| |
More flats for outsiders as Sobell shrinks in size
• AS a regular user of the Sobell Centre, I unequivocally oppose each of the four proposals made in Islington Council’s recent “consultation” exercise. I support refurbishment.
The council proposes to destroy the existing centre in order to build a smaller one as part of a mixed housing development. Each proposal for a “rebuild” links the size of the new centre to the number of units in the housing development, which means the larger the new centre the more housing units they will have to build. Yet in none of the four proposals is the new centre to be anywhere near the size of the existing one.
This is an unfair and irrational policy. It proposes to increase the population density of this part of the borough while at the same time decreasing its recreational facilities.
The excuse offered for this is that more housing is needed in Islington. But housing for whom? And why does it have to be next to the Sobell? Most of the units built will be sold on the private market to people from outside the borough; it is naïve to think this project is about rehousing Islington residents. Why should the poor, the young and working families already living locally be denied adequate recreational facilities so more people from outside the borough can get housing?
And why does it have to be here? The redevelopment of the Arsenal stadium has brought hundreds of new homes and thousands of people into the immediate catchment area of the Sobell Centre. This has already put it under added strain, making it less easy for locals to use. It simply beggars belief that the council should want to house even more people around an even smaller centre!
The public health benefits of recreational facilities like the Sobell are well documented. Reducing public access to such facilities will have a detrimental effect on public health in the area. People will be less fit, have a lower quality of life and cost the NHS more in treatment. A smaller centre used by more people makes no sense from a public health standpoint.
The social benefits of facilities like the Sobell are also critical given the current rise in gang-related violence. Sports provide exercise, discipline and opportunities of cooperative endeavour for young people, all of which are crucial to their socialisation as citizens. Again, a smaller centre used by more people will inevitably exclude the young from getting access to the kinds of programmes they need.
Cutting the provision of sports facilities will disadvantage young Islington athletes who aspire to compete in the Olympics. The recent success of our athletes in Beijing proves how important good, accessible sports facilities like the existing Sobell Centre are for recruiting Olympic athletes. Why does the council want to deny our athletes the chance to achieve Olympic glory?
The Sobell Centre provides green space that could be developed to offer residents a place to enjoy the outdoors as well as exercise and sport. It could also provide habitat for a variety of species that thrive within urban parks. Given the current density of our population in Islington, achieving a better balance between housing development and green space should be a priority for the council. The destruction of green space for ever more housing developments is the policy of short-term gain for long-term pain, identical to the policy of selling off school playing fields to pay for new buildings.
Refurbishment, combined with the development of green space around the existing centre, suffers from none of these problems. As a policy it preserves the quality of life for those already living in the borough, as opposed to selling it (and us) down the river for yet another unjust, architecturally retarded, environmentally disastrous housing development.
DR RICHARD NOBLE
Hartham Road, N7
• AS Islington Council steadfastly refuses to contemplate refurbishing the magnificent, sound structure that is Sobell Leisure Centre spare a thought for the prophetic words of the benefactor, the great TV and radio entrepreneur of his day, Sir Michael Sobell. He made the original £1million donation in the late 1960s to the Variety Club of Great Britain.
A 1969 press statement said: “Mr Sobell stated that he envisaged the sports centre being built in a district like Islington where it is important to get children off the streets.” He appreciated then that young people need to play sports. What does the council think these youngsters will do if the centre is demolished and there is nothing there for two or perhaps three years?
I fear the already misguided few who engage in knife crime, thuggery and violence will sadly seem increasingly attractive to some disenfranchised youngsters who will be denied access to the sports centre. Once again, I appeal to the council to reverse its position. Refurbish the centre, do not demolish it. Spare the community unnecessary funerals.
GORDON KERR
Director, England Squash
• RESIDENTS of St Mary’s ward aren’t surprised to learn that the Lib Dems are promoting a development at the Sobell Leisure Centre site that will involve the felling of 30 mature trees and the loss of a large green space (More than aesthetic frills, city trees have a vital role, October 24).
The Mary Magdalene Academy development, pushed through by the council against the wishes of local residents, meant the felling of 67 mature trees and the loss of both the Bride Street neighbourhood park and a borough-designated conservation strip. Even trees protected under planning consent had to be removed to get equipment on-site for an unnecessary new-build primary school. The existing primary in Liverpool Road was demolished after the new one had been built on the graveyard of the park.
Nor does Councillor Ruth Polling’s backing for the recently announced review of Islington’s trees inspire confidence. Cllr Polling has declared that consultation on the refurbishment of the Sobell, a move with wide, informed public support, “isn’t an issue that I intend to reopen”.
Whether the well-paid executive member for leisure will behave more democratically and more modestly regarding the maintenance and preservation of the borough’s trees is therefore an open question.
VALERIE HAMMOND
Chair, Friends of St Mary Magdalene Gardens
|
 |
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
