Posted: 13/07/2005; 22:04:15 
We had time ago asked the Council to vision some papers under the freedom of information act. The request was done through Lewisham Central Ward Cllr Andrew Milton. Reading the letter that came with the documents one particular sentence jumps out: There
are no documents relating to the cost effectiveness of refurbishing and
re-opening the sauna suite and the Turkish bath suite.
We had to wait for quite some time and, though we didn't have all we asked for yet, what we have is of great interest.
This is the list of the documents we asked for: 1)
advice and information about the cost-effectiveness of refurbishing the
facilities at the Ladywell Leisure Centre, in particular any
documents advising why it might not be cost-effective to refurbish and
reopen: a) the sauna suite; and
b) the Turkish bath suite. 2)
any more detailed breakdown of the expenditure on the refurbishment of
Ladywell Leisure Centre than any already given in response to public
and members' questions. 3) documents given to the Council by the
contractor regarding the length of time for which the works on Ladywell
Leisure Centre were guaranteed, particularly any guarantees specifiying
a 40 year period.
And here's the answer we had: "I refer to your request under the Freedom of Information Act, and apologise for the delay in the reply. As
you are aware Ladywell Leisure Centre was closed in its entirety in
mid-August 2002 after problems being discovered with asbestos
insulation materials within the roof void above the main pool. Major
works were carried out to remove the materials and subsequently
completely reinstate the ceiling. I am advised that the only
documents not in the public domain are the JCT contract for the works.
If you wish to see a copy of this largely standard document please
advise. I have not enclosed it with this letter due to its bulk. There
are no documents relating to the cost effectiveness of refurbishing and
re-opening the sauna suite and the Turkish bath suite. I enclose a copy of a breakdown of the costs of refurbishing the centre. The
remedial works carried out at Ladywell Leisure Centre were carried out
under the JCT Intermediate Form of Building Contract 1998 Edition
(incorporating Amendments 1:1999, 2:2000, 3:2001 and 4:2002. Therefore,
the defects liability period (excluding, where it can be so proven,
latent defects), from the date of practical completion, is based upon
the conditions contained therein. There are two elements however which
due to their nature exceed the standard period. These are the main roof
which has a fifteen year warranty and the "Barasol" ceilings installed
above the pools which has a ten year warranty period. No element of the
project is warranted for forty years. I am still waiting for these warranties and will forward them on as requested. yours faithfully Greg Carson
for Head of Law ================================================================[attachment] Ladywell Leisure Centre - Asbestos Removal and Refurbishment Cost Breakdown The
information proffered below constitutes the envisaged final account for
the asbestos removal and reinstatement works carried out at Ladywell
Leisure Centre. Total Project Cost Main Body of Works = £1,833,340.49 (includes retention monies still being held) Electrical Certification Works = £ 68,840.72 **(includes retention monies still being held) Total = £1,902,181.21 **
It should be noted that the electrical certification works would have
been carried out anyway and were being funded from a separate source.
Indeed, it was during the course of the initial stages of this work
that the asbestos problem in the roof was revealed. Breakdown of Cost by Project Element Asbestos Works (Phase 1) £ 478,059.99 (inclusive of professional fees) Reinstatement Works (Phase 2) £ 1,201,726.75 (inclusive of professional fees) Heating Remedial Works (Phase 3) £ 153,553.75 Electrical Certification Works £ 68,840.72
This answer, though not complete contains this paragraph:There
are no documents relating to the cost effectiveness of refurbishing and
re-opening the sauna suite and the Turkish bath suite.
this line become very important when compared with the answer given to us on 18th May 2005:PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 1 LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM COUNCIL MEETING 18 MAY 2005 Question asked by: Mr M Calò At
the re-opening of the Ladywell Leisure Centre in June 2004 the Sauna
and the Turkish Bath were not anymore available to the public. What was
the reason behind the decision of not providing these facilities
anymore?" Reply
When
the Ladywell Leisure Centre was closed, the opportunity was taken to
survey the Turkish Baths. There had been ongoing maintenance
difficulties with the steam area. Unfortunately, it was found that the
facility could not be repaired and would need complete replacement. The
Council was not able to identify funding for this investment at the
time and therefore reluctantly had to close the Turkish bath suite. However,
the Council does offer sauna facilities at two of its other leisure
centres – Wavelengths and The Bridge and plans to provide steam and
sauna facilities in the new centre on the Sundermead estate.
We weren't at the time happy with this answer and we asked a supplementary question that was not answered. And after having listened to our supplementary questionCllr McGarrigle
told us that because the Ladywell Leisure Centre's Turkish Suite,
comprising Turkish Bath and Sauna was in need of replacement they had
of course looked at the cost of replacing the lot, and had considered
that because the centre was anyway supposed to close in 2010, they
didn't think it was in their interest to invest in it. This was the answer to our supplementary question which was of course another one.
It was a question designed to ascertain whether the reason behind this
decision had been of either malicious or incompetent nature. It was also a question about why the Sauna was not mentioned in the answer.
We explained the Mayor and the Council that yesterday we had called Nordic Saunas Ltd
head office and asked the price of an average community sauna for
leisure centre and that such price was £4500 including installation. Because
at last count in 1994, the LLC had over 400,000 entries per year,
supposing that only 1% of attendants have a sauna, at a cost of just
above £1 each the sauna would have paid itself in the first year
starting to generate an income with the second.
Therefore the
decision had to be either malicious - motivated by the desire to drive
down the number of users so to have an easier ride when closing the
leisure centre - or incompetent. So, to ascertain the true nature
of this decision, we just have to know whether the Mayor knew roughly
the price of a sauna before taking the decision. That's what we asked: "did the Mayor know roughly the price of a sauna prior to us telling him>
|
