvals.

Construction (Stage 5):

Duration: 12-24 months

Tendering construction work, overseeing construction activities, and ensuring quality and safety.

Handover and Close Out (Stage 6):

Duration: 1-3 months

Completing construction, conducting final inspections, and preparing for handover to the client.

Where are NSDC proposing to build the new pool?

Despite many requests for further information about where the proposed new pool will be, NSDC are refusing to supply any further information until the Trust have handed over the ownership of the land and leisure centre to them. We believe there is uncertainty over who owns what land. STC also owns land here and we believe there may be other parties with rights too.

Would a new pool be more accessible to all users?

During the planning and consultation phase of the new pool it is very much hoped that the planners will take into consideration the requirements of all swimmers and the new pool will be built to be fully accessible to all.

In the old pool there is a hoist for enabling access to the pool for wheelchair users. We are aware that although this does make the pool accessible, there are many other advanced options available, such a pool pod or lift, that would enable independent access to the pool. There are many funding streams available that could be accessed to fund extra equipment for the old pool to enable independent access.

Southwell Leisure Centre Trust

Southwell Leisure Centre Trust - SLCT) is a charity that was originally set up in the 1960s following the community raising £40k for the swimming pool.

What are the objectives of the charity?

The object of the charity shall be the establishment and maintenance of a swimming pool, sports hall and such other sporting, recreational and community facilities as the Trustees consider appropriate from time to time from the public benefit and in particular for (but not limited to) the inhabitants of Southwell and district with the object of improving the conditions of life for the said inhabitants.

Who are the trustees?

The trust is made up of 9 trustees, 3 of whom are Southwell Town Councillors, and 6 of whom are NSDC councillors, appointed by NSDC. (charity commission information)

Chair - Councillor Jeremy Berridge - STC
Councillor Philip Barron - STC
Councillor John Lightwood - STC
Councillor Penny Rainbow - NSDC & STC
Councillor Peter Harris - NSDC & STC
Councillor Karen Roberts - NSDC & STC
Councillor Timothy Wendels - NSDC
Councillor Maurice Shakeshaft - NSDC
Councillor Keith Melton - NSDC - Resigned from post 5/3/2024

Was SLC having financial difficulties prior to covid? Has NSDC had to ‘bail us out’ for 60 years?

We believe that SLC was run for many years at a surplus prior to covid. It was only following covid that NSDC took over the running of SLC.

Newark & Sherwood District Council

Why has progress on the new pool stalled?

NSDC are blaming the Trust for holding things up. We don’t have access to trust minutes, but we know that the charity commission has become involved and have ruled that 6 of the trustees who are NSDC councillors have a conflict of interests and may not vote in any discussion on this issue. This has left the Trust inquorate and unable to make any decisions at all at present.

NSDC have made it a requirement that the trust transfer the leisure centre and land (the asset) to them and the trust are unable to do so at present. The Trust are not the only land owners involved, following the STC meeting in February, as yet there have been no formal discussions with STC and NSDC regarding a land transfer. This is another process that could take some time.

NSDC are refusing to consider any work on a new pool unless the land is transferred to their ownership, so progress has stopped completely.

If NSDC are given the land, can’t they just sell it off for more housing?

NSDC have said they will put a covenant on the land to ensure it is only used for leisure purposes not sold off for housing. This covenant has actually been on the land for 60 years, put in place by the community to protect the pool for the future. However, there have been cases, like Hermitage Leisure Centre, where North West Leicestershire District Council overturned the covenant to sell the land for housing, arguing it was “to deliver other council objectives such as the provision of housing in the district” and their cabinet voted to “demolish and retain land for other council service use” (source, NWLDC cabinet minutes, 20 Sept 2022). The covenant is not watertight and can be overturned.

NSDC have also said they are committed to building a new pool. But we know that promises can be broken. Priorities can change, circumstances can change, politicians can change. Other than expressing a commitment to borrow the money to build a new pool, there are no guarantees from NSDC.

How will NSDC afford the £5.5m when councils are going bankrupt and NSDC are in debt themselves?

They don’t have any savings for a new pool, but intend to borrow £5.5m which will then cost £396k per year for 50 years in repayment plus interest, total £19.8m, plus a feasibility study costing £25k as well as legal fees regarding land transfer (unknown cost) (report to cabinet 19th Dec).

NSDC is currently £89,755,000 in debt, the public account committee has warned that these figures (across different councils) will see residents face an ‘extreme and long lasting’ impact on local services.

Are there any strings attached?

NSDC will only consider doing this if SLCT agrees to hand over their land to them. We believe NSDC want STC and SLCT to transfer ownership of the land to them. This is causing some difficulty as the charity commission has strict rules on disposal of assets to protect us, the beneficiaries.

There are many examples of Leisure Centres being built on Leasehold land and we suggest that NSDC consider proceeding in this way rather than be held up by the issues of transferring a charity asset, ownership and guarantees.

What if NSDC withdraws their offer?

We believe that the lease between SLCT and NSDC is a full repairs lease. If NSDC withdraw their proposal of funding the new swimming pools and refuse to carry out the repairs on the old pool we believe that they will be in breach of their lease.

There are some incredible case studies around the UK of Community owned leisure facilities, we do not have to be beholden to NSDC.

There are also organisations and charities who support communities to set up and run Leisure Centres where members have equal and democratic control.

However, as SLC generates a large revenue, we don’t believe NSDC will want to end the lease early.

How should our councils act (the Nolan Principles)?

The Seven Principles of Public Life (also known as the Nolan Principles) apply to anyone who works as a public office-holder.

Selflessness

Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest.

Integrity

Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.

Objectivity

Holders of public office must act and make decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias.

Accountability

Holders of public office are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this.

Openness

Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.

Honesty

Holders of public office should be truthful.

Leadership

Holders of public office should exhibit these principles in their own behaviour and treat others with respect. They should actively promote and robustly support the principles and challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs.

In our interactions with NSDC, we feel theyhaven’t upheld all of these principles.

What is in NSDC’s constitution on making decisions?

Taken directly from the NSDC constitution May 2022

Decision Making Principles

The below principles must be applied in respect of all decisions, and decision makers will:-

a. be open and transparent;

b. act within their authority;

c. take into account all relevant considerations and ignore irrelevant considerations;

d. evaluate alternative options;

e. undertake consultation as required or as may be appropriate;

f. make decisions which are reasonable and proportionate to the desired outcome;

g. obtain and consider professional advice as may be required or appropriate;

h. ensure best value;

i. have regard to the Council’s Constitution and relevant policies, rules and procedures;