|
 webmaster
Message Info
Reads: 1820
Responses: 0
|
Posted: 05/01/2005; 12:42:45 
On 17th November 2004, Darren Johnson, Green Party Councillor at both
Lewisham Council and the GLA had a question and answer session with Ken
Livingstone on the issue of the Ladywell Leisure Centre.
This is the report from the GLA website and can be found in its original form at this link.
We copied it here trying to facilitate its reading by putting on one
page the main question as all the supplementary questions which appear
to be at least as important as the main question.
Some answers from the Mayor appear to have been truncated for some unknown reason. On that we are unable to improve.
Mayor answers to London.
Leisure facilities in Lewisham
[Main question]
Question number 1504/2004
Meeting date 17/11/2004
Question by Darren Johnson
Given that your London Plan commits boroughs to "identifying sites for
a range of sports facilities to meet local, sub-regional and wider
needs" is it acceptable for the London Borough of Lewisham to demolish
its main leisure centre in 2007, leaving the centre of Lewisham without
any swimming facilities until at least 2010?
Answer by Ken Livingstone (2nd Term)
I understand that although the London Borough of Lewisham proposes to
re-develop the Ladywell sports centre for a much-needed school in 2007,
it also intends to open a new leisure centre in the south of the
borough in 2006 and another in the centre of the borough in 2010. In
the medium term, this will provide local residents with enhanced
leisure facilities, in line with the strategic objectives of the London
Plan.
While resolution of this issue is essentially a borough matter, I
have instructed officers to explore with the London Borough of Lewisham
how the GLA may be able to help meet the needs of central Lewisham
residents for swimming facilities during the development process.
[Supplementary question]
Question by Darren Johnson
Well, residents will be left for at least three years without any
leisure facilities in the centre of Lewisham, and it is not practical
to suggest that everyone can just go off to the south of Lewisham to go
swimming. There is huge concern and huge opposition about this in
Lewisham, and it does seem to clearly contradict the policies in your
London Plan about the need to ensure local sports facilities. Going for
three years without this facility, I think, is unacceptable.
You said before in response to the question about post offices
that, where it clearly contradicted the policy in your London Plan, you
would campaign against closure. Will you join the campaign against
closure of the Lewisham Leisure Centre?
Answer by Ken Livingstone (2nd Term)
There is quite a significant difference here. The Post Office is
closing facilities for their own profit-driven motives. What you have
here is a real dilemma for the people responsible for managing
Lewisham, which is they desperately need a new school, otherwise, kids
are not going to get an education, and nobody in their right mind would
want to close the Ladywell sports centre, given it has only recently
been refurbished, but equally, they are now facing a massive demand for
education.
I have a lot of sympathy, therefore, with the dilemma that
Lewisham find themselves in. This is the consequence of far too much
flogging off of public land and public buildings over the years, which
now presents them with a really unpalatable choice. I know it would be
easy to condemn them, but frankly, I do not have an answer.
[Supplementary question]
Question by Darren Johnson
I totally agree with you that there is a desperate need for a new
school, and that is what Opposition councillors in Lewisham have been
saying for years, and that is why Opposition councillors and Opposition
parties opposed Labour's decision to close a school. It was only when
they demolished a school that they realised, then, that there was
shortage of places. I mean, what barmy thought-process they went
through, I do not know.
Opposition councillors did get together and put forward
alternative sites for a new school, which Labour have clearly failed to
listen to. I would hope that your office and your intervention in this
could actually bring a bit of common sense into this whole debate,
because Lewisham Council have got themselves in absolute knots and are
making utter fools of themselves at the moment.
Answer by Ken Livingstone (2nd Term)
Whilst we can all agree that, in retrospect, your position has been
shown to be correct, that does not resolve the immediate dilemma
Lewisham now faces. It needs a school, and because¿
[Supplementary question]
Question by Darren Johnson
We have put forward alternative sites, which they refuse to take up.
Answer by Ken Livingstone (2nd Term)
I suspect the cost of those alternative sites is such that they can
only build the school by taking existing publicly-owned land. Now, my
response when this issue came up to your question, was to ask the LDA
whether we had any land in the area that would be suitable, but we have
not been able to identify some.
Therefore, I do not have an answer for this. The answer is you
would not start from here. The trouble is Lewisham is now here.
[Supplementary question]
Question by Darren Johnson
Can you raise this issue with Lewisham, then, a) about your concerns
over the lack of leisure facilities for three years, and b) about
looking at sensible options for alternative sites for new schools?
Answer by Ken Livingstone (2nd Term)
If you let us have a look at the list of sites, or if you have any
suggestions, I am happy to take them forward. I am not really keen to
denounce borough councils who have problems which they may have
contributed to in the past, but I suspect¿
[Supplementary question]
Question by Darren Johnson
They totally created the problem. It is entirely of their own making.
Answer by Ken Livingstone (2nd Term)
The thing you can be fairly certain about, the people now trying to
resolve it most likely are not the people that took the original
decision. That is the sad bit.
|
