Training pool plan

comes under the

microscope

Today sees the calling-in of Boston Borough Council’s secret cabinet decision to re-open the Geoff Moulder training pool for the benefit of the Witham Schools Federation and Boston Amateur Swimming Club – taking £195,000 from the council’s reserves to do so.
The idea then is that £150,000 will be repaid over five years from third party contributions and the council will chip in the remaining £45,000 - again from reserves.
The decision has been called in by the Boston District Independents trio of Richard and Alison Austin and David Witts, plus Labour’s Paul Gleeson.
In their reasons for wanting the decision to be reviewed, they cite inadequate consultation before the decision was made and say that the scrutiny committee and full council should have been consulted.
The also say that there is an absence of evidence for the decision.
Earlier the Boston District Independent councillors (the former BBI) welcomed the pool plan, and insisted the call was non-political, but made “to protect the council tax payers of the borough from another disastrous PRSA-type situation arising.”
That such a possibility should exercise the former BBI in particular is deeply concerning, and we hope that the most cast-ironed and copper-bottomed assurances are forthcoming before the council takes another step own this expensive road.
In the run up to this evening’s Performance Review Committee meeting, so-called “evidence” has been provided to help the debate along by answering some previously posed questions.
The most important of these concerns the existence of a business plan for the scheme - and the answer is that the partnership agreement is the plan that all three parties are working to.
The plan is to be delivered through a combination of additional income from the council’s partners, increased general/taught swimming capacity in the leisure pool, savings through revised staffing arrangements and additional teaching hours in the training pool.
This is all very fine if the additional income is delivered, but it is scarcely a plan – more of an aspiration.
It’s like a business owner coming up with a “plan” to boost turnover simply by saying it will come from increased custom. It doesn’t say how those customers will be attracted – and nor can it guarantee it.
Also worrying is the answer to a question asking for full details of the council’s revenue budget to support the conclusion that the net effect is nil.
It says: “The financial implications have been considered and these demonstrate that the additional projected income from the increased pool capacity and demand for swimming lessons offsets the identified expenditure.”
There’s an awful lot of faith being pinned “more people going swimming,” isn’t there?
We think that the councillors who called in the decision were absolutely right to do so - and hope that the response of our new leaders will not be the same as the last administration, which was to use their majority to override criticism and valid attempts at sound examination of projects that look a little shaky to say the least.
It’s also interesting to note a groundswell of public opinion which is less than happy about the pool rescue plan.
Council Leader Peter Bedford has repeatedly emphasised the size of the petition which led to the reappraisal - as if that was enough in its own right to force the council to fall in with public opinion.
However, as others point out, Boston Borough Council has now created a facility for use by a select group.
Granted it may be a large one, but the fact is that the pool is a public facility – and members of the public are effectively barred from using an important part of it.
What if another group pitched up in a few months’ time and offered a generous payment for exclusive use of the rest of the facility?
Would we see the same thing that has happened with the training pool?
Coming up tomorrow: Your ringside seat at last week's meeting about the refurbishment of Boston's Market Place.

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com   Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.