City of London Made Leisure Centre Closure Decision Weeks Before Public Announcement
The City of London Corporation's decision to close the Golden Lane Leisure Centre has sparked controversy after it was revealed that the closure was formally agreed upon five weeks before any public announcement. Campaigners have accused the Corporation of failing to provide adequate warning to vulnerable users who rely on the facility.
Timeline of Events Reveals Early Decision-Making
According to information obtained by the Local Democracy Reporting Service, the City of London Corporation was warned by operator Fusion Lifestyle about serious financial challenges on February 10. Just fourteen days later, on February 24, Corporation members in consultation with the Town Clerk formally agreed to close the site under delegated authority.
This decision remained undisclosed to the public until April 2, when the Corporation announced that Fusion Lifestyle was entering administration and that the leisure centre would close on April 30. The five-week gap between the internal decision and public notification has raised significant questions about transparency and communication.
Vulnerable Users Given "No Warning" About Impending Closure
Rajesh Thind, spokesperson for the Save Golden Lane Leisure Centre campaign group, expressed outrage at how the closure was handled. "A mother whose SEN son depends on this pool for his wellbeing was given no warning," Thind said. "Cardiac patients referred here by their doctors were given no warning. The staff who run these sessions were told at half an hour's notice on April Fool's Day."
Thind emphasized that the City of London Corporation, as the wealthiest local authority in the country, had made a deliberate choice rather than facing unavoidable resource constraints. "This is not a resource problem. This is a choice," he stated.
Corporation Defends Decision-Making Process
A City of London Corporation spokesperson explained that while they were aware of Fusion's financial difficulties in early February, the operator was engaged in confidential discussions to secure a buyer, preventing public commentary. The decision to close was made under delegated authority due to the "realistic prospect" of Fusion entering administration before the next committee meeting.
The spokesperson added that the needs of vulnerable groups were carefully assessed, and securing quality alternative facilities had been prioritized. Users have been directed to Finsbury Leisure Centre and Ironmonger Row Baths under an arrangement with Islington Council, though campaigners describe these alternatives as "inadequate for the facility's most vulnerable users."
Campaigners Reveal Further Details of Decision Timeline
Following a meeting with the Corporation last week, the campaign group disclosed additional timeline details. The Town Clerk, in consultation with Deputy Helen Fentimen and Common Councillor Steve Goodman (Chair and Deputy Chair of the Community and Children's Services Committee), made the closure decision under delegated urgency authority on February 24.
Thind criticized the lack of communication during the five-week period between the decision and public announcement. "For five weeks, Helen Fentimen and Steve Goodman knew this centre was closing," he said. "In those five weeks, no committee was convened, no alternative operator was approached, no equality impact assessment was completed, and no one told the staff or the community."
He noted that while ward councillors received a private briefing, no effort was made to explore whether alternative providers could keep the facility operational.
Unique Position of Golden Lane Leisure Centre
The Golden Lane Leisure Centre holds a distinctive position as the only publicly-funded leisure provision within the City of London. Located in the heart of the listed Golden Lane Estate, it serves critical community functions including:
- Classes for elderly residents
- Programs for children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND)
- Cardiac rehabilitation sessions
- Various community fitness and wellness activities
The Corporation cited the building's condition and its scheduled December closure for refurbishment as factors in their decision, stating that "no financially viable alternative to closure could be identified."
Community Response and Future Proposals
The campaign group is currently developing a formal proposal for a "community-led interim management model" that would keep the centre operational until refurbishment begins. This approach would address the immediate needs of vulnerable users while maintaining community access to essential services.
The Corporation maintains that they considered temporary operation options but determined that the building's condition posed a "real risk of unreliable service for users." They concluded that a planned closure with secured alternative provision represented a more reliable option.
The controversy highlights broader questions about how local authorities balance financial considerations with community needs, particularly when vulnerable populations are affected by service reductions. As London's only local authority without a resident population in the traditional sense, the City of London Corporation faces unique challenges in maintaining community facilities that serve both workers and the limited residential community within its boundaries.
