Time is running out to save the Sobell Centre

• TWO very reasoned and factual letters (Sobell trampoline park: Why are politicians so unwilling to listen to us? August 11) and (Concerns surrounding the Sobell Centre are being totally ignored, July 28) written on behalf of more than 1,100 Sobell customers, residents, ward councillors and local MPs.

They highlight the deep concerns being expressed on the proposed part-change of use of this well-loved community sports facility to a recreation and play area for businesses, parties and children, have been completely ignored by Islington Council executive and GLL/Better senior management. Both seem determined to continue with this project regardless, ignoring all concerns.

A few days ago, notices were posted at the centre confirming that work will take place between August 29 and September 6 so we have under two weeks to save Sobell sports hall. I am asked daily by Sobell customers for an update on the council executive’s consideration of their views and concerns, and have no answer to these valid questions.

The proposed part-change of use of Sobell Centre will soon diminish this valued community asset, ending its days of fulfilling Sir Michael Sobell’s vision of an inclusive, welcoming and whole-community facility focusing on the delivery of a wide range of quality sports activities.

Sobell has, until recently, served not only Islington but the whole of the London sports fraternity and beyond. This will very shortly end. So sad.

The feeling among customers is that this unconsulted and unwanted change is less to do with improving the quality and diversity of the local sports offer (despite the unchanging, scripted messages to the contrary disseminated by the council executive and GLL to all, including local MPs), and more to do with helping the council executive enhance the council budget.

Any additional monies that are gathered by this project will go to supporting “essential public services”. After all, according to the council’s own budget proposals documents, the council contingency fund has only grown by some £300,000 in the past year.

No one within the council has confirmed that any monies generated by this act of community and architectural vandalism will be ring-fenced for further improvement of sport in Islington – and, to be honest, this is a distraction from the main issue, that the council executive, as temporarily elected custodians of all borough assets, has taken the decision to diminish and devalue Sobell, a major part of the borough’s sports portfolio, without deeming it necessary to consult with those directly affected and those who elected them.

Any evidence of support for this project among residents, if it exists at all, is deemed too “commercially sensitive”, despite Freedom of Information requests, for Islington voters to see. So much for open democracy.

At the time of writing, just 39 Sobell customers have expressed an interest in a trampoline park. Currently 1,230 customers and residents have signed the petition asking for work to be paused while public consultation takes place.

If the council executive is under such enormous pressure to balance its budget, why not simply sell off the land on which Sobell Centre is located? Customers and residents will be greatly inconvenienced – but that is happening anyway.

Many real estate companies and property developers would jump at such an offer. They certainly did when the previous Liberal Democrat-dominated council administration sought to sell this community asset in exactly this way. And how many Liberal Democrat councillors are now serving the Islington community?

In the last week, MPs David Lammy and Catherine West and the granddaughter of Sir Michael Sobell, Gaie Scouller, have joined the ever-increasing number of residents and customers expressing serious concerns about the total absence of consultation on this project. All add their support for a review and rethink by the council, as expressed by MP Jeremy Corbyn and several ward councillors.

Many at Sobell state the council executive’s rigidity and unwillingness to engage on this matter is deeply disappointing and destroying residents’ confidence in elected representatives who are currently behaving in such an autocratic way.

If this project goes ahead at Sobell, as now seems likely, residents and customers will continue to fight actively for a reinstatement of the centre’s sporting heritage. They will ask hard, pertinent questions of the council executive, ward councillors and a managing agent relatively inexperienced in the needs and dreams of residents, up to and beyond the next local elections.

For more than 20 years I have had the privilege of serving as Sobell customer representative and I know just how dogged, determined and highly articulate are all those who use the centre. They deserve far better treatment than they are currently receiving and they will not be silenced.

BARRY HILL
Sobell customer representative