Dear 'Save The Sobell Sports Hall Supporters', In response to the ‘Letter Before Action' that was served by our solicitors Freeths on Islington Council, a counter-letter was received a few minutes before the 4 pm deadline last Thursday from Sharpe Pritchard, solicitors who have been appointed by the Council. A copy of this letter has been posted by our friends at the Sobell squash group on their web site: http://www.sobellsquash.com/colleagues.php In summary they say: “The Council fully rejects the very essence of your client’s proposed claim. It is not prepared to halt the project works in order to undertake a public consultation exercise in respect of a decision that (a) was made over four months ago and b) has never required such a consultation. If your client decides to pursue its case, the Council will fully defend its position”. In terms of the substance of these two arguments: (a) Timetable – they are claiming that over 3 months have elapsed since the Council took the decision to build this trampoline park, (without of course informing anyone) and we are out of time to bring a judicial review. What however we have only discovered as a result of numerous questions over the past few weeks and in particular an e mail from Councillor Janet Burgess dated 28 June, is that: “The decision to give GLL approval to proceed with the Sobell Centre trampoline project was issued to GLL on 3 March … This decision was then confirmed on 15 March 2017 by the Head of Greenspace & Leisure under delegated officer authority following consultation with the relevant Executive Member, myself.” Neither of these two decisions taken on 3 March or 15 March were of course notified at the time to Sobell customers, the local residents, or even the Islington Ward Councillors! A document dated 10 May entitled ‘Trampoline Park – Sobell Leisure Centre’ was sent out by Mark Christodoulou, Head of Islington Leisure, which stated: “… the Council made the decision to proceed with GLL’s proposed trampoline park at its Executive Meeting at the end of February 2017”. Seemingly therefore, even this was incorrect as according Councillor Burgess the date was actually 3 March, but it was nonetheless the first notification from Islington Council that a formal decision had been made, which legally is the determining factor. Moreover, it was not until an e mail dated 22 May that Councillor Burgess said: “The Executive will not be reviewing the decision”. (b) No public consultation required – because allegedly, the Council it is not bound by GLL’s prior promises to consult and the Council has not failed to comply with Section 149 of the Equalities Act 2010.‎ You will recall that in the minutes of a Sobell Pre-Meeting held on 5 April 2016, GLL Sobell General Manager Craig Woodward promised in writing: ‎“Full consultation process will take place once the review of the development has been completed”. These Pre-Meeting minutes were then incorporated into the minutes of the subsequent Customer Representative Committee (CRC) meeting held on 14 April 2016, at which Councillor Janet Burgess and Noel Headon of Islington’s Leisure Team were present. According to their solicitor however: “The Council is not bound by the minutes of the CRC meeting: it is not a member of the CRC. Officers only attend as observers.” ‎This is, in my view, an utterly disingenuous claim. The purpose of the CRC is for one, two or three customer representatives from each of Islington’s eight sports centres, (Barry Hill is the longest serving of three Sobell representatives), to represent the views of users and to make suggestions directly to GLL about the running of these centres with the knowledge and in the presence of Islington Council. This CRC can however be dissolved at any time by agreement between the Council and GLL.‎ Since the start of 2015, Noel Headon of Islington’s Leisure Team has attended 7 of the 9 CRC meetings and indeed made presentations to some of these meetings, whilst Councillor Janet Burgess has attended 2 CRC meetings. Both have received all the minutes. Both were, or should have been aware, of the written and verbal promises made by GLL in these CRC meetings to consult with Sobell customers prior to the implementation of this trampoline park. At no time did they distance themselves from these promises made by GLL. For Islington Council to now claim it is not bound by the promises made by their manager GLL in these CRC meetings, is in my opinion, disingenuous. Sharpe Pritchard’s letter does not address our claim that the Council’s established practice of consultation, (such as with the Barnard Park footballers), is another reason why Sobell customers should have a ‘legitimate expectation of consultation’. Also, their claim that the Equalities Act 2010 has not been breached, has in my opinion, no regard to the unsuitability of Holloway School Hall for 5-a-side football, which was not addressed in the 'Resident Impact Assessment' which we only discovered from our Freedom of Information Request was written by GLL themselves, several weeks after the unpublicised decision to proceed with the trampoline park. It is also worth highlighting that the Sharpe Pritchard letter states: “We have been advised that your clients has been misinformed in respect of the 31 July date: whilst some of the main works to the sports hall have already started (for example, ancillary works and works relating to the dismantling of the climbing wall), the next phase of substantive works has not yet started and is not due to start on 31 July 2017. Our client understands that GLL will be providing customers with two weeks’ notice as to when these works are due to start”. As we all know however from visiting the Sobell Centre, this is simply not accurate. Otherwise, why has GLL posted a customer notice stating that the entire Sobell sports hall will be closed from 31 July to 9 August? Also why, as from last Tuesday 25 July, has noisy and dusty construction work begun at first floor level to convert the keep fit studio’s into ‘birthday party’ rooms? In respect of the dust in the corridor from the café to the changing rooms, why was a Sobell customer told by one of the construction workers that they had been “told to get on with it quickly and hadn’t had time to screen it off”. It is, in my opinion, ridiculous for GLL to claim that the next phase of substantive works has not yet started. We are still taking legal advice, but as per my recent e mail to all 47 Islington Labour Councillors and the one Green Councillor (Caroline Russell who kindly presented our petition at the Council meeting on 29 June), this is simply no way for democratically elected politicians to act. As was promised by GLL with the knowledge of Islington Council, prior consultation should have been held with Sobell customers and local residents prior to the decision being taken to build this trampoline park. At the very least, Islington Ward Councillors should be standing up against their ruling Executive and voting on whether to proceed without any public consultation and I would also suggest, approve the £2 million loan that is being provided to GLL. There would then, in my view, be some semblance of a democratic and accountable process. John Barber. NB - Your latest Petition Comments to 31 July can also be viewed on the Sobell squash web site - http://www.sobellsquash.com/colleagues.php . I also attach below Barry Hill's excellent letter published in the Islington Tribune this week: "Concerns surrounding the Sobell Centre are being totally ignored": It is very sad and totally unacceptable that the voices of well over 1,000 customers and residents, raising justifiable concerns about the proposed recreational theme park project at the Sobell Centre, are being totally ignored by GLL and Islington Council executive. All that customers ask is for full information on the project and a pause in implementation while the promised proper and democratic public consultation takes place. Sobell customers have an enormously wide range of skills and expertise that, in the past, has proved so valuable to the council and managing agent. Why are their views on this project being completely ignored? In the absence of any publicly available detail of financial projections or Islington-based evidence of need for this project, customers are justifiably asking in what way the council executive has properly and rigorously tested all detail, especially financial, within the project proposal/business plan put to it by the managing agent, before signing it off for implementation. Certainly, ward councillors asked have no answers to these questions and are seeking further details from the council executive. Why has the full public consultation promised by the managing agent in 2016 not taken place? With the council as a partner, customers expect a fully transparent and openly democratic process on such a matter. Exactly the opposite appears to have happened. All the 1,000-plus people who have so far expressed concern look forward to a detailed public response to these queries before the centre is damaged by this project, both as a vibrant community hub and as a fine piece of architecture. BARRY HILL Sobell customer representative Finally, my letter to the Islington Tribune this week is attached, which includes a very sad photo of the Sobell.