I understand the problems for all leisure facilities, throughout the Country looking to run these buildings, some of which will like PLP be 30+ years old.

It is also unfortunate that the Council, at a recent budgetary meeting, could not look to provide more funding to help meet the ever-increasing utility costs than the £150k+ that was agreed.

Equally, it was inevitable that the costs for the replacement of PLP, namely the PH20 project, is to be delayed indefinitely, meaning that PLP is to have a longer build life that was originally intended.

 Funding for the PH20 project would have come from various sources, with PKC bearing the largest amount of funding along with the Gannochy Trust and Live Active Leisure.

Two of these sources, the Council and The Gannochy Trust, will, at a later date, look again to provide a portion of the funds if and when the opportunity permits, within the current financial climate.

It has before now been divulged that LAL also have funds set aside to help with the overall costs of the PH20 project. I seem to recollect that there was at the time (2014), LAL sat on reserves of some £12million+.

To see what the current figure held in reserves, can be found via Companies House website Companies House - GOV.UK
Enter Live Active Leisure and look at the company submitted accounts for 2022. These are the official accounts submitted by LAL.

I would, in the meantime, ask the following questions:  
Firstly, if there are substantial monies held in reserve, what is stopping the senior managers from accessing this to help offset the utility charges.
Secondly, what action has the Senior management team undertaken to look at ways of offsetting the running costs via other forms of technology? One of which can be looked at by clicking on the link below.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-64939558

With regards to the other pools that the Company owns and operates on behalf of PKC, PLP and Loch Leven are the only two pools which are owned and operated by LAL and if there are cost issues at Loch Leven then there has been no mention of these. Crieff, Aberfeldy are part of the School Campus as is Blairgowrie. Utility costs are built into the education budget for each facility respectively. LAL have no costs to meet with regard to these three facilities.

Finally, be aware that the CEO of LAL and his management team, will look to hide behind the members of the Board, when making any difficult decisions such as this and other projects like the recent controversial change of use at Bell’s Sports Centre in the refitting of the coaching hall to the tune of £750,000+.
If money could be found for this why cannot monies be found for running costs of PLP?

A thank you to Karen Hall!