During four weeks in February / March 2025 the Corporation invited residents to participate in an engagement survey to share thoughts, ideas, and feedback on the proposed project.
GLERA had some concerns about the consultation and survey which are outlined below in an email to:
- Greg Knight | Interim Senior Commissioning Manager
- Simon Cribbens | Assistant Director – Commissioning and Partnerships
- Sarah Forster | Active Insight
20 MARCH 2025
Dear Simon, Greg and Sarah
This email outlines GLERA response to the initial consultation by the City of London Corporation on the future of Golden Lane Leisure Centre.
It is disappointing that for the survey the leisure centre has been renamed “Sports and Fitness” centre, locally the centre is known as the Leisure centre and Sports and Fitness infers its future function that excludes the wider definition of health and well being that we would hope for to support the residential and working community.
It is useful to create a survey however, we do have some concerns about the format of some of the questions and assumptions inferred which we discuss further later.
The Golden Lanes Leisure Centre is small compared with many of the other gyms in the neighbourhood and has found, and will find, it hard to be competitive, when making a similar offer. It will need to build on its benefits, the pool, sports hall and tennis courts and of the needs of the local population. We have a mixture of young families, maturing families, single people and an ageing population on the estate.
We understand that there will be further engagement but request that a study of surrounding local facilities, in the City and South Islington is undertaken, including activities in the Golden Lane Estate Community Centre, and what community facilities are anticipated in the development for 1 Golden Lane and other local recently approved planning applications. Account should also be taken that recent housing development like Clarendon Court and The Heron, 4 Moor Lane provide gyms and communal rooms for their residents
We would like to think that this is the opportunity for the Corporation to think creatively about what is needed for the health and well being of its residents and local workers with a view to the using the available space in the most sustainable way.
Golden Lane Estate is a private estate but is permeable and for residents this can often cause problems. The Golden Lane Leisure Centre is hidden in the centre of the estate and its signposting needs to be singular with access signposted from Fann Street only, to maintain residential amenity.
Noisy outdoor sports on the Estate are always an issue. The recently addition of COLPAI school with its over national guidelines noise from the playground is already an issue with acoustic mitigation being discussed. Tennis is acceptable but netball has been an issue in the past with the shouting and the use of whistles and any percussive sport would be opposed.
Golden Lane Estate is also listed grade 2 and 2* and it important that this is considered with any design interventions and work carried out in line with the listed building management guidelines.
Returning to the survey it seems to unduly prejudice or limit discussion of the aims and benefits for the project by making certain assumptions in the question design and options offered. For example;
- 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 the views of people with special needs not sought?
- Why does the survey not ask if respondents live in the City, or work near Golden Lane Leisure Centre?
- If respondents say they don’t use Golden Lane Leisure Centre 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 Golden Lane Leisure Centre provide that is needed locally, that it could excel at, at a price that locals can afford?
- The ranking questions Q14,15 and Q16 are difficult if you are only interested in one/ none as there is no way to rule out options they have no interest in, or to add ones they may be interested in.
- 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 are Soft play, Sensory play, Imagination play (Toy Town) and Junior fitness the only options on offer for children?
- Why is there no space for respondents to put their own views forward, under some categories, rather than picking from the City’s options?
We trust that any data collected through this survey will not be used to decide the range of facilities, architects briefings or operating model and that more information is sought and a more collaborative design approach involving our local community is taken.
Sue Pearson
Chair GLERA 2024/2026
