The week before, I had been phoned by Polly Rance, Senior Communications Executive at Hackney Council, and was asked if N16 would like to interview Jules about the Leisure Centre. We invited our Leisure Centre correspondent Ken Worpole, to come along but, when alerted to this, Polly suggested that his presence at the interview might prove, well, 'confrontational'. So Ken stayed at home, and I went down to the Mare Street bunker to talk to His Worship. A loquacious, engaging man, who combines an efficient manner with a politician's ability to prevaricate - more New Labour than Old Hackney - the first elected Mayor of Hackney, Jules Pipe, sat in his five-a-side football pitch-sized office in Mare Street and told me about the latest developments in the ongoing saga of the Clissold Leisure Centre.

The Leisure Centre 

Four days previously, LBH had agreed to spend a further £5.1 million to bring the Centre back to the public - who have already spent an estimated £22 million council tax on this farcically mismanaged fiasco - by February 2006. In other words, another fourteen months until the people in the north of the Borough can have a swim. But I don't want to be unfair on Jules, who seems to be trying as hard as he can to sort out the whole business and is currently constrained in his stated opinions and actions by the ongoing litigation between the Council and the various other parties involved in the debacle.

He gave me a brief rundown on what went wrong, citing drifting costs and poor project management as the reasons for the massive overspend. Three groups were to blame: those responsible for 'delivering the building'; council officers, all of whom were relatively
junior and have now left; and the politicians, who, operating under a hung authority, effectively could provide no administration. After the building opened, there were four
stages of fault-finding.

First, they noticed relatively minor faults which were deemed fixable. Then they spotted other problems, such as rusting hinges, doors made of MDF etc, which could suggest errors in the original specifications. Thirdly, bigger faults, such as leakage from the pool surrounds to the basement, no membrane under the flooring in the showers and a general condensation throughout the building, led to serious concerns.

Finally, a 'catastrophic failure' of the pumping system meant they had no other choice than to close down the Centre.

The building was to be shut down, originally, for three months to examine the problem and to see if they could rectify what were now almost 60 serious faults, and perhaps re-open some of the Centre. This proved impossible, and it was shut down indefinitely.

They then had four options. One, knock it down; two, mothball it (and pretend it never happened); three, carry out patch repairs (and probably watch it gradually fall to bits); or four, carry out major remedial work. They opted for the last course of action. 

Given the history of this project, can the Mayor guarantee that the whole thing can be fixed for this amount, delivered on the scheduled date, and that the council tax payers of Hackney will not have to fund it? Apparently the £5.1 million is a 'worst case scenario' and, if the roof does not need to be replaced (it's currently undergoing cold weather tests), the true cost will be closer to £4 million. The money, insists Jules, will not come from taxpayers and is entirely from an out-of-court settlement arising from cost and time overruns.

'Everything within reason has been done', said Jules. 'These figures and dates are realistic. It cannot be allowed to go the same way as the original project. Things don't fall out of the woodwork any more.' That's a relief, then.

Critics of the Council have suggested that this solution was chosen so that they don't have to pay back a £10 million grant to Sport England. Is there any truth in this? 'No'. Others have noticed the connection between the February 2006 delivery date and the next Mayoral and Council elections, but I did not pursue this particular line as, clearly, it would be denied.

Other observers have mentioned the possibility of a court case being brought against the Council by Leisure Connection, who could argue that they took over the running of the building in good faith and who may seek compensation. 'If they did pursue a legal claim, this would be added to the repair bill litigation', said Jules.

Well, let's see. Make your own mind up. If the entire building does re-open on time (Jules adds the caveat 'if there are problems, we will maximise the opportunities for opening some of it'), we will finally have the Leisure Centre that the area very much needs, and perhaps in time this shameful episode will be forgotten. At least everyone involved in the project, including the Mayor, desperately hopes so.

Other issues
And so, on to other topics of local concern. When is the Council going to introduce basic amenities to Clissold Park, such as changing rooms, decent football pitch, organised places for kids to play, and so on? I was informed that there are 90 parks and open spaces in the Borough and that the money has to be spread across these. "More investment is going into the general upkeep of the parks', there is 'every intention to match-fund the Clissold Park Lottery Heritage bid' and 'the parks are not a Cinderella service'. Over to the Clissold Park Users' Group.