Dear 'Save The Sobell Sports Hall Supporters', As you are all aware, local MP Jeremy Corbyn has spoken out against this trampoline park proposal, following which several Islington Ward Councillors have also now ‘put their heads above the parapet’, including Councillor Paul Convery and Councillor Gary Doolan, both urging the Council Executive to rethink. Councillor Caroline Russell, from the Green Party presented our petition at the last Council meeting on 29 June. David Lammy MP has also promised his support and as well as Sir Michael Sobell's grand-daughter, Ms Gaie Scouller. Other high profile figures are joining us. The latest Tribune article - http://islingtontribune.com/article/councillor-joins-corbyn-to-oppose-trampoline-park - quotes Councillor Convery as urging the Council Executive to “rethink”, says “the deal with the football teams is inadequate,” and finishes with “I’m a sports purist. I’m not sure this trampoline park is exactly what I call sport.” The latest open letter to the Tribune from our tireless Sobell Customer Representative, Barry Hill, is also attached. Despite his many other commitments, Jeremy Corbyn has written a few times to Islington Council on this project and received back from Councillor Watts and Councillor Burgess (Leader and Deputy Leader respectively) a letter defending this project, which he has kindly shared with us. Below is the e mail that Celia Clarke has just sent in response. We have also copied in the senior personal at GLL and all Islington Ward Councillors, so they can see precisely what has gone on and properly understand what this trampoline park attraction really is. I am afraid it is by necessity a long e mail as we are responding to a 5 page letter, but it contains some superb adjectives, including ‘disingenuous’ and ‘mendacious’! ---------------------------- Dear Jeremy, Thank you for your letter of 27 July. Those of us who form the ad hoc steering group of this informally-constituted campaign are extremely grateful for your response. It is both admirable and impressive that, with so many important issues currently demanding your attention, you have nonetheless found the time to look into this trampoline park ‎project and ask questions of Islington Council's Executive.‎ One thing that has been particularly frustrating has been the repetition by the Council of the inadequate answers that they have already provided, and their failure to engage in any meaningful sense with the concerns we have raised. ‎ We have therefore seen before many of the statements and claims in the attached letter to you dated 19 July from Councillor Watts and Councillor Burgess. Without repeating much of what you already know, we simply cannot allow however some of their claims to go unchallenged. In broadly the same order as set out in their letter: 1. Consultation process This has been a fiasco. There has been no consultation. GLL promised in Customer Representative Committee (CRC) meetings to fully consult with Sobell customers once a review of the project had been completed. Despite either Councillor Burgess or Noel Headon of Islington’s Leisure Team being present in many of these meetings, both receiving all the minutes and both receiving the detailed discussion notes between the Sobell Customer Representative Barry Hill and the GLL Sobell General Manger, according to the Council’s lawyers Sharpe Pritchard, “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 our view, an utterly disingenuous claim. The purpose of the CRC is for customer representatives from each of Islington’s eight sports centres to make suggestions directly to GLL, in the presence of Islington Council. Both Councillor Burgess and Noel Headon were, or should have been aware, of the written and verbal promises made by GLL and at no time did they distance themselves from those promises. To compound matters, the Council buried any reference to this project a few brief sentences in 152 pages of budget proposals approved on 23 February, which gave no details of size, timing or funding. Despite promising an impact assessment prior to a decision being taken and without the promised public consultation, just a week later on 3 March Councillor Burgess gave GLL her approval. This was confirmed by Andrew Bedford, Head of Greenspace and Leisure on 15 March. The Resident Impact Assessment that GLL have themselves produced justifying this project, (that in our opinion is woefully inadequate), was only written weeks after this decision had been taken and, we suspect, only as a result of our protest. Following the response to our Freedom of Information request, we have seen it is dated 14 April. It states that the "date initial screening assessment started" was 24 February (a day after budget meeting) and it was not signed off until 23 June. The claim therefore that “due regard was had” to this Residential Impact Assessment “when the decision was taken to approve the project” is clearly inaccurate. In response to our Letter Before Action, the Council’s lawyer Sharpe Pritchard has also not addressed our claim that the Council’s established practice of consultation in similar cases (such as when the Council consulted with the Barnard Park footballers over many years), is another reason according to case law why Sobell customers had a ‘legitimate expectation of consultation’. Their claim that the Equalities Act 2010 has not been breached, also has no regard to the unsuitability of Holloway School for 5-a-side football (as discussed later). In our view, to any reasonable Islington voter, the Council's dictatorial conduct is no way for democratically elected politicians to act. 2. Planning permission The Council's letter states: “Planning permission was not required”. Because a trampoline park and an indoor sports centre both fall within the same planning use class and because all the building works are internal, there has been no requirement on GLL to submit these plans to Islington’s Planning Officers for their usual proper scrutiny. Had this been a private landowner proposing a similar change of use projected to attract an additional 150,000 visitors per annum, we very much suspect that ‎Islington Planning and Highway Officers would have found a way to scrutinise these proposals. 3. Alternative facilities offered to the 5-a-side football teams The claim is that: “a good alternative is being provided” at Holloway School. GLL has done “all they can to ensure that it is good venue, including making alterations as suggested by the users. Many users are satisfied with the arrangements although we know some remain unhappy”. Moreover, “the venue at Holloway School is safe with all relevant risk assessments in place” .. “Some disquiet has been raised by indoor footballers about this being a sub-standard floor, however, both floors are laid on concrete and both floors are compliant”. Again this is infuriating ‘misinformation’. The alterations suggested by the users were in fact vital safety improvements we demanded when we saw the nine, 10 cm wide, right angled door frames protruding into the football playing area. It is very concerning that schoolchildren playing 5-a-side were exposed to this clear danger, let alone adult men and women running hard. At least these protruding doors have now been made flush. Apart however from also being unavailable at weekends, (when a number of our teams play), not being available during school exam periods and being far further from the tube stations, Holloway School is simply not a comparable or suitable venue for playing competitive adult football. It has a solid concrete floor with a thin, 3 mm layer of non-slip lino (Gymflex) stuck on top. Apart from offering no cushioning or shock absorption, its ultra, non-slip surface makes playing football there positively hazardous. By comparison, the Sobell’s Olympic standard, sprung timber floor (Gransprung), is flexible, shock absorbing and far less dangerous when footballers inevitably fall. Holloway School is a perfect venue for basketball, netball and badminton, but certainly not 5-a-side or volleyball. W‎hen kicking a ball your foot sometimes needs to slide over the floor surface and not stay rooted to the spot as it occasionally does on this non-slip lino surface. The claim by Michael MacNeil (Islington’s Football Development Manager), that the floor is safe for 5-a-side offers no reassurance whatsoever. Indeed, we have already had one player suffering serious knee damage playing at Holloway School. She has sustained a fracture within her knee joint, a complete tear of her anterior cruciate ligament, a partial tear of her lateral collateral ligament and a tear of her meniscus. We asked the Council’s Leisure Team for a copy of the current Health & Safety Risk Assessment for the school sports hall on 13 July (4 weeks ago) as a result of this injury but it has still, a month later, not been provide by GLL. Teams that have played there have reported far more minor knee and ankle sprains than has ever been experienced indoors. Moreover, the claim that “many users are satisfied with the arrangements” is mendacious. Most football groups have refused to play there. With few other local alternative venues, the handful that have, or are still playing at Holloway School, are doing so under duress. Unable to find an alternative venue, some groups that have been together for many decades, are now beginning to disband. ‎ 4. Movement of bookings “… the displacement strategy will enable 96 per cent of users to continue their sporting activity”. This 96% figure is misleading as it assumes the removal of all footballers to Holloway School being a suitable venue, which as explained above, it is not. The percentage figures are also very different from the figures with which we were previously provided, and we have an accountant who has identified various anomalies in the Resident Impact Assessment compared to our Freedom of Information Request. Our second FOI Request, (to which we are still awaiting a response), will, we hope, provide some clarification. We have also been asking GLL for months but they will not provide, the weekly booking schedule for the sports hall so that we can check their figures. In particular they claim there is a double-booking of netball or basketball on Courts 3 and 4 (ie: what will remain of the sports hall) every day, which is a reason they are opposing our solution of the mobile football barriers. 5. Financial costs of the project The £2 million loan that is being provided by Islington Council to GLL to build this trampoline park was only unearthed as a result of our Freedom of Information Request. In numerous previous emails from the Council and GLL, including an information leaflet produced by the Council’s own leisure team, it was misleadingly stated that GLL were funding these works. The loan is in fact being paid back from the trampoline park revenue. The actual figures are however still shrouded in secrecy. Whereas the budget meeting minutes of 23 February state that capital investment in the trampoline park and the tree service will create savings of £660,000 (presumably per annum), we have been told on several occasions that this project will create a £200,000 income increase. 6. Structural Changes The Council's letter states: “Whilst there are structural changes, these can be removed and the Sobell re-converted at some point in the future if necessary. There is no damage to the structure or to the flooring. You are correct that users have suggested several changes, which have been extremely helpful. We are concerned at suggestions that there should be a Slush Puppy area, and are investigating”. GLL’s refusal to provide any of the basic information we have requested has been unreasonable. For example we asked for layout plans of the trampoline park in late March, but only received them ‘second hand’ some 8 weeks later when a supportive architect James Dunnett was given a guided tour of the works. Thank goodness we did, because as you are probably aware, the trampoline park dividing wall that will split the sports hall in half was to be built so close (just 50 cms) to one of the two remaining netball/basketball courts as to make it dangerous to use. Following our feedback, this wall is now being moved one metre further back, so if nothing else, our campaign has at least ensured that what will remain of the Sobell sports hall, although far from ideal, will at least be useable. The serious damage that is about to be made by GLL’s contractor to the Gransprung timber floor will involve screwing hardboard on top, which we are told is GLL’s definition of a “timber floating floor”. Irreversible damage will also be caused when they cut 6.5 linear metres from the patterned, first floor concrete parapet wall, which is required to provide access to the “trampoline viewing mezzanine” with a ”slush puppy concession.” How the Council was not already aware of this 'slush puppy’ proposal when it is clearly shown on the layout plan is inconceivable. This and the obvious trampoline dividing wall error really does raise questions as to the extent to which the Islington Council has taken its public interest oversight responsibilities seriously. Equally troubling is the contradiction between the Council’s avowed intention that the park will reduce obesity and encourage hard to reach groups to use the facility, while at the same time providing a refreshment concession which promotes the ingestion of sugar. 7. Parking As news has spread, discontent has escalated amongst local residents about the likely impact on street parking, for which no traffic and parking impact assessment has been undertaken. This local parking problem will only be exacerbated with the recent abolition of the coin operated parking machines from the Sobell car park, with mobile phone and debit/credit cards now being the only form of payment accepted, as well as the increased minimum charge from £1.00 to £1.60 per hour. It is patently obvious that this form of payment will make it even less likely that Sobell customers, or parents dropping off and then picking up their children from trampoline park birthday parties, will use the Sobell car park. 8. Sports governing bodies None of the sports governing bodies including Sport England, London Sport, the FA, the London FA, Volleyball England, London Volleyball, Badminton England, England Netball or Basketball England knew anything about these proposals until we contacted them. GLL have now offered all these sports space in what will remain of the Sobell sports hall. Only the 5-a-side footballers are being completely excluded, along with a few ad hoc badminton players. In addition, the new air handling system that has been installed in advance of the trampoline park is making some of the badminton courts unusable due to air movements affecting the shuttlecocks. We would reiterate that Holloway School, with its ultra non slip floor, while being unsuitable for indoor football, is a perfect badminton venue. 9. Use by youngsters and teenage girls The Council's letter states: "A key priority is to encourage more young people, particularly teenage girls who often stop exercising at this age, to continue with physical activity, and we are confident that precisely this group will benefit most from the new trampoline park"... "The trampoline park will also provide a good venue for schools …". Encouraging more young people into exercise and sport is of course what we all want. It is fanciful to claim however that bouncing and playing games at a trampoline park will encourage teenage girls to visit on a weekly or even semi-regular basis. The games areas that will make up most of this recreational attraction will include a ‘wipe-out trampoline’, a ‘foam pit’ (for jumping into), a ‘dodgeball’ area (throwing balls at each other), ‘slam dunk’ basketball (bouncing up to a basketball net), a ‘battle beam’ (jousting with padded lances on a beam to knock your opponent into a foam pit), balancing on a ‘slackline’ (a webbing tightrope) and climbing a ‘fidget ladder’ (a rope ladder). All are no doubt great fun for kids, but to claim they will provide any regular form of exercise for teenage girls or indeed anyone else, is absurd. The primary target market for trampoline parks is families with children between the ages 4 to 14, looking for a weekend afternoon out or a children’s birthday party venue. This is why the recently refurbished first floor keep fit studio is currently in the process of being gutted and converted into three birthday party entertainment rooms, together with a large adjoining kitchen to supply the birthday party food. The secondary target audience is older teenage children and students on ad-hoc visits. GLL has also confirmed this attraction will be available to book for businesses corporate events and for ‘team bonding’ activities. Despite GLL’s best efforts to discourage it, I am sure it will also attract hen and stag parties. Apart from use by toddlers and their mums, this trampoline attraction will hardly be used during weekday mornings, weekday afternoons, or during weekday evenings on school days. GLL’s claim that this trampoline park will be a “good venue for schools” is highly questionable. Which local schools do they have in mind? If children are going to waste valuable time travelling to and from the Sobell Centre and then spend the rest of their PE lessons playing games at this trampoline park, Islington Council should be asking serious questions of their head teachers! GLL’s own Resident Impact Assessment, (which as previously stated is in our view a woefully inadequate report), also states that a gymnastics club will use this trampoline park. Again this is highly questionable given this is in essence a children’s play attraction with absolutely no competitive trampoline, or indeed any other sporting application. Indeed, many of the Sobell’s proper competition trampoliners have signed the petition, with one of them saying, “We don't want the trampoline park any more than you do. They are a death trap and give our sport a bad name!”. As parents and grandparents ourselves, we have absolutely no objection to a family and birthday party recreational attraction, but not at the expense of this special and increasing rare, high quality sports hall. These trampoline parks are being provided in ever increasing numbers by the private sector, but in far larger facilities that have ample on-site parking. GLL are trying to squeeze this trampoline park into half the Sobell sports hall, which is why, unusually, they have had to go to the considerable additional expense of incorporating a mezzanine area. It is still however too small an area for visitors to be able to follow a proper exercise circuit and tackle obstacles, while offering the variety of games required. We have previously questioned GLL about the small size and were told: “The addition of the mezzanine floor provides 1,600m2 of space“. Having finally however seen the layout plan, the actual area of the trampoline area itself is only 1,040 sq m, partially made smaller when GLL had to move the trampoline dividing wall. GLL’s recently opened Barkingside trampoline park, which we understand Councillor Burgess has visited, is far larger at a reported 1,800 sq m with 125 trampolines, offering the greater variety required to compete with private sector operators. Interestingly however, the Barkingside weekly programme only has one hour slot in the entire week (7.30 pm on Tuesdays), programmed for a fitness class. The reminder of the week is available for private bookings or general public use. So much for encouraging teenage girls to use trampoline parks for regular structured exercise! A far better idea would be for Islington Council’s Leisure Team and GLL to visit local schools to promote their sport programme for girls, including of course 5-a-side football (on the back of the recent success of the Lionesses), as well as the wide range of exercise classes that could be made available, perhaps at introductory discounted rates, including zumba, pilates, yoga, tai chi, UGI, punch and spin classes to name but a few. That might encourage more teenage girls to take up regular exercise. Overall however, it is simply not reasonable for the Olympic standard facilities in this well-used community sports hall to be lost to a trampoline attraction which offers little more exercise or sporting application than a skate board park, a laser quest zone or with some of the play areas, even a ten pin bowling alley. As a result of these proposals, some 34 groups of junior and senior 5-a-side footballers comprising about 500 players, have now been kicked out of the Sobell. With the unsuitable floor at Holloway School, the groups that have elderly players who are unable to play outdoors on more demanding and slippery astro-turf pitches, now have nowhere to play. Some groups including my own, will play outdoors over the Summer, but there is simply no way at our age that we can realistically play as from the start of the wet autumn months. Our varied friendship groups, that are often mixed gender, diverse in terms of ethnicity and many of which had the same weekly booking at the Sobell over many decades, will be destroyed. This concludes our comments on the Council’s letter. Mobile football barriers As I think you are aware however, even if this trampoline park is built, we have designed and had costed a solution of mobile football barriers. Partly as a result of direct pressure from Sport England, London Sport and the London FA, the Council’s Leisure Team have promised to review it thoroughly. An inspection of these mobile barriers ‘in action’ at a leisure centre in Guildford took place on 23 June (6 weeks ago). Like wheeling a supermarket trolley, they are very manoeuvrable. They can be set up or taken down within 20 minutes. GLL’s only remaining objection seems to be a lack of storage space as they now claim both large storerooms behind Court 2 are required for other sports hall equipment – even though they originally claimed this space was required for a new buggy store, which is actually now proposed to be located in a small room on the first floor. Again, we have proposed solutions, one of which is to make these mobile barriers slightly narrower which the supplier has confirmed is possible. These mobile barriers are an easy, inexpensive and practical solution for keeping indoor 5-a-side football at the Sobell even if this trampoline park is built. We await a decision. Summary Our campaign to ‘Save the Sobell Centre Sports Hall’ currently has 1,110 supporters - https://www.change.org/p/petition-to-save-the-sobell-centre-sports-hall On the back of your own questions to the Council Executive, several Labour ward councillors have now ‘put their heads above the parapets’, including Councillor Paul Convery and Councillor Gary Doolan, urging the Council to rethink. Within the past 24 hours we have also been promised support from David Lammy, MP for Tottenham. All the petition signatories want is a chance to be heard in a meaningful, public consultation process. In the specific case of 5-a-side football, the constructive and workable proposals that we have put forward to retain indoor football at Sobell should also be properly considered. I am copying this e mail to Councillor Watts and Councillor Burgess, as well as various GLL personnel to give them an opportunity to respond to anything we have said. I am also copying in the Islington Ward Councillors so they can see precisely what has gone on and properly understand what this trampoline park attraction really is. Thank you for your continued support but immediate action needs to be taken before GLL’s contractor causes any irreversible damage to this well-loved and well used community sports centre. Yours sincerely Celia Clarke, John Barber, Tamsin Oglesby, Jon Barnes and Barry Hill