|
|
 |
| |
Objectors to the demolition plans at the Town Hall last week |
If the Sobell is bulldozed will a new centre go up?
As property slump deepens fears are voiced for the future of £30m rebuilding plan dependent on a booming homes market
THE Sobell Leisure Centre may never be replaced if developers run out of money after demolishing the existing building, a leading architect has warned.
Islington Council has refused to disclose the vital figures on which a £30million scheme to demolish and rebuild the Holloway sports centre is based, sparking fears that it has not done its sums.
The Town Hall has set aside nearly £15million for the project, hoping to make up the rest from a successful housing development.
But with the housing market in crisis, and leisure chiefs under fire for being too vague with their figures, keen observers of the project fear the foundations of the grandiose plans are about to come crashing down.
The question is will this happen before, or after, the Sobell is flattened?
Award-winning Archway architect Chris Roche said: “It’s not sustainable, doesn’t make sense and I don’t think any developer is going to look at it right now. The last thing Islington needs is to lose a major sporting facility while the economic uncertainty can’t guarantee the replacement of a similar facility.”
The new Hornsey Road centre will include a swimming pool, according to Lib Dem leisure chief Councillor Ruth Polling, which means the Town Hall will need to make as much as it can from housing.
Mr Roche said: “No developer is building houses now. They’ve stopped on lots of sites. Developers are going bust and nobody is going to take that risk now.
“To make £15million they almost need £45million of housing. At the most simple level, if you say it costs £125,000 to build a home then they’ve to build 125 homes. But if a percentage has to be affordable that reduces the profit.
“It’s not unreasonable to say they need at least 200 homes to generate the revenue. That’s an enormous figure. To do that you would need a high-rise development, which would be unpopular with neighbours.”
The Town Hall has refused to answer questions submitted by the Tribune, including how many homes it hopes to build, how much it expects to make from them and whether it has adjusted costings to match the declining market.
Sport and Leisure consultant PMP was contracted to produce a report on provisional costings and housing plans.
But, when asked if the Tribune could see the PMP report, a council spokeswoman said: “The report isn’t being made public because it is commercially sensitive.”
A vague breakdown, revealed in a Freedom of Information request, reveals that £20million has been budgeted for construction, £2million set aside for contingency, £2.4million for consultants, £1.5million for fixtures, fittings and equipment and £4.8million for inflation.
Gordon Kerr, director of England Squash, who is campaigning to save the Sobell from demolition, said: “There is a large risk that the centre will be demolished, the local authority will run out of funds and nothing will be built. This project should be cancelled now and our £11.8million thorough refurbishment option evaluated and presented to the council. This will entail minimal interruption to facilities.”
He added: “Havering and Harrow have both recently abandoned similar projects because of the collapse in house prices.
“Islington Council thinks it will go back up. This decision appears to be irresponsible.”
Mr Kerr has been fighting to get the council to reveal its calculations.
He said: “A meeting took place on July 7 between Jeremy Corbyn [Islington North Labour MP], Save Sobell campaign team and council staff.
“A wheelbarrow of documents was promised. It now appears the wheelbarrow will remain secret.
“The most dangerous person that walks on this planet is an under-employed council employee because they dream up white elephants like this to mess up everybody’s life. Council staff are running scared – they have been caught out exaggerating, spinning and misleading the community. Resignations should follow the collapse of this ill-fated project.”
Labour councillor Paul Convery said: “The level of uncertainty about the state of the market is high.
“Today’s assumptions will be tomorrow’s fish and chip wrappers.
“I’ve looked at the very earliest exercise in housing capacity, taken about three years ago. They said about 60 homes might be developed on the spare land. They will need three times at much at market rate and six times as much including affordable homes – that could be 300 houses. If they go for the swimming pool, which they say they are, they will have to go for the maximum, the full monty.”
Cllr Convery pressed Cllr Polling on the stability of the project at an overview committee meeting last week, asking: “Considering the cataclysmic state of the market, how confident are you in your business plan?”
Cllr Polling replied: “In terms of the funding gap it’s absolutely right to say option four [which includes a swimming pool and maximum housing] does have a funding gap of £15million or £16million.
“That was a conservative estimate but the housing market has changed dramatically. We’re continuing to model what’s happening in the market. We’ve revised our estimates. But we’re talking about 2012 and it’s not clear what the market’s going to be like then.”
Cllr Polling said this week: “Our aim is to provide a new Sobell Leisure Centre that is fit for the 21st century. That means one with new, modern sports and community facilities including a brand new swimming pool and a new park to surround it.
“The new leisure centre will cost in the region of £30 million. The council will invest £12million into the project. The remaining money will come from other sources including grants and development.
“A refurbishment of the centre, as well as costing more than £30million, gives only limited access to these external funds.”
She added: “Nothing will happen at the Sobell until we have secured a deal with a commercial partner to take us through to the centre’s completion.
“We will continue to keep the public informed and there will be further consultation before any agreement is signed.” |
 |
|
|
| |
| |
| |
|
|
|
