A major refurbishment of the Golden Lane Leisure Centre is to be delayed by at least a couple of months after councillors agreed to carry out further engagement on the design. Members sitting on the City of London Corporation’s Community and Children’s Services Committee voted on Tuesday (May 5) to revisit the option approved at a meeting in January.
Background of the Refurbishment
That scheme included replacing the sports hall and studio with a larger fitness gym, with a total of more than £10m committed to the overall refurbishment. According to the January meeting’s minutes, the extended gym would have delivered “a revenue surplus and stronger strategic alignment.” Since then, concerns about the potential loss of the sports hall have grown, with added impetus due to the recent early closure of the leisure centre following operator Fusion Lifestyle going bust.
The site, which is part of the listed Golden Lane Estate on the border with Islington, was due to shut temporarily from December, when the refurbishment was scheduled to start, though Fusion entering administration meant this was brought forward to April 30. Alternative provision has been secured by the Corporation at facilities such as Ironmonger Row Baths, though the decision has led to significant local concern.
Community Campaign and Committee Decision
Local residents and users of the Golden Lane Leisure Centre have been campaigning for the provision to be kept open. Ahead of Tuesday’s committee meeting, a paper was prepared by officers asking members whether they wished to open up wider engagement on the refurbishment's design options. A notable update since the January decision raised by Common Councillor David Williams was that calculations and modelling done by Fusion regarding the use of the sports hall and expected revenue from the gym were “not correct.” He added that while he is concerned about any potential delay, “the right decision might just require us to look again.”
Judith Finlay, Executive Director, Community and Children’s Services, agreed the information from Fusion was not what was expected in all cases, and that she is happy to re-test its business case analysis. Several members queried why, when a consultation was carried out ahead of January’s vote, the strength of feeling and concerns raised since were not picked up. In the officers’ paper, it noted that 405 people responded to a survey last year, and that among other findings “it identified the centre’s quality as the main barrier to doing more exercise.” The concern raised in January about the loss of the sports hall was also highlighted, though officers added the aim is to create “additional flexible spaces for a range of sports and wellbeing activity.” It was however written that activities which rely on the height of the hall, such as badminton, would be lost.
Timeline and Cost Implications
Answering a question from Deputy John Fletcher, Ms Finlay said if further engagement is sought, it is anticipated a redesign would go to planning in September, meaning the overall timescale would be knocked back about three months. Concerns were also raised about increased costs if the start date is pushed back. The report estimated that for a two-month extension the cost would be at least £230,000, though this was corrected in the meeting to be around £130,000. Following the vote, which saw 10 members in favour of reopening design engagement, seven against and one abstention, Chair Deputy Helen Fentimen asked Ms Finlay to develop a reasonable timeline for the work plus updated financial modelling.
It is understood the focus will be on two design options: option 1, which retains the sports hall, and option 2c, that agreed in January which reduces it as part of a gym-led model, including updated financial modelling and community impact. Rajesh Thind, a spokesperson for the Save Golden Lane Leisure Centre campaign group, said after the meeting: “The committee admitted [on Tuesday] that the decision it made in January was based on figures that were materially wrong. We have been asking to see those figures since April 7. We still haven’t seen them. When our FoIs (Freedom of Information requests) land in the coming days, the public will be able to judge for themselves what members were told and whether it was accurate. Meanwhile Helen Fentimen shut down every question about what happens to residents in the short term. That is not acceptable and we will keep pushing.”
A City of London Corporation spokesperson said: “In January, members agreed a preferred design option for our £10.4m refurbishment of Golden Lane Leisure Centre, which will secure a modern, high‑quality facility residents can be proud of. At yesterday’s meeting, the committee agreed to look again at design options in light of the strength of feeling expressed by residents and users since the previous operator went into administration – particularly around the future of the sports hall. Officers will now do further work on alternative design options, including setting up an advisory group and carrying out additional engagement with residents and stakeholders, before bringing a revised recommendation back to members next month. Revisiting the design will have implications for the project timetable, including delays to the programme, further planning consideration and additional cost. Members were clear these impacts need to be balanced against responding properly to community concerns and getting the design right for the long term.”
