Pool costs: ‘States warned a decade ago’
Tuesday 22nd June 2010, 2:56PM BST.
Competition in the old Fort Regent pool
STATES Members were warned about the potential cost of the £1,250-per-day Waterfront pool more than a decade ago but pressed ahead anyway, according to a former minister and a campaigner who led a protest against the move.
Former Education Minister Mike Vibert says that he warned against running separate pool and gym operations at the Waterfront when president of the old Sport, Leisure and Recreation Committee – and that the committee even stepped in with an offer to run the site.
But he says that their warnings and the offer were ignored. And former Jersey Swimming Club president Neil Faudemer says that he warned politicians and the Waterfront Enterprise Board about the pool – revealed last week to be sucking up £1,250 in taxpayer-subsidy every day – while they were first talking about closing the Fort Regent site in 1999.
Mr Faudemer, who is still a member of the JSC, says that the club also made an offer to take over the Fort Regent pool and spend the money necessary to refurbish it, but that no-one wanted to even talk to them about it.
Read the full story in the Jersey Evening Post. Click here for subscription details. Individual editions are also available online.
The Queen's Diamond Jubilee
JEP Jubilee Editions
Saturday 2 June: Guide to Celebrations
Wednesday 6 June: Souvenir of Events
View The Queen in Jersey supplement
Travel
To, from and around the Island
Airport Arrivals/Departures
Harbours Arrivals/Departures
Bus Information/Timetables
This is Jersey
Jersey Evening Post
Useful links
So was it a really good financial decision closing an albeit old pool that did require a few quid spent to bring it up to speed, or fork out £2.5 million to subsides a private venture?
They were even more astute than that! There is legislation in place that prevents any other pool opening in a 1 mile radius of the waterfront.
Another classic piece for the epitaph of Jersey . . .
Report abuse
It gets worse!
Before the final decison on the pool was taken a private developer with overseas investors made an application to build a ‘real’ leisure pool (not just a coupld of flumes, at the fantasic Gardens site.
This site was already a tourist attraction and no States funding was required.
The proposal was rejeced because of the intention to build a leisure pool on the waterfront!
This is a disgrace.
We should be told how long the underwritten contract is to be in place. I suspect a nasty break clause will be in that one!!!
Report abuse
I have to take issue with some of the things stated in the paper tonight as I along with our committee ran the “Support The Fort” campaign to keep Fort Regent out of the hands of private developers which ex Senator Mike Vibert was proposing in 2002.
Contrary to what has been written in the paper tonight, when we were having meetings with ex Senator Mike Vibert and trying to convince him not to close Fort Regent, he repeated time and again that the fort pool had to close.
Which is totally the opposite of what he has stated in the paper tonight. Why would he make a statement like this now when we had meeting after meeting with him and every time he said the same thing, the fort pool had to close to save money.. which at the time was in the region of £200k.
The pool lost £249,000 in its first 18 months of trading.
Report abuse
Stop the subsidies to the waterfront. £1250 a day, what an absolute joke, what idiot agreed to this in the first place! If the pool has to close so be it, at least then we don’t have to worry about the 1 mile radius as quoted in another post here, just the way the states will spend this extra income on a report!
Report abuse
Politician’s words from Mr.Vibert..he avoids saying that he wanted to keep FR pool open(after the required refurbishment),only that he was aware of the potential costs of the new venture! Also,might he explain why the JSC’s proposal at NO cost to the taxpayer,was not accepted?At that time,WEB was under great pressure to actually produce something on the waterfront site to justify their existence, so this was part of that process.As with all the erroneous decisions taken by the States,the taxpayer ends up paying . Regrettably,few,if any, of our politicians seem to care.
Report abuse
“STATES Members were warned about the potential cost of the £1,250-per-day Waterfront pool more than a decade ago but pressed ahead anyway”
States not listening to advice give and doing what they want ….. hmmm, deja vu ???
Report abuse
It doesn’t matter..the people don’t matter… the COM don’t give a hoot…get rid of lifeguards..let the punters drown..who cares….let’s just keep those directors fees rolling in ,the people of Jersey are idiots and will stand for anything done to them, you know how it is resistance is futile…they’ll put up with it..they always do.
Report abuse
Some real observations amongst all this emotional angst:
1. A combined Waterfront Pool and Gym would have not cost the taxpayer – managed by the private sector who will always do it more commercially. This was the only mistake made in the project
2. The Waterfront pool may be used but has anyone bothered to consider that it is very well used by alot of very satisfied customers?
3. There isn’t a pool in the world that as a standalone business makes a profit.
4. Everyone will whinge about the leisure pool facilities whether in Jersey or anywhere else. Remember the island is only 90000 people & tourism is diminishing so why does everyone expect Wet n’ Wild – totally unrealistic expectations.
Report abuse