Dear Martin and Alice,
Save Leisure Gateshead is a group of local residents who have come together in response to the
devastating news that Gateshead Leisure Centre is at serious risk of closure.
This letter sets out our response to the Leisure Review: Future Delivery Options Report, that was
published on Tuesday 25th October 2022. Our group is concerned specifically about the future of
Gateshead Leisure Centre, because this building is currently not being considered as part of the
proposed private partnership and is instead being recommended for permanent closure. We are also
concerned as this centre is the biggest and most central of all the leisure centres in the borough and
serves the greatest proportion of Gateshead’s population.
There are very few specific details about the financial position of Gateshead Leisure Centre in its own
right (despite requests for this by our members), or a financial forecast that shows what is required to
save it. We are therefore using the data-limited report as a basis but we are unable to 'drill down' to
the depth needed because of this missing information.
Meeting Local Needs
1. In Appendix 1 points 3 and 4, there is reference to The Council spending most of its funding for
physical activity on a minority of Gateshead residents. It is then stated that there is no evidence that
the leisure centre offer supports those in the greatest need and goes on to claim that funding leisure
services could actually be creating inequality.
2. Save Leisure Gateshead agree that The Council should focus spending on those in ‘greatest need’,
however assessing 'need' is a complex task as there are many variables. Whilst it is true that many
people using leisure centres are those able to pay, there seems to be an assumption that if you can
afford the cost, you have less ‘need’ for it. This is categorically untrue. Furthermore, the review fails
to acknowledge that those currently not considered ‘greatest in need’ may well move into this
category should the provision of leisure services be withdrawn. That the borough has residents who
are currently active and well is at least partly due to the current provision of leisure services.
3. In 2015 The Council decided that Gateshead's leisure services would need to be financially self-
sufficient by 2020, and that they would receive no additional funding. It is hard to understand how
the leisure services would ever have been able to achieve this while there was a simultaneous
expectation that they should be serving those unable to pay or keeping prices artificially low. For any
kind of service to be financially self-sufficient, it must rely on either a significant proportion of service
users paying, or on other funding streams. The directive to be self-sufficient seems to contradict the
directive to counter inequality.
4. A great deal of emphasis is placed by The Council on the ability of local residents to pay for leisure
services. This leads The Council to conclude that investment in leisure centres creates health
inequality, because those with the most health issues are not able to pay for them. Whilst it is true
that the national cost of living crisis is making many individuals and families struggle to make ends
meet, we would suggest that Go Gateshead gym membership is affordable for many, and the costs of
taking away a vital resource like Gateshead Leisure Centre is only going to create poorer health
outcomes. This is particularly true for those of us in the Bensham and Saltwell wards who have no
alternative in the local area. Bus travel to the closest swimming pool at Heworth from Bensham would
add an extra £4.70 per adult on to the price of a single swim. This may mean that some people who
are currently able to afford swimming because it is on their doorstep will no longer be able to because
of the additional cost of travel. Taking away Gateshead Leisure Centre is likely to create more
inequality.
5. A recent report by UK Active1 states that leisure centres and pools can help to reduce the pressure
on the NHS. This is completely at odds with the claim made in the leisure review report that funding
leisure services creates inequality. UK Active suggest that the role that leisure centres and pools in
social prescribing is under recognised, and that improvements in health inequalities could be seen if
these services were to be used to their full potential. They also recommend that gyms, pools and
leisure centres should be more connected to community networks, not recommended for hasty
closure, as is the case for Gateshead Leisure Centre.
Financial Sustainability
6. Brief financial details are provided in the Review, including the allocated budget per leisure centre
from 2018/2019-2022/2023. It is clear that despite plans to become self-sufficient, Gateshead Leisure
Centre (along with many of the other facilities) consistently overspent against their budget. No details
are given as to why this happened and how it was allowed to continue, which ought to be absolutely
crucial to explain; especially as now the consequences are so severe. Was a business plan generated
in 2015 when Go Gateshead was given the directive to become financially self-sustaining? What plans
were put in place to review performance? Such dramatic overspends should have been addressed and
problem solved at a much earlier date when the proposed solutions wouldn't have been as dramatic,
sudden and impactful. Save Leisure Gateshead therefore agree with the view of GMB Union in
Appendix 1 point 74, that “leisure senior management have been aware of the issues within the service
but have not dealt with them”.
7. In Appendix 1, points 31-35 The Council acknowledge that their strategic decisions to limit
marketing for Go Gateshead, and to only offer fixed term contracts to potential staff have both
substantially impacted on Go Gateshead's ability to recover from Covid 19. This is extremely
significant. The current recruitment market is extremely challenging, and creativity and investment is
needed to be able to fill roles
The Council's decision to only offer fixed term contracts is completely
at odds with this. Having too few staff in an ever-shrinking and threatened service will increase
workload and stress for the employees who remain. And in an extremely competitive recruitment
market, why would someone choose to take a temporary fixed term contract with Go Gateshead when
better offers exist elsewhere? We would therefore argue that The Council's own policies have heavily
contributed to the current financial state of Gateshead Leisure Centre, and its ability to be self-
sufficient, yet its users are now to pay the price.
8. In point 39 of Appendix 1, reference is made to a set of recommendations agreed between The
Council and FMG Consulting Ltd, that formed part of a “transformation plan” to improve performance
in leisure services. The progress described at the end of August 2022 shows that very few of these
recommendations were actually achieved. Some, such as partnering with Gateshead College to offer
volunteering opportunities, had not progressed beyond a discussion. Point 40 in Appendix 1 states
that these actions have "done little to change the financial position across the leisure service". How
did The Council ever expected these improvements to have made any impact when they have not yet
been completed. Also, the significant impact on income that the decisions to limit marketing and staff
contracts were having since 2021 as described above in point 6, would have thwarted any attempts
to improve service performance.
9. Save Leisure Gateshead believe that a reduction in marketing of Go Gateshead, reduced opening
hours – especially outside of the typical working day – and the sporadic closure of services has had a
negative impact on the public’s inclination to take out memberships. In 2021 social media was full of
comments on Go Gateshead’s pages demanding information about opening plans and chastising The
Council for not opening sooner. A petition with over 700 signatures was submitted to Gateshead
Council in May 2021 by one of our members, demanding that plans for Gateshead Leisure Centre be
shared. This shows how much people wanted to come back to use leisure centres in the borough, but
The Council’s own decisions meant that this was impossible. The Council’s own policy has created
insurmountable obstacles for many potential members, and therefore reduced potential income. Save
Leisure Gateshead argue that more consideration and acknowledgement needs to be given to this,
especially before making such a dramatic and impactful decision as to closing leisure centres
completely and permanently.
10. At Gateshead Leisure Centre, erroneous decisions such as closing the pool for half an hour before
lunchtime and limiting soft play to prescribed slots have created barriers to more people attending.
Many of our members have commented how they are unaware of what services are available now.
People have arrived at centres expecting to be able to use a service, but they have been informed that
it is closed or unavailable. People who have previously hired space within Gateshead Leisure Centre
for community activities have been prevented from doing so. There have been no plans in place to
welcome former businesses and groups back to the centre to hire space. Families who would have
used children's activities such as Clip-and-Climb and soft play as well as family swimming, have been
unable to access these. There have been no refreshments available. This deliberate targeted reduction
in services has, in and of itself, caused people to relocate their businesses and groups, let their
memberships lapse, or not restart them after the pandemic. We strongly believe that the statement
made in point 33 that “it is looking more and more doubtful that The Council will be able to achieve
its pre-Covid income levels” is a direct result of decisions that The Council has taken to reduce service.
11. Point 25 refers to the “leisure services team working incredibly hard to implement measures to
increase income..." Our points above emphatically challenge this statement. How can income have
ever been increased with a halt on marketing and the policy to offer contracts of employment that
had no chance of attracting essential staff in the current recruitment climate? Including statements
like this in the Leisure Review appears disingenuous and inaccurate.
12. The review refers to the need to restore the roof, heating, and electrics at Gateshead Leisure
Centre at substantial future costs. We have requested further information about this but have so far
been ignored. We have requested this information because it is well known that councils are rarely
able to attract competitive quotes for building work, and we would like to make our own assessment
of funds needed. We would also like to point out that The Council invested £8 million in a
refurbishment of Gateshead Leisure Centre 12 years ago – this included roof repair and guarantees
for the work should have been part of this contract. We believe this to be another example of The
Council’s mismanagement that has led to severe consequences for Gateshead Leisure Centre and the
local community.
Community Engagement
13. Save Leisure Gateshead is made up of local residents, many of whom are members of Go
Gateshead, past and present. Our members and other people we have consulted with in our broader
campaign work have fed back that there has never been a focus on in-person engagement and
consultation with members about what is needed within Gateshead Leisure Centre. We note that in
point 11 of Appendix 1, where The Council's Thrive strategy is set out, Go Gateshead are allocated the
task of offering a "wider range of facilities and programmes driven by local need". We don't believe
that this was ever achieved. There have been no genuine attempts to engage either members of Go
Gateshead or residents in the local community to contribute to the development of Gateshead Leisure
Centre, to ensure it was meeting our needs. If this had been done, we strongly believe that it would
have had chance to thrive.
14. There have been several online consultations relating to Gateshead Leisure Centre and the broader
leisure services offer over the last few years, but there is no reference to the rate of participation or
outcome of any of them in the Leisure Review. This makes us question how much money was spent
on these exercises, and how much they contributed to the overspend that is now being used against
the service.
15. Save Leisure Gateshead is alarmed at the speed with which The Council are trying to consult the
community about closure. To go from the community having no idea that Gateshead Leisure Centre
is under threat to complete closure in 4 months, without allowing time for a community-led response
or action plan to be developed is disrespectful of the community they are meant to serve. Moreover
it is appears as a quick-fix to paper over their years of inaction and mismanagement, using the “energy
prices” and “cost of living crisis” as an excuse.
16. The covert nature of the Leisure Review has meant that the local community has had no
opportunity to research alternative options to the closure of Gateshead Leisure Centre. This is despite
efforts made by local residents in 2021 where a petition with over 700 signatures was submitted to
The Council to “share plans for Gateshead Leisure Centre”. Save Leisure Gateshead therefore
emphatically challenge the conclusions in Appendix 1 point 75 that “no further options should be
considered”.
Availability of Alternative Facilities
17. In point 40 (g) the review states "The leisure centres are often old buildings that are unattractive
to residents who are sometimes able to access an increasing number of more modern and purpose
built facilities at lower cost and offering a wider range of activities than the council is currently
offering". We would like to challenge this statement from a number of perspectives. Firstly, the use of
the word "sometimes" feels quite important, as we would argue that there are no "modern, purpose-
built facilities" within the area of Bensham / Saltwell that could take the place of Gateshead Leisure
Centre. We would also challenge that private gyms are usually a lower cost. It is our view that Go
Gateshead offered extremely competitive rates, especially when account is taken of the existence of
the pools, sports halls and squash courts. We would like to point out that the nearest alternatives to
Gateshead Leisure Centre are Pure Gym and Anytime Fitness in Gateshead town centre (20 mins walk
away) and Gym Etc in the Team Valley (25 mins walk). This is not accessible for people who are unable
to drive, or for those who have limited time to be able to visit the gym e.g. a lunch hour. Finally on this
point, we would suggest that the main reason that Gateshead Leisure Centre has become unattractive
is the lack of upgrading and investment – and sometimes enough effort put into basic cleaning – in
the changing areas in the gym and the pool. We believe that this is a direct result of the leisure centre
never being able to gain the revenue needed to be self-sufficient, as already outlined in previous
points.
18. Point 40 (h) states "There is currently a lack of creativity, innovation and community led delivery
within the Council's offer". We would completely agree with this statement, but we vehemently
disagree that a solution to this would be to close Gateshead Leisure Centre. We strongly believe that
genuine and effective community engagement would result in the leisure centre thriving and meeting
the needs of the local community. We believe that engagement with local residents and genuine
consultation with Go Gateshead members could boost income, regenerate interest and allow this
valuable asset to be used to its full potential.
Gateshead International Stadium (GIS)
19. As per the response of the GMB Union, we challenge the notion that GIS is excluded from the
leisure review. In Appendix 1 point 74, GMB make several scathing comments including how
management options set out in 2017 with a target date for completion in 2018 continue to be “fudged,
draining essential resources from key services”. They also note that GIS has the least benefit to local
residents and that its closure could have potentially allowed other centres to remain open. They refer
to GIS as a “white elephant” and state that other services could be decimated by allowing this to “plod
on”. Save Leisure Gateshead agree that GIS has a much smaller reach to the local community than
Gateshead Leisure Centre, and for this reason it should be included in the review of services.
Conclusions
• We believe that Gateshead Leisure Centre has the ability to thrive and to become self-
sufficient with the community’s involvement and does not create inequality.
• Gateshead Leisure Centre provides essential social, mental, and physical health benefits to
the local community, lowering the financial burden to the NHS and welfare services. We
strongly disagree with the implication that those using Gateshead Leisure Centre would not
suffer health disadvantages if it were to close.
• We believe that the mismanagement of Local Authority finances by not addressing
overspends, having policies that create a dependence on funding and destroy a service's
ability to reach financial self-sufficiency are more of a contributory factor to local health
inequalities than the existence of local leisure services.
• We strongly disagree that the people that use Gateshead Leisure Centre don't have a genuine
need for it. We believe that The Council's fixation in the report on those who are unable to
pay to use leisure services gives a false impression about need, and the importance of the
facility.
• We strongly disagree that there are viable local alternatives to Gateshead Leisure Centre to
the residents of Bensham / Saltwell.
• We respectfully request that more detailed information about the costs needed to repair
Gateshead Leisure Centre are made available to us, so we can make our own assessment of
the work needed to save the building.
• We demand that GIS should not be excluded from the Leisure Review as proposed, but rather,
assessed against its contribution to ‘tackling health inequalities’ in the same way as the rest
of the leisure services.
• We request that the period for consultation is extended beyond January, as an
acknowledgement of the gravity of the review’s recommendations. The permanent closure of
Gateshead Leisure Centre would have lifelong impact on the local community, and to rush
through this process as a quick fix to balance budgets is completely unacceptable. The service
is not ‘unaffordable’ – it is simply an issue of where The Council chooses to spend its money.
Yours sincerely,
Save Leisure Gateshead
1 January 2022, UK Active, Leading The Change https://www.ukactive.com/news/leading-the-change-report-calls-for-
government-to-help-reduce-pressure-on-nhs-by-backing-social-prescribing-in-fitness-and-leisure-sector
2 https://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/media-centre/house-of-lords-media-notices/2022/july-2022/public-services-
resources-at-breaking-point-lords-committee-outlines-action-plan-to-avert-crisis-and-ensure-long-term-sustainable-
workforce/