• THE first anniversary of the flooding of Sobell Sports and Leisure Centre by a Thames Water burst mains pipe will be marked on August 8.

Facilities at the centre remain profoundly disrupted with most users needing to use alternative locations, within or beyond Islington, to continue their chosen sports.

Acutely aware of the London Borough of Islington’s responsibility to be financially prudent in difficult economic times, users acknowledge the challenge in developing and delivering cost-effective, borough-wide, high-quality, community sports and leisure opportunities. They underline that sports centres are designed to deliver community sports.

Other locations (as highlighted to LBI by Sobell user, Jeremy Corbyn MP), including vacant school buildings and commercial spaces, stand ready to be adapted to deliver a range of leisure facilities, some of which have a relatively short shelf-life of commercial viability before customers move to the next leisure trend.

Users remain deeply concerned that current LBI proposals will limit their ability to participate in their chosen sports at Sobell.

The recent LBI user survey brought interest from England Handball (who are about to run a development programme across Islington schools), and Badminton England. Both expressed interest in booking space at Sobell.

A significant number of similar requests have been received by Greenwich Leisure Ltd. Have these all been actioned? During their meeting in May 2023 LBI would not confirm their proposals would leave the centre with capacity both to rebook existing community sports groups and accommodate new bookings, for example, additional indoor five-a-side football groups, especially for young female user groups enthused by the ongoing Women’s World Cup.

Sobell ice rink users continue their very strong, high-profile, campaign to retain this facility. Two private companies have already presented LBI with formal expressions of interest on continuing to run the ice rink as a financially viable facility.

As expected, the LBI “stakeholder update” sent by LBI on July 25 dismisses these on the basis they come from profit-making companies, while adding the disingenuous comment that GLL is a “not-for-profit” organisation.

Proposals are scheduled to be signed off by David Hodgkinson, corporate director of resources, on August 2. He, like Andrew Bedford who signed the stakeholder update, is an LBI employee constrained by the directives of the elected council executive. I asked the council leader and mayor on July 26 when, ahead of August 2, the council executive will review this matter.

LBI and GLL have a huge task to encourage users to return to Sobell. As GLL moves into the final part of its LBI contract, it will require proactivity and total operational efficiency to ensure users return to Sobell. LBI and GLL need to find ways to mitigate the years of disruption caused by unconsulted implementation of the Extreme Park, Covid-19 pandemic and flood closures.

The recent LBI user on-line survey – have your say on the future of the Sobell Leisure Centre – refers to the existing “Extreme Park” at Sobell as an “already popular trampoline park”. Unfortunate LBI failed to use the GLL phraseology of “Extreme Park”, in use for some years. The survey text also recommends the installation of an “inflatable zone and ‘ninja warrior’ style section” at Sobell.

What evidence has the council executive seen to support this development? Some LBI staff have previously voiced concerns about the competitive nature of community sports. Apparently they have no similar concerns about the questionably named “ninja warrior” facility being proposed.

LBI continues to state it has a strong case for its proposals, including closure of the ice rink. This clearly pre-empts the outcome of the survey results and underlines the user view of this as a token exercise “to make it look like we’re listening”!

Users need to know what additional independent compelling evidence supports LBI’s current position that these proposals have strong support. What locally relevant, current, market research has been considered to support these assertions?

The shortcomings in GLL’s data storage / retrieval protocols must be posing serious questions for Islington Council. What value, if any, can LBI attach to evidence presented by GLL in its boroughwide reporting?

This includes data used to support the current Finsbury Sports Centre redevelopment project. Users presume there is additional research data supporting this development from sources other than GLL.

All residents and users deserve to know the full facts and see all data ahead of final LBI decisions being taken.

BARRY HILL
Sobell Voluntary User Representative