Leisure facilties facing quality assurance cuts
Anyone who uses the so-called leisure services in the Borough will know how horrendously dilapidated they've become. Greenwich Leisure Limited (GLL) are the company which run these services - "into the ground" some might say - and many would think they do so with impunity already.
Sadly the Council appears to be planning to further negate responsibility for ensuring the quality of these services as it plans to cut one of it's Leisure Client monitoring posts. A cursory glance at the state of GLL leisure facilties in the Borough suggests that the Council should be increasing the number on this team, not arbitrarily cutting it. But who are we to argue, we;re just voters.
Sadly the Council appears to be planning to further negate responsibility for ensuring the quality of these services as it plans to cut one of it's Leisure Client monitoring posts. A cursory glance at the state of GLL leisure facilties in the Borough suggests that the Council should be increasing the number on this team, not arbitrarily cutting it. But who are we to argue, we;re just voters.
Labels: cuts, leisure services
posted by greenwich.watch at 1:58 pm
3 Comments:
I remember a few years ago hearing that the Arches was the most used leisure centre in the whole of Greenwich. But I don't think that it's had a lick of paint in a long time and so now it is much less used.
I'm sure that the council wouldn't have planned this so that they could build a smaller leisure centre, say with only 1 swimming pool, on the old Greenwich Hospital Site.
If you want people to keep fit and healthy then you need to provide them with good facilities and that means maintaining them.
Also, let us not forget the plans to close the Plumstead Leisure Centre that seem to surface every few months. Which rapidly disappear in a wave of "Your council saved the centre" spin, that follows.
I see in the News Shopper (29.11.2006) that Council executives have awarded themselves huge pay rises. What for? Is their pay not related to performance, and if not why not? Why should you get a £18,000-£20,000 pay rise (which is over 11 per cent in the case of Mary Ney, if the News Shopper report is correct), when £'000,000s of Council Tax and Council rents go uncollected and services suffer? If, indeed, the Council spokesman quoted is right, that the chief executive's pay rise is required to "deliver the 'ambitious' £750m modernisation programme" - well, here's a novel idea, reward her the pay rise AFTER she has achieved this modernisation programme. And how is this £750m modernisation to be paid for - not with Council Tax rises, I trust - I really think that Greenwich should collect the uncollected CT and rents before coming to the rest of us for more money. Why should we pay for Councillors and the executive to bring Greenwich Council into disrepute?
I look forward to seeing you all get your come-uppance. If it can happen to Lady Porter and Westminister Council, it can happen to you.
Post a Comment
<< Home