Taken from the BGLNF report dated March 2025 | Response to the City of London’s Consultation on the refurbishment of Golden Lane Leisure Centre (GLLC) using Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Funds
NOTE: Sue Pearson, Chair of GLERA, is also Co-Chair of the BGLNF and was very involved in the writing of the report.
3. FORUM RESPONSE
3.1 In general, the Forum welcomes the City of London’s intention to invest in the Golden Lane Leisure Centre and supports the related ambitions to make the City a more sustainable place, and one where culture and amenity for the people who live and work here is improved. We are concerned, however, that previous interventions to the Estate’s community and social facilities and public realm have not always been of the highest quality nor designed to be in keeping with this neighbourhood’s heritage. For example, much of the original paving which has or is being replaced is laid irregularly. Replacement light fittings are inconsistent, and not in keeping with the original features or the Listed Building Management Guidelines.
3.2 Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funding is allocated specifically according to regulations. CIL funding for this project is based on Golden Lane Leisure being “essential” infrastructure for the residential population, as explained in the committee report (see below for an extract). The needs of the residential population therefore must be paramount.
3.3 We are particularly concerned that the City of London’s investment in GLLC results in real, tangible improvements to the health and wellbeing of the local community of residents and workers. A narrow focus simply on “sports” may not be entirely appropriate in an area which has many gyms but is short on support and facilities for a wide range of health needs and a changing demographic. GLLC is not a big space and currently has little ancillary accommodation. It cannot be all things to all people, so the eventual focus for the project must be based on an open assessment of potential future use of all the spaces, prioritising health and wellbeing. This should include services under a “social prescribing” model to help people to stay put and stay healthy – at a reasonable cost. The needs of the local community should be the starting point for this project; to maintain a properly caring and healthy neighbourhood, with the associated benefits and savings. The Forum recommends that the primary measure of success should be social value rather than income generated.
3.4 Rather that piecemeal provision, led by separate Corporation departments, the Forum takes the view that there should be a whole neighbourhood strategy for health and wellbeing with Golden Lane Leisure Centre at its heart. We recall the Goldsmith University research on isolation and loneliness across the two estates; one response to this is to provide communal facilities that work for all stages of life.
3.5 The Golden Lane pool is twenty metres and relatively shallow, the gym is small and the studio space quite restricted. It is competing with gyms run by Better, Nuffield, the new YMCA gym and many others nearby. At present it is frequently closed and poorly maintained, but there is a danger that if it is renovated simply as another fitness centre, it will again fail through being insufficiently competitive with others in the neighbourhood. The Forum considers that Golden Lane Leisure Centre should always be a community resource providing for children, schools, local older adults, vulnerable groups and clubs. It is important that a model for long-term management and maintenance is determined before architects’ plans are drawn up in order to create a genuinely viable project. For this reason, it is recommended that the leisure centre is seen not as just a fitness facility but as a public health project – and one that has the active support of the public health department, the GP’s surgery and Barts Hospital, as well as the Barbican & Golden Lane Neighbourhood Forum, GLERA and the Barbican Association (BA).
3.6 Given the ambition to increase usage, and to ensure long-term viability, it is crucial at this early stage that the City of London adopts a genuinely collaborative approach with the local community whose members are the primary users of GLLC. We recommend that project is governed by a Working Party with local stakeholders as equal partners; jointly establishing the Project Scope and Benefits Case, and also the full Business Case as a first step.
3.7 A Business and Operational Management Model to ensure any new facility is properly run needs to be developed at the outset, even if this evolves later, with an agreement that CoL will fund or underwrite the running costs as an ongoing health benefit for the resident population (and recognising that this will also result in associated savings to the public purse in general).
3.8 An early agreement about Operational Management is crucial. The general approach to management should be considered and agreed, at least in outline, before drawing up architectural designs and options. The City of London seems to have already made up its mind, even renaming Golden Lane Leisure Centre as “Golden Lane Sport and Fitness Centre” in its consultation documents. This is a regrettable assumption and entirely contrary to the community need for a health and wellbeing facility, managed to maximise health benefits locally. For this project to succeed, the willingness of GLLC management to engage with potential users is vital.
3.9 An audit of existing facilities and services in the Neighbourhood Area is a crucial starting point. We do not see how work can start on a new facility without understanding what is already available locally. It is also important that the leisure centre works closely with the community centre as to where classes such as Tae Quan Do, karate, yoga, keep fit and Zumba are best done. A neighbourhood-wide approach to coordination of facilities to work with GLLC would also be worthwhile to ensue best value for the investment and to avoid duplication and conflict at either estate or neighbourhood level.
3.10 Activities that do not need fixed equipment may be preferable, as this will allow best use of the very limited space. Proper storage for equipment will be needed.
3.11 Operating Hours need to reflect the residential nature of GLLC’s location. This is particularly important for the tennis court and its usage. Currently it operates as a playground for a private school to the detriment of residents who now have noise nuisance and no benefit. Is the “football area” to the east of GLLC also in scope? It should be remembered that this is part of the private, shared communal open space for Golden Lane residents and their children – and not an area for more widespread usage. Access to and from GLLC needs to be from Fann Street, with routes in and out (and signage) to respect residential amenity.
3.12 The scope of the project is not clear, either in terms of geography/layout, or in terms of what it aims to achieve. We would like to see a full explanation of what the £10.5m is costed on. This needs to include strong liability insurance, performance bonds and contingency for contractor insolvency etc. Swimming pools are notoriously tricky to restore and upgrade.
3.13 Any work needs to respect the heritage, the Listed Building Management Guidelines, and use an established and trusted heritage consultant such as Avanti. The project will also require an inter- disciplinary team from the outset so that heritage, sustainability, operational and commercial considerations can all be considered together throughout. Whilst we appreciate that a prime contractor may be a good idea, the specialist modern heritage of Golden Lane requires early input from experts. The experience of the windows in Crescent House, and the City of London Girls’ School, is that lack of attention to this at the outset can lead to costly challenge and problems later. For this reason, the City should also include an independent design review before planning consent is sought.
3.14 The phasing of the project, even in outline, is not clear at this point. It is likely that Mechanical & Electrical infrastructure (M&E) needs to be comprehensively overhauled first. This needs to be done with sustainability in mind and to minimise future running costs. There is substantial local expertise and interest in this, and in the potential to adopt a network solution to the distribution of heat and cooling throughout the Neighbourhood, with the City’s LAEP forecasts in mind and the government’s commitment to the creation of new heating networks.
3.15 Sustainability is crucial in all respects, and GLLC must fit in with estate-wide plans and strategies on the Golden Lane Estate, as well as wider City policies.
3.16 A fully-funded programme of interim health and wellbeing activities should be developed to run alongside any refurbishment works, both to make sure that levels of fitness and health don’t suffer and to experiment with additional services that could be eventually run from the Centre. We hope that this will be possible in tandem with extending Fusion’s contract to run GLLC for the next 12 – 18 months as we understand it. We note, for example, that an increasingly popular programme of walks is being run from a local GP surgery – it would be worthwhile experimenting with similar “social prescribing” services and to engage with Healthwatch and the Neaman Practice and Hackney Voluntary Services Council.
3.17 The City of London’s current survey (see 4 below) seems to unduly prejudice or limit discussion of the aims and benefits for the GLLC project by making certain assumptions in the question design and options offered. This does not appear to be a professional market survey on which, say, an operating model could be based. For example;
- Why has the Centre been renamed as a “Sport and Fitness Centre” without consultation?
- Why does the age range stop at 75, when all the evidence shows that 85+ is a fast-growing demographic in this area, worthy of analysing specifically?
- Why are the direct views of children under 16 not accommodated?
- Why are Soft play, Sensory play, Imagination play (Toy Town) and Junior fitness the only options on offer for children?
- Why are the views of people with special needs not sought?
- Why does the survey not ask if respondents live in the City, or work near GLLC?
- If respondents say they don’t use GLLC now, why does the survey not ask them why not?
- Why are the lists of options in Q12 and Q13 the only ones on offer? HIIT classes are available in almost every gym in the area – what could GLLC provide that is needed locally, that it could excel at, at a price that locals can afford?
- Why single out parental status, gender and age?
- Why single out Golden Lane residents? – this is a facility for other local residents, too
- Why do you single out Tennis, Badminton, Padel tennis, Football, Basketball and Netball for special attention?
- Why are a Café, Meeting rooms, Flexible working spaces, Wi-Fi and Social events the only “community/social inclusion” options on offer?
- Why on the ranked lists is there no way to rule out individual options in which respondents have no interest altogether?
- Why is there no space for respondents to put their own views forward, under some categories, rather than picking from the City’s options?
- Why pay individuals £20 to join a one-off focus group when funding could be spent instead on collaboratively designing the new facility with the local community of users throughout the whole lifespan of the project?
This is a deeply flawed survey; unacceptably leading particular responses by reason of the question design. It will produce distorted results. The Forum seeks assurances that any data collected through this exercise will not be used to determine the range of facilities, the operating model or the architects’ brief for this project, and that a fully collaborative design approach is used involving the local community. The Forum also asks that responses from representative community organisations are given the proper weight, considering that the funding is predicated on this being a facility for residential users.
Read the report in full for additional context and details of the survey.
bglnf
The Barbican & Golden Lane Neighbourhood Forum is designated to represent the planning and infrastructure aspirations of community organisations, businesses and residents in our area. This includes the whole of the Golden Lane Estate, the Barbican Estate and the neighbouring residential blocks and businesses in the north-west of the City of London.
