Controversy continues to swirl around the proposed new Perth leisure centre in Thimblerow. While the council has declared the project free of equality issues, based on an internal report, many remain unconvinced. Local sports groups and community members have voiced significant concerns about the potential negative impacts on elderly residents and individuals with disabilities. These concerns, however, seem to have been largely disregarded in the council’s assessment.
The Equality and Fairness Impact Assessment (EIFA), a legally mandated document, is designed to prevent discrimination against individuals with protected characteristics. This includes groups such as older people and those with disabilities. However, the council’s report, remarkably, contains no mention of any potential negative consequences for these groups. This omission has raised serious questions about the thoroughness and transparency of the council’s assessment process. Missing Signatures and Omitted Details
Adding to the concerns, the EIFA lacks the required signatures from a service manager and a quality-assured EIFA trained officer. The council attributes this to an administrative error; however, the lack of these signatures further undermines the credibility of the report. The absence of details regarding potential negative impacts, particularly given previously voiced concerns, also raises red flags.
The decision to build the new £74 million complex at Thimblerow and repurpose Bell’s Sports Centre into an unheated events space has already been finalized. The council plans to consult with relevant groups during the design phase to address concerns about accessibility. This approach, however, is viewed by critics as a case of putting the cart before the horse; consultations should have happened before decisions were made, not after. Past Assessments and Consultations Under Scrutiny
The current EIFA isn’t the only assessment to come under scrutiny. A previous assessment from last year also highlighted several shortcomings. That report, while identifying negative impacts related to the closure of Bell’s Sports Centre for vulnerable groups, failed to include any required consultations. Additionally, advice from independent consultants to conduct these consultations was ignored.
The lack of comprehensive impact assessments across several key areas raises further questions. For instance, no formal health and wellbeing assessment was carried out concerning the new complex, an oversight admitted by the council’s chief executive. Similarly, no economic impact study considers the loss of the Thimblerow car park. Furthermore, a previous public consultation regarding the transformation of Bell’s into an unheated venue has been criticised as flawed and lacking transparency, further eroding public trust. Community Reaction and Calls for Transparency
The reaction from the Perth and Kinross community has been mixed. Some welcome the new leisure centre, while many express concerns about accessibility and the perceived lack of proper consultation. The council’s response to the criticisms has been met with skepticism, with many calling for greater transparency and engagement with local groups. The future of Bell’s Sports Centre, a valued community facility for many years, remains uncertain and a subject of intense debate. The broader implications for accessibility of leisure facilities within Perth and Kinross are also a concern. This calls for a wider community discussion about the needs of diverse population groups.
The overall impact of the new leisure centre on Perth and Kinross, considering both the potential benefits and the concerns raised, needs careful evaluation. This includes detailed analysis of the economic, environmental and social consequences.
The council’s commitment to retrospective engagement during the design phase is a step in the right direction, but many feel it’s too little, too late. The lack of transparency and apparent disregard for previous warnings are major points of contention, particularly for residents who rely on the existing facilities in their current form. The incident underscores the need for a more inclusive and participatory approach to local planning decisions.
The incident highlights a need for improved communication and proactive consultation. The council must take the concerns of all residents seriously to ensure all members of the community can benefit from public facilities. The long-term effect on the health and wellbeing of Perth’s diverse population will inevitably depend on the council’s ability to successfully address the concerns raised about this multi-million pound project.
The saga of the Perth leisure centre plans serves as a potent reminder of the importance of community engagement and thorough impact assessment in local authority projects. The issues surrounding the EIFA, combined with the lack of other assessments and the controversial consultation, raise serious doubts about the council’s commitment to inclusive planning practices.
The Equality and Fairness Impact Assessment (EIFA), a legally mandated document, is designed to prevent discrimination against individuals with protected characteristics. This includes groups such as older people and those with disabilities. However, the council’s report, remarkably, contains no mention of any potential negative consequences for these groups. This omission has raised serious questions about the thoroughness and transparency of the council’s assessment process. Missing Signatures and Omitted Details
Adding to the concerns, the EIFA lacks the required signatures from a service manager and a quality-assured EIFA trained officer. The council attributes this to an administrative error; however, the lack of these signatures further undermines the credibility of the report. The absence of details regarding potential negative impacts, particularly given previously voiced concerns, also raises red flags.
The decision to build the new £74 million complex at Thimblerow and repurpose Bell’s Sports Centre into an unheated events space has already been finalized. The council plans to consult with relevant groups during the design phase to address concerns about accessibility. This approach, however, is viewed by critics as a case of putting the cart before the horse; consultations should have happened before decisions were made, not after. Past Assessments and Consultations Under Scrutiny
The current EIFA isn’t the only assessment to come under scrutiny. A previous assessment from last year also highlighted several shortcomings. That report, while identifying negative impacts related to the closure of Bell’s Sports Centre for vulnerable groups, failed to include any required consultations. Additionally, advice from independent consultants to conduct these consultations was ignored.
The lack of comprehensive impact assessments across several key areas raises further questions. For instance, no formal health and wellbeing assessment was carried out concerning the new complex, an oversight admitted by the council’s chief executive. Similarly, no economic impact study considers the loss of the Thimblerow car park. Furthermore, a previous public consultation regarding the transformation of Bell’s into an unheated venue has been criticised as flawed and lacking transparency, further eroding public trust. Community Reaction and Calls for Transparency
The reaction from the Perth and Kinross community has been mixed. Some welcome the new leisure centre, while many express concerns about accessibility and the perceived lack of proper consultation. The council’s response to the criticisms has been met with skepticism, with many calling for greater transparency and engagement with local groups. The future of Bell’s Sports Centre, a valued community facility for many years, remains uncertain and a subject of intense debate. The broader implications for accessibility of leisure facilities within Perth and Kinross are also a concern. This calls for a wider community discussion about the needs of diverse population groups.
The overall impact of the new leisure centre on Perth and Kinross, considering both the potential benefits and the concerns raised, needs careful evaluation. This includes detailed analysis of the economic, environmental and social consequences.
The council’s commitment to retrospective engagement during the design phase is a step in the right direction, but many feel it’s too little, too late. The lack of transparency and apparent disregard for previous warnings are major points of contention, particularly for residents who rely on the existing facilities in their current form. The incident underscores the need for a more inclusive and participatory approach to local planning decisions.
The incident highlights a need for improved communication and proactive consultation. The council must take the concerns of all residents seriously to ensure all members of the community can benefit from public facilities. The long-term effect on the health and wellbeing of Perth’s diverse population will inevitably depend on the council’s ability to successfully address the concerns raised about this multi-million pound project.
The saga of the Perth leisure centre plans serves as a potent reminder of the importance of community engagement and thorough impact assessment in local authority projects. The issues surrounding the EIFA, combined with the lack of other assessments and the controversial consultation, raise serious doubts about the council’s commitment to inclusive planning practices.