Last Sunday's public meeting endorsed four key points as part of the community position on the Pool and its future. This position was expressed as the basis for our lobbying, and any negotiating, on the future of Mayfield Swimming Pool:
- Mayfield Swimming Pool must remain in public ownership.
- Council make a long term commitment to the Pool, at least until 2030.
- Council commit to improving the Pool in this period.
- Council support the establishment of an ongoing Pool management committee with community representation.
There is a logical order to these points, based on first ensuring that the proposal to close the pool is rejected by Council. Documents for lobbying councillors, including contact details for all councillors, are in another post below. Please make use of them and pass them around.
1 comment:
Don't know how to send via email, this is a Wrod submission re pool
Heat and enclose Mayfield Pool: Response to PSDM.
26th Sept 2007.
When BHP provided the Mayfield pool, it was belated compensation. In 1941 the NCC gave away Shelly Beach, used by Mayfield residents to BHP. NCC is historically and ethically obliged to maintain it.
Our communities face problems of obesity, and global warming. It is the responsibility of NCC to provide neighbourhoods with equitable access to social and exercise facilities that are also shielded from the sun and accessible without extensive dependence on vehicular transport. The PSDM proposal will increase private car use, as Lambton pool (unlike Mayfield) is not on major bus routes or close to rail services.
The PSDM brief does not recognize that the NCC’s responsibility is to provide swimming facilities to its local neighbourhoods, and to uphold the compensation to the people of Mayfield for the loss of Shelly Beach. It does not even model these as an option!
It is NOT the responsibility of NCC to engage in large-scale commercial ventures. The suggestion made several times through PSDM documents that NCC could join with other Councils and private enterprise in providing a centre for international water-based competitions is not the Councils’ responsibility.
NCC claims to have carried out more than 10 studies since 1994. Despite this, NCC has taken no action. How much has been spent on all these studies, when it should have been spent on maintenance? The public expects NCC to carry out its obligations, and not to waste its time dreaming up corporate schemes. The amount spent on these studies should have been spent on a maintenance programme.
Swimming remains the most popular, frequent, informal social activity. 400,000 visits pa is not a minor figure, in a city of some 500,000. The ‘decline’ published in the PSDM is a fiction created by ‘massaging’ the data. It relies on attendance ‘spikes’ in 97/98 at Lambton & Beresfield to give an appearance of a decline. Basing trend lines on these is a distortion of the normal patterns of minor variations.
In fact, since 2001 attendances have been stable or else patronage has generally increased. This raises questions about how the data has been interpreted and presented, as well as its accuracy. There are two key points here:
· Over-estimate of usage at Lambton. Section 3.2 Pool Entry ‘Suburb of Origin’ (Draft PSDM July 2007, p11), bar graph of Lambton attendances of some 18,000 is wrong. From Table 1 (below) the correct figure is 9,727.
· Underestimate of attendances at Mayfield. Bar graph of Wallsend attendances of approx 4,000 is wrong. The data shows Beresfield = 3,104 and Mayfield =3,023 as the next largest attendances, and Wallsend had 2,872.
These errors reveal a bias in favour of Lambton pool and against Mayfield pool. Other instances include:
· Proposing ‘catchment’ areas of 10km zones. The data show minor overlap between Lambton and Mayfield. Mayfield visitors are the least frequent to Lambton in the ‘Suburb of Origin’ survey. Therefore the 5km zone indicates Mayfield is quite distinct from Lambton.
· Mayfield pool is used mainly by people within the local area. It had some 3,000 attendances during 12-21/Jan/07, and only 350 attendances were from Mayfield at the Lambton pool during the same period.
· The statement that the five pools offers similar services is misleading:
o Lambton is unique in its range of facilities, including features favourable to school visits.
o There is no overlap at all in visits among Beresfield, Mayfield, Wallsend and Stockton residents.
o The Balance and Forum centres offer specialized training services, not informal social venues. Some 50% of NCC pool use is for informal, social usage.
Recommendations:
· NCC reaffirm its commitment to maintaining Mayfield pool on historical as well as public health grounds.
· I note that Islington Park in Mayfield has a skate park, and therefore further development of Mayfield pool will encourage use of Islington park as a recreational destination for youth.
· NCC commit itself to maintaining basic pool services to all local communities, within 5 km zones.
· ‘Basic services’ be redefined as meaning sheltered, heated and with disabled access for all ages.
· Immediate investment in Mayfield pool should be a priority. Although Wallsend is also unheated, it does have a significant overlap with Lambton in usage and LMC should bear some responsibility for its services.
· Given the disproportionate cost of heating Lambton, this should be discontinued whilst upgrades performed at Mayfield.
· Reject proposed renaming of Lambton Pool as the "Newcastle Acquatic and Leisure Centre". This is a marketing ploy to make the PSDM proposal appeal to a regional rather than a neighbourhood sense. It is insulting to Mayfield residents in particular, as they have the most to lose from the PSDM.
Lastly, I would like to make my irritation in this matter explicit. I thank the NCC for the opportunity to visit the Women’s toilets at Mayfield pool, and for the sterling efforts of a totally inaudible speaker as well as the ineffectual PA system. I heartily concur with an audience member’s view, that people don’t have the time to waste writing submissions. The clear answer to the NCC from the meeting is that the Mayfield community rejects the PSDM, and wants its pool to be retained and improved.
Niko Leka
55 Fitzroy St Mayfield
49683232 0406296141
Post a Comment