Document Actions
Leeming Pool to Remain Closed While City Considers Redevelopment Plans
Published Date: 02 October 2008, 12:00 PM
The City of Melville has decided to keep the pool at Leeming Recreation Centre closed for the time being even though the State Gas Crisis has eased.
The City does not believe it is suitable to re-open the pool prior to a decision being made on the proposed redevelopment of Leeming Recreation Centre.
Mayor Russell Aubrey said the City closed the pool in June as part of its efforts to reduce gas and energy consumption during the State Gas Crisis. “The pool was a big user of gas for pool and space heating and the closure has helped the City save a significant amount of energy,” he said. “We do not believe it is in the best interests of the community to re-open the pool at this stage as it would not be possible to run a full swim program and would also require significant maintenance to prepare the pool for public use. We will wait until a decision on the redevelopment has been made.”
It is likely the Council will meet in late October to decide whether to accept the initial proposed redevelopment and call for tenders or proceed with an alternative proposal which may include the closure of the Leeming Recreation Centre.
Mayor Aubrey said the escalating costs of construction brought on by the WA economic boom at a pace of 10.5 per cent and the skills shortage had prompted the City to re-assess development options to ensure the best outcome for the community was achieved.
Health and Lifestyle Services Manager Todd Cahoon said after closing the pool at Leeming Recreation Centre, the City had been able to move almost all swim school and other programs to Melville Aquatic Fitness Centre. “Most of the staff have also been accommodated at Melville Aquatic,” he said. “All other programs and facilities at Leeming Recreation Centre continue to run as normal.”
Leeming Recreation Centre Pool Closure
Posted by
Rob Duncanson
at
06 October 2008, 01:49 PM
Mayor Russell Aubrey, in the last council elections you ran on the ticket of “I saved the Leeming Recreation Centre” and now you are putting out releases that the pool will not be reopened and the centre may close. To a sceptic it would appear that you’re strategy is to let the centre wither on the vine and then if you take it away hopefully nobody will notice. With numerous delays in the work program and the prolonged closure of the pool there does not appear to be a lot of energy or commitment to the centre by the council. Why don’t you show some commitment to the centre and open the pool?
In the Local Planning Strategy the Leeming Recreation Centre is referred to as a “critical piece of social infrastructure”, can we please get our critical infrastructure back without any more delays?
In the Local Planning Strategy the Leeming Recreation Centre is referred to as a “critical piece of social infrastructure”, can we please get our critical infrastructure back without any more delays?
Leeming Recreation Centre
Posted by
Robert Shack
at
07 October 2008, 04:31 PM
The constant procrastination over the future of the LRC shows an inability on the part of Council to manage the affairs of the City competently and in the interests of the rate payers. The pool, being the most costly part of the complex, will not re-open. Clearly, the remainder of the facility cannot continue in use indefinitely (refurbished or not) with the disused pool joined to it. The news letter is obviously the start of a gradual let-down for the remaining patrons, to the time that the closure is announced.
Leeming Recreation Centre
Posted by
Gina Jones
at
21 October 2008, 08:08 AM
I'm extremely disappointed to hear of an 'alternative proposal' wich 'may include the closure of the Leeming Recreation Centre.' As a frequent user of the centre in the past, I was delighted to hear about the upgrade and was prepared to wear a bit of 'short term pain' while the facilities underwent a much-needed revamp.
We moved to Leeming around a year ago and chose this location as a great spot to bring up a family based on the access to many facilities in the area. This included close access to the recreation centre, avoiding the need for us to join pricey gyms to maintain a healthy lifestyle.
With government organisations and the media consistently communicating the importance of regular exercise in maintaining a healthy community I would think that broad community access to convenient and accessibile community centres such as this to be extremely relevent and vital.
I personally would appreciate being updated on this issue as I'm sure many other residents would. I don't want to wake up one day and read in the local paper that the Leeming Rec Centre has closed.
We moved to Leeming around a year ago and chose this location as a great spot to bring up a family based on the access to many facilities in the area. This included close access to the recreation centre, avoiding the need for us to join pricey gyms to maintain a healthy lifestyle.
With government organisations and the media consistently communicating the importance of regular exercise in maintaining a healthy community I would think that broad community access to convenient and accessibile community centres such as this to be extremely relevent and vital.
I personally would appreciate being updated on this issue as I'm sure many other residents would. I don't want to wake up one day and read in the local paper that the Leeming Rec Centre has closed.
leeming recreation centre
Posted by
joe
at
23 October 2008, 08:19 AM
I am saddened to hear that at height of economic boom, our council is so keen to cancel and close a long established community centre. We deserve better, creating new centres are far more expensive and none is planned. Exiting recreation centre must be maintained and upgraded for the community and future generations or is the land value more attractive than the cost of upgrading?
Leeming Rec - Pool Closure Unacceptable
Posted by
Tim and Stephanie
at
27 October 2008, 07:35 AM
The Leeming Rec Centre with POOL facility would have been a significant factor for people deciding to purchase in the area. The CLOSURE of the POOL affects PEOPLE and SCHOOL and DECREASES HOUSE PRICES. It is cost prohibitive to move. We find it unacceptable to then loose that amenity that was part of the decision of moving into the area. Are the savings of the Leeming Rec Centre to go back into that area of the community or somewhere else in the City of Melville? How do we start a PETITION to SAVE the POOL facility? What community consultation and notification of public discussion has occurred?
Leeming Recreation Centre
Posted by
Dave
at
05 November 2008, 07:08 AM
Leeming Recreation centre was due to close for refurbishment in May this year. That decision has been delayed over and over again leaving it’s users to play a guessing game as to when we need to find a new home. In September we were told a decision would be made at a Council meeting at the end of the month. What a surprise to find this meeting was delayed! Then we were told the decision would be made at the end of October. Here we are in November still waiting. It would appear the council are waiting for the patronage to drop off so they can close the centre permanently with the least fuss. I hope this isn’t the case but I have my doubts. A definite date for the decision would be much appreciated by all, If not maybe an explanation could be provided to explain why the Council can’t make a decision on this subject.
Dave
Dave
Save Leeming Recreation Centre
Posted by
saveleemingrec.com
at
16 January 2009, 07:26 AM
Please visit http://www.saveleemingrec.com for efforts to save the Rec Centre.
Leeming Recreation Centre
Posted by
Joe Francis, MLA for Jandakot
at
19 January 2009, 07:38 AM
It disturbs me that following the previous State Government’s approval of $821 000 towards the redevelopment of the facility, a grant the new Government continues to offer, that the Council does not see fit to proceed with the refurbishment. This is despite the Mayor’s own statement on March 25, 2008 that “the funding... will go a long way to helping us provide a facility to meet the recreational needs of the current and next generation of residents. It is estimated that the redevelopment will increase patronage to the centre by 63 000 people per year and reduce the financial deficit.”
I also share community frustration that the pool at the LRC was at first closed due to the gas shortage, then permanently closed because “the closure has helped the City save significant amounts of energy.”
The issue of the money incurred in operating the facility has been highlighted by the Council itself in fashioning a rationale for abrogating its responsibility. Most councils (indeed if not all) would reasonably expect, and factor in, operating a facility like the LRC at a loss.
To suggest that local government facilities operate on a profit ratio or key performance indicators is not sustainable when other centres such as libraries, sports halls, art galleries and performing centres execute similar services to the community – all at a running loss.
I do not accept the Council’s argument that it is not fair for the rest of Melville ratepayers who do not use the LRC to subsidise the cost of the centre for the benefit of others. If this principle was applied to other government operations, we would not have any public facilities such as roads or parks. People without children could ask “why should I pay tax to educate other families kids?”, and certainly, the 12 000 residents of Leeming could ask, why should they pay rates to subsidise the cost of golf courses – especially if they don’t even play golf?
The amount claimed by Melville Council and paid by the State Government therefore varies from year to year. For the 2007 calendar year this amounted to $101,536.65 and for 2008 it is expected this will be at least $125,000. The State government remains committed to contributing to the expenses – including maintenance, in accordance with this contract. Though this agreement lapsed in 2004 it continues through the goodwill of the department on a year – to – year basis, as Melville Council have not asked the Government for a review since it expired four years ago.
A fully restored and properly managed LRC would revitalise Leeming. Reintroducing programs associated with the pool and providing reasonable gym memberships would soon increase patronage and most likely surpass the 63 000 per year originally thought.
The role of Council as defined by the Local Government Act is to represent the “interests of electors, ratepayers and residents”.
I therefore encourage Melville City Council to reconsider the December decision and realign its attitude with its own community. I strongly urge the Council to review their position and embrace the positive asset this centre has been for 20 years - and can be in future - to the people of Melville.
I also share community frustration that the pool at the LRC was at first closed due to the gas shortage, then permanently closed because “the closure has helped the City save significant amounts of energy.”
The issue of the money incurred in operating the facility has been highlighted by the Council itself in fashioning a rationale for abrogating its responsibility. Most councils (indeed if not all) would reasonably expect, and factor in, operating a facility like the LRC at a loss.
To suggest that local government facilities operate on a profit ratio or key performance indicators is not sustainable when other centres such as libraries, sports halls, art galleries and performing centres execute similar services to the community – all at a running loss.
I do not accept the Council’s argument that it is not fair for the rest of Melville ratepayers who do not use the LRC to subsidise the cost of the centre for the benefit of others. If this principle was applied to other government operations, we would not have any public facilities such as roads or parks. People without children could ask “why should I pay tax to educate other families kids?”, and certainly, the 12 000 residents of Leeming could ask, why should they pay rates to subsidise the cost of golf courses – especially if they don’t even play golf?
The amount claimed by Melville Council and paid by the State Government therefore varies from year to year. For the 2007 calendar year this amounted to $101,536.65 and for 2008 it is expected this will be at least $125,000. The State government remains committed to contributing to the expenses – including maintenance, in accordance with this contract. Though this agreement lapsed in 2004 it continues through the goodwill of the department on a year – to – year basis, as Melville Council have not asked the Government for a review since it expired four years ago.
A fully restored and properly managed LRC would revitalise Leeming. Reintroducing programs associated with the pool and providing reasonable gym memberships would soon increase patronage and most likely surpass the 63 000 per year originally thought.
The role of Council as defined by the Local Government Act is to represent the “interests of electors, ratepayers and residents”.
I therefore encourage Melville City Council to reconsider the December decision and realign its attitude with its own community. I strongly urge the Council to review their position and embrace the positive asset this centre has been for 20 years - and can be in future - to the people of Melville.
Leeming Pool