Mr Alan Moorhouse Principal Planning Officer St Albans & District Council 28th April 2008 Dear Mr Moorhouse Re the Planning Application 5/10/0259 I strongly urge you to reject the current proposals for Westminster Lodge. I will try to keep this letter as brief as possible given the amount of correspondence you now have on this, but there seems to be overwhelming opposition to the current plans. I have a high regard for Council officers and would prefer to see the council and those who care about the development to be working together for something far more beneficial for this City. I have purchased a copy of the District Council Plan and looked through every page. I’m not entirely sure how such proposals are judged when they reach this stage. My major concern is that if this proposal goes ahead this will throw away a major opportunity I believe our City has to build an Olympic type facility, given the land available and communication links, which would be huge boost for St Albans. This site and the Arts are two major assets that our City could use to help our community tackle the effects of the years of recession our country will face. I want to highlight what I believe to be the main reason this proposal should be rejected and a far more ambitious scheme should be considered instead. We are entering very hard times but in St Albans the site at Westminster Lodge, the proximity to second to none communications links, and with 2012 approaching offers us a way to regenerate and boost the economy of our City I believe it would be such an enormous mistake to throw away this golden opportunity by grossly under developing this site by accepting a proposal that no one wants, Please Please Please do not throw this golden opportunity away. I set up a Downing Street petition that asked the Council to consider approaching a number of external organisations to help fund a far more ambitious but I believe achievable project. The full text of the petition (http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/WestminsterLodge/?showall=1) is this:
As well as the level of support for this petition may I also draw your attention to the final paragraph: “We accordingly ask those responsible to look into the possibility of a 50 metre pool at Westminster Lodge and to liaise with those who might help us including Central Government, Charities, Sporting Organisations, Commercial organisations and the European Community to secure any additional funding required to provide St Albans and district with the state of the art 50 metre pool we need here that would not only become a prestigious major local sporting venue but would also bring with it with significant additional commercial and social benefits for our City.” I am aware that an application was made to Sport England, who are yet to respond but may I ask you please to consider the reasonable request from so many local residents that the Council should at least try to approach other external funders to help pay for a much better facility. The case I would put for such a facility would include this: The problem seems to be lack of funding as it has to come from local council taxpayers. Strategically the Council might suggest to central Government that the provision of Swimming Pools should be added to the many local facilities and services that are funded from central funds, though administered locally. Local authorities for understandable reasons have to spend the money available on far more pressing needs but sports facilities vital as they are for the long term health of our communities invariably lose out. Some political Parties would like tax raised in a more progressive way such through a local income tax. If the funding of facilities like swimming pools came from the centre, rather than from local council tax payers this might be a back door to achieving this, so might be of interest to some political parties. May I ask if you might consider this alternative please? 731 people signed the Downing Street petition which included the request for the Council to “liaise with those who might help us including Central Government, Charities, Sporting Organisations, Commercial organisations and the European Community to secure any additional funding required to provide St Albans and district with the state of the art 50 metre pool we need here that would not only become a prestigious major local sporting venue but would also bring with it with significant additional commercial and social benefits for our City.” I'm not sure that this has happened other than the application to Sport England who are yet to come back to us on this. But if funds could be found from outside the district to finance a state of the art swimming pool, this would take a lot of the pressure off the local council taxpayers as well as giving a huge boost to the town? Financially why pay for the new Pool at all if there might be a way to get external funding to pay for the redevelopment at Westminster Lodge? Surely this would be a very attractive possibility that we might consider? May I ask if you would consider putting the current plans on hold please to consider this possibility? The huge public effort against the current plans could conceivably come together to lobby for such funding, and coordianted action between the council and local people could really benefit us all, as well as seeing the community work together, rather than against each other? May I ask if you might consider whether some Council Officers could help spearhead such a fundaraising drive, and perhaps make use of local talents in our Community? For example I worked for an organisation based in London where the Finance Director, now retired was able to secure a huge grant from the European Community to pay for a project, money that no one knew was available. This man is now retired (and lives here in St Albans). This is but one example, there must be a wealth of talent, talented fundraisers, people in the city, and people with very good contacts all living in the district, and if we brought them all together, there is a chance, that somewhere, the money exists for the sort of pool we would all like to see, and not one paid for by local taxpayers? I’m sure that if asked such people would be willing to work voluntarily to try to see if external funding might be available such as mentioned in the Downing Street petition to build a state of the art pool that we could all enjoy for years to come and would give a huge commercial boost to our City as well. I think such funding might only be available for a prestigious facility which is longer and wider than planned, rather than building a 25 metre pool. Surely its worth at least having a go? What is there to lose compared with what we might well gain? But if we push ahead with the current plan we might lose a once in a lifetime opportunity to build something a lot better? We have the site, the communications links and the timing couldn’t be better as 2012 approaches? In time such facilities like many local services might be funded centrally, (and I puzzled why the burden still falls on local councils to build swimming pools at all), given that the cost of related services such as health come from central Government. Can I just present the case for a larger pool in St Albans please? We have a really excellent site here, with the very best communication links, and with 2012 approaching may I ask if it be possible to consider whether instead of settling for second best we might aspire to building a state of the art 50 metre pool instead please?, with all the health benefits, and financial savings to the NHS that this would bring, putting the onus back onto people to maintain their health and fitness and giving them the means to achieve this? The city could also do with a boost. The problem is lack of funding and if more money was available from perhaps central Government or external sources mentioned in the Downing Street petition rather than to have to all come from local council taxpayers, it might be possible to build a far better swimming facility at Westminster Lodge than is currently envisaged? A beautiful and inspiring setting such a facility could be built at Westminster Lodge, and the two maps show the communication links. St Albans City station is 20 minutes from London, and the Abbey Flyer line is across the road from the Pool with links to Watford Junction, and through this station to Euston, the North London Line and to the North. The current plans are hugely! unpopular and 731 people signed the Downing Street petition asking for consideration to be given to building a 50 metre swimming Pool. 2) I believe the case for not wasting the Westminster Lodge site but for trying to raise money from outside sources for something much better, is the main reason the current proposals should be rejected, however referring to your current District plan and other legislation the following might also be grounds for rejecting the proposals. Policy 114 The current proposals would conflict with this, and spoil the approach to our City. It would affect the Cities approach and skyline. Policy 84A The proposals would increase the risk of flooding and affect drainage Policy 84B The chemicals required to chlorinate the swimming pool can be dangerous if mixed. The new scheme would mean that the chemicals were nearer a major public highway. Both in being in stored and when delivered, this would mean that there is a greater risk that the impact from a vehicle coming off the road, particularly a heavy vehicle could lead to the chemicals being mixed. Therefore the current scheme increases such risks to public health. The proximity of the scheme to the road will increase risk to people using the pool from vehicles that may come off the road. Equal Opportunities People wishing to use a longer pool or flumes or diving boards have being told they can travel to other towns to use facilities there. This conflicts with Equal Opportunities policy where it is emphasised that public money when spent must be used to benefit all members of the community. The current scheme, by removing such features such as length required for proper training and maintenance of cardiovascular health, flumes or diving boards on the basis that those wishing to use such facilities can travel to other towns to do so, conflicts with Equal Opportunities policy as this will only be possible for those with the means and money and time to travel elsewhere. If you do not have the time or money to use public transport, or do not have a car through various reasons including age, income or disability you are effectively discriminated against in this current proposal. Green policies Asking people to travel elsewhere to use such facilities is also harmful to the environment and conflicts with all related Green national and local policies on this. Roads As far as I know there is not a policy on this but there are a number of planning applications underway which if all granted would lead to a significant increase of heavy vehicles using our roads during their construction. Adding the current Westminster Lodge scheme to this would increase congestion on our roads and affect our City. My view is that Westminster lodge is structurally sound and therefore this new redevelopment does not have to happen this Year. The Restaurant in the Swimming Pool The Council will also be using money to build a restaurant in the new development that will compete with privately owned restaurants in our City which seems a bit unfair. Funding of the new development My view is that Westminster lodge is structurally sound and therefore this new redevelopment does not have to happen this Year. Section 123 of the Local Government act 1972 ‘Except with the consent of the Secretary of State a council shall not dispose of land under this section otherwise than by way of a short tenancy for a consideration less than the best that can reasonably be obtained.' I am unclear about how Ridgeview Hostel will feature in the funding of the new swimming pool as has been reported but think we need as much social housing as we can find. The current Westminster Lodge pool is not exactly falling down, and the building seems to have more years of structural life in it. The proposed sale of Ridgeview Lodge which I read was to help finance the new swimming pool, seems more like a fire sale, because it is happening at time when land prices are depressed and that a better price would be obtained if the sale (if at all) occurred when the market was more buoyant. So why not put the sale off until that time? This would cause problems funding the new swimming pool if this is what the money from the sale of Ridgeview Lodge is intended to do. If the counter argument is that Ridgeview Lodge is only suitable for single people, then either the Hostel could be converted for families, or by taking vulnerable single people, or using it frees up other accommodation that can be used for families? I feel many single people might prefer to live communally than alone, even if the property is smaller. I think I read that Ridgeview Lodge is being rented at the moment to the University of Hertfordshire. which may meet Section 123 of the Local Government act 1972 in terms of the short tenancy part of this section: ‘Except with the consent of the Secretary of State a council shall not dispose of land under this section otherwise than by way of a short tenancy for a consideration less than the best that can reasonably be obtained.' The key word seems to be ‘short’ tenancy. I’m not clear what the intention beyond this is, but were the Council to sell the property at a time when it is clearly not going to get the best price, to fund a scheme no one wants to replace a building that is still structurally sound, it might be argued that the Council will be breaking Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972. If the Council has reversed its decision to sell Ridgeview Lodge to pay for the new swimming pool for the above reason or for any other reason, local people need to be told before the scheme is approved how it is going to be paid for. Please reject these proposals and working together I’m sure we can get something a lot better for our City. With best wishes Yours sincerely B.G. |
Your Feedback >