Agenda item

Members of the public may ask questions or make statements at this meeting if they have given notice to Melanie Carr of Democratic and Scrutiny Services and supplied the text (contact details below) by midday on Thursday 18 September 2025, three working days before the day of the meeting.  Each speaker should limit themselves to 3 minutes on any item.  Members of the public who have given notice will be invited to speak:

·         at this point in the meeting if their questions/statements relate to matters which are not otherwise on the Agenda (subject to an overall time limit of 30 minutes);

·         when the relevant Agenda item is being considered if they wish to speak on a matter which is on the Agenda for this meeting.

If you are exercising your right to speak at this meeting, but do not wish to be recorded, please inform the Chairman who will instruct anyone who may be taking a recording to cease while you speak.

 

Four public questions/statements were received as follows:

 

Question presented by Matthew Ward (resident of Richmond)

“I have a simple question to which I would like a simple answer: why was Richmond Pool not included in the Leisure Investment Strategy?

 

We are delighted that our pool has received a recommendation of funding for it to reopen as soon as possible. It is an iconic, award-winning asset used by the whole community for health, well-being and fun.   However, it is extremely worrying that it has not been included in any longer term plan for investment, it just been allocated money from a discretionary fund for a set of immediate issues.

 

Pickering (population 6800) gets £10m, no scheduled closures and a 25 year investment plan.  While Richmond (population 8500) gets £1.2m after what will be at least year of closure and no long term plan for improvements to a building which will celebrate 50 years of operation next year.   Why no plan?  Why no improvements?

 

And if you think it’s about the catchment, Ryedale has a population of 54,000, Richmondshire 50,000.   Again, why is Richmond being overlooked?

 

And please don’t think I’m picking on Pickering.   I’m delighted for them that their facilities are getting the investment they need.  And for the residents of Whitby, Skipton and Selby.  But just to underline, the cost per capita of investment in Pickering, Whitby and Skipton is around £1500, £750 and £700 per capita.  Richmond gets £150 per person.  Why is Richmond not getting the same level of investment as other areas?

 

The unsubstantiated claims that Catterick Garrison Pool provides both competition and a viable alternative to Richmond should at best be scrutinised and in reality, thrown out altogether.  Catterick Leisure centre serves the MOD and Catterick garrison’s civilian residents with an existing population of 14,000, anticipated to rise to 18,000 in the next few years.  The pool is already very heavily used with limited access to the public at key times of the day – and this will only get worse.   It’s also a 3 mile drive from Richmond so accessible only by those with a car.

 

Again, without any comparisons to other facilities, it is claimed that user numbers are suboptimal at Richmond Pool.  What are the user numbers at Ryedale Pool?  What are the projected numbers after the £10m investment?  

 

And after two long closures and under investment in facilities – not just the structure of the building, but the changing areas, reception, café, and staff – it’s incredible that our pool has the visitors it does.  If it is given the right investment, the periodic closures are put to an end and it is run properly, you will see visitor number increasing even more.

 

So to conclude, why was Richmond Pool not included in the Leisure Investment Strategy?  Give our iconic 50 year old pool a chance to thrive.”

 

In response it was confirmed that all of the council's leisure facilities were included in the leisure investment strategy and assessed based on the criteria listed in paragraph 3.3 of the report.

 

Attention was drawn to the forward plans for essential building works at Richmond Swimming Pool, costing in the region of £1.18m which did not include for upgrading the customer facing facilities and equipment. It was noted:

·          The pool operated with a subsidy in excess of £400K, due mainly to comparatively less throughput than at other facilities.

·          A full options appraisal had been carried out, including significant development options, however, those options proved unfeasible due mainly to financial performance and comparatively well served local provision, including facilities at Catterick, Bedale and Northallerton.

·          Funding had been allocated to install new gym equipment at the adjacent Liberty Health Club and a programme of asset lifecycle repair and replacement had been implemented for the site.

·          Significant investment had been proposed to establish Active Wellbeing Hubs at Whitby, Skipton, Pickering and Selby, and following careful and detailed consideration, those locations had met the criteria of greatest need, strategic significance and balance across the largest portfolio of council ran leisure centre’s in the UK, both in terms of number of venues and area. 

·          During the closure period, the Council had worked closely with Catterick Leisure Centre to understand their provision and how they could accommodate Richmond Swimming Pool users. Those positive discussions had led to further capacity being added to their programme for more community swimming and club hire. The swimming availability at Catterick Leisure Centre was extensive, operating with three pools, with only 3 hours per day (Mon-Fri) where there was restricted community access to one of the pools due to MOD exclusive use.

 

It was also confirmed that the essential repair work at Richmond would be carried out as soon as possible, to enable the team to deliver excellent service provision and with that increased usage/demand.

 

Question presented by Julie Young (resident of Richmond)

"While the council has agreed to repair the roof and heating system at Richmond Swimming Pool, there is concern that these works may only represent a short-term fix. It would be helpful to have confirmation that the repairs will ensure the long-term integrity of the building, and that the existing heat pump and solar panel systems will be fully serviced and optimised for maximum efficiency. In addition, clarity is needed on whether full condition surveys have been undertaken to identify other elements of the building and systems—such as the pool tank, pipework, ventilation, electrics, changing facilities, and accessibility features—that will require upgrading very soon and whether the findings can be shared with the community. Residents would also welcome information on any phased refurbishment or continuous improvement plan, setting out the expected works and upgrades beyond the current repairs, together with the projected lifespan of the pool before further major investment is needed. We would like to understand what long-term financial provision has been made, including whether a dedicated capital and maintenance budget has been allocated, and if external funding streams such as Sport England or community wellbeing grants will be pursued. Above all, the community seeks assurance that the pool will not fall back into a cycle of crisis repairs and risk of closure, but will instead remain a sustainable long-term community asset. Finally, we ask that local residents, pool users, and community groups are actively engaged and kept informed, with a clear forward plan published so that the community has visibility and confidence in the future of Richmond Swimming Pool."

 

In response it was confirmed that the programme of essential work required to re-open the pool included:

·          Ceiling repairs

·          Mechanical and electrical upgrades to the air handling system, including effective operation of the air source heat pump.

·          Pool plant improvements

 

Officers went on to confirm:

·          A comprehensive 10 year asset condition assessment had been carried out, and that the essential items listed above were in the 0-2 year category, with further works identified between 3-10 years.

·          There was no timeline to indicate the ‘lifespan’ of the pool - the asset condition programme included all required work and associated costs to keep the site operational.

·          Funds had been allocated to install new gym equipment at the adjacent Liberty Health Club and opportunities to ‘refresh’ customer facing areas alongside the essential works programme were being considered.

·          It was very unlikely that Sport England would support any capital investment, as there recent programme of investment was more focussed on programme delivery, with options for Active North Yorkshire being explored.

·          Other capital grant funding opportunities were unlikely, aside from decarbonisation initiatives.  It was noted the site had recently received funding for interventions such as air source heat pumps and solar pv.

·          Customers and stakeholders would be kept informed of progress and updated would be provided on expected re-opening dates, once a work programme was approved.

 

Statement submitted by Rachael Simpson (resident of Exelby) - presented by Julie Young

“I believe that there needs to be a long term plan for community engagement in the running of Richmond swimming pool. This is given how important the pool is for public health, young people learning to swim, and community wellbeing.

 

Can you agree with the importance of creating a committee which includes members of the local community, to discuss the long term direction and maintenance works required at the swimming pool? This would ensure that local views and priorities are properly represented.”

 

In response officers acknowledged the importance of sport and leisure provision across North Yorkshire and the value that those council facilities had in local communities. They welcomed customer feedback and future discussions with local community groups that were formed to help improve the service.

 

Statement presented by Jackie Stubbs (resident of Hudswell)

“I ask you to consider the impact of closing the pool temporarily for the repairs to be done, only for it to be possibly closed again for further renovations required. Our iconic pool with its huge windows ticks two health and well-being points known to be of benefit that no other public pools in this area do - day light and nature. We should promote and celebrate this as a health and wellbeing asset (iconic award winning design). The pool is 50 next year (2026) 20yrs past it's life cycle, and from what I can see has had very little lifecycle investment compared to other pools (within North Yorkshire)

 

Would it be more cost effective and less disruptive to renovate the whole site, incorporating the gym etc under one roof, at the moment the rent for the gym building is over £35k per year. This would benefit staffing arrangements to.

 

With Catterick and Colburn increasing population and housing development this year (2025) -est:820 and the next 20yrs it's estimated 2,800. This will have an impact on the already straining MOD pools - when does this pool reach i's life expectancy?

 

Statistics say the Geriatric population in Richmond area will be 50% higher by 2030, swimming has a huge positive impact for the NHS and social care system.

Hip replacement being the most common operation in this sector aquatic physio is highly recommended for faster recovery.

 

The pool site is large enough to take it.  Have it all done and future proof, be ready before Catterick pool bursts.

 

We know from being part of the community, people haven't used the pool because of its tired and weary conditions, but they definitely would if it was upgraded.  Build it they will come.

 

I wonder how many of this board have actually used the pool recently/ ever?

Please consider,  include and ‘talk’ to your community face to face that use this pool.”

 

In response, attention was drawn to the previous officer responses where many of the points raised had been covered.  Officers confirmed that a full options appraisal had been carried out, exploring a range of options, including re-locating the health and fitness space (gym and studio) into the pool building.

 

It was noted that following careful consideration and assessment against detailed criteria, that option along with other significant development works were found to be unfeasible, due mainly to financial performance, demand and the comparatively well served local provision, including facilities at Catterick, Bedale and Northallerton.

 

The Chair thanked the public participants for their contributions to the meeting.