On the 25th of March 2010 Cambridge City Council’s Community Services Scrutiny Committee discussed “Open Space and Recreation Projects” which could be funded by contributions made by developers in lieu of providing sufficient facilities when building in the city. During this discussion Labour opposition councillors Lucy Walker and Kevin Blencowe questioned what the ruling Liberal Democrats had been doing about pushing the University of Cambridge to get on and build the sports centre which they promised would be part of the university’s West Cambridge development.
Including plans for a sports centre as part of the development gave the university a bargaining chip when negotiating with the city council about how it would contribute to mitigating the effects of constructing its West Cambridge. There is now the potential, and strong likelihood, that funds from “development taxes” raised elsewhere in the city could be spent on sports facilities on the site, potentially boosting what the university already has a commitment to provide. Projects the council is considering using development taxes to fund in the near future, include:
- An indoor gymnastics training and competition facility
- A martial arts training and competition facility
- An ice rink
- Community sports provision
Many members of Cambridge City Council, particularly the Liberal Democrats, are employed by or have other personal interests relating to the University of Cambridge. This might be making them reluctant to act in the public interest and demand that the university meet their obligations, though my impression is that its probably not that but a general reluctance by the Lib Dems to grasp the reigns of power which is behind the council’s apparent inaction.
There is currently a negotiation in progress between the city council and university on the community use of facilities. There is an understandable difference of perspective here, but from what I can tell the problem is that both sides are taking unjustifiably extreme views. I think a good starting position would be to treat all residents of the city, students and non-students, equally and then make concessions allowing for the fact that Cambridge University student use of sports facilities is generally concentrated into a series of short bursts though the year and ensuring provision was made for preferential access for students in those times. Perhaps wider access to other university (college) facilities across the city could be thrown into negotiations too.
The City Council’s position as expressed at the March Community Services Scrutiny Committee was to say that “the university has no clear strategy”, and the council is “awaiting a lead from the university”.
Cllr Blencowe, a Labour member of the planning committee, said that the council could be doing more. He said there were £4m of unallocated developers contributions available; he urged the ruling Liberal Democrats to take a tougher stance with the university on ensuring they meet their planning obligations, he argued this was in the interests of the city as a whole, the university itsself and particularly university students.
Cllr Julie Smith, the Liberal Democrat Executive Councillor for Arts and Recreation decided not to engage with the questions the opposition members were putting to her. She said it was a matter for the council’s planning committee and not for her.
Discussion at the Peterhouse Hustings
At a Parliamentary Hustings on the 20th of April 2010 in Peterhouse College students asked the candidates their views on the fact the university is delaying building the sports centre. The question, from Charlotte Roach, which kicked off the discussion asked the candidates how they would support a student campaign to get the university fundraising for the sports centre. The questioner said the university had recently been fundraising, highly successfully, as part of its 800 year centenary, using the sports centre prominently in materials encouraging donations but was not putting any of the money which had been raised towards building the facility.
Liberal Democrat Julian Huppert (a member of university staff) said that he had pledged to support those students who are lobbying the university to get on with it. He said he had signed up to the questioner’s campaign. Notably though he avoided saying anything about the inaction of his Lib Dem colleagues on the City Council. Huppert illustrated one of the key problems with the way the university is run by saying: “The University needs to decide how to prioritise”; academics like him don’t have enough of a role in running the university, I would like to see a state where an academic in his position speaking to a room of students says “we in the university have to decide…”, at the moment though there is far too much professional, and disconnected, “management” at the top of the university. (More of my views on the governance of Cambridge University)
As well as calling on the university to listen to the strength of student opinion, Conservative Nick Hillman was candidate who explained to the largely student audience that this was a city council issue; and one on which they should think carefully about how they voted in the upcoming city council elections which will also be held alongside the Parliamentary elections on the 6th of May. Mr Hillman said:
We [the Parliamentary candidates] are only a very small proportion of the people up for election in Cambridge on May 6th. Every single ward across the City of Cambridge has a council election and actually I believe in real devolution of power and you, as campaigners, ought be able to talk not only to us, but to them, as it is the case that it is the council which makes planning decisions.
While I agree with the sentiment, in fact too often planning decisions are made by unelected, unaccountable planning inspectors and not local councillors; many local councillors in Cambridge don’t vote on planning applications because of restrictive rules.
Daniel Zeichner expressed a view that putting public resources towards the University Sports Centre wasn’t a good thing to be doing because it wouldn’t be of any benefit to the poorest people in the city. He said he’d help the student campaigners in anyway he could but seeking facilities for privileged university students would not be a primary focus for him. He made the point that it’s not the technicality of if residents are allowed access – but more a question of the existence of the town / gown divide which would mean residents would be unlikely to make much use of a university facility. I think though that this is an opportunity to break down those barriers if a facility open to all was built. If, for example, the facility was to be available for use by schools then that would a route through which all in the city, including the poorest, would directly benefit. Zeichner indicated that one of his aims was to unite the city, I think supporting this scheme could help achieve that.
Green Tony Juniper commented briefly saying: “I agree with Nick’s view”; he expressed support for the idea of “campaigning” for something which you believe is needed, when pushed to make a further comment later in the debate he said:
I don’t really have anything to add, shall we get onto a new question.
Mr Juniper has made no pretence of any intent to be an MP for Cambridge with an interest in local issues; he has made clear he wants to be a national politician.
A student, who introduced himself as “the student union sports and societies officer”, suggested that the fact the university provides sporting facilities on a college level; and is reluctant to move away from that model was behind their sluggishness on the sports centre project. He said he understood they were “technically going ahead with this and raising funds” but expressed his lack of faith that they were putting much effort into it. I think the university’s failure to reform the college system to account for recent massive growth in student numbers, particularly among graduate students is a major failing of the way the university is currently being run.
An alternative suggestion was that the sticking point is the city council pushing too hard a bargain on behalf of residents and making it hard for the university to be able to justify its investment in the project. I don’t agree with that take on the situation.
My View
- The Lib Dems on the City Council should enforce their planning policies and insist Cambridge University gets on and builds its sports centre; and ensures there is equitable access for all the city’s residents.
- I think we need stronger students’ unions. I think Cambridge University treats its students unions very badly; and perhaps consequently students don’t see their potential for representing students as students and providing an opportunity to direct the universities policies. University council, and general board elections should not be separate from student union elections.
- I support Nick Hillman’s comment that this is a question for the City Council elections, and City Council candidates. I would urge students not to vote in the Local Elections on the basis of national party policies, but to look carefully at the way in which the Lib Dems have been running the city and at the alternatives offered.
- I think there needs to be a huge amount more openness and transparency with respect to these negotiations so that the debate is well informed.
- I would suggest that students, perhaps represented by their elected representatives, ought use the public speaking opportunities at council meetings to engage with councillors.
46 responses to “The West Cambridge Sports Centre – A Key Issue for Student Voters in City Council Elections”
@RTaylorUK very interesting post on a subject I knew nothing about. Will raise with local candidates when they knock on my door.
I think part of the problem is that Cambridge University students are insulated from the city. You live in college-provided accomodation in the centre of the city for three years, eat in college-run canteens, use streets that are predominantly occupied by students and tend to engage with the real world only at the level of Sainsbury’s and local pubs and clubs.
That’s an oversimplification, I’ll grant – not every student lives in the centre and plenty of them do aim to involve themselves more in the city life – but my own experience is that this took an active effort on my part.
Students won’t vote on local concerns in Cambridge until local concerns affect them. And Cambridge University students are heavily insulated, much more so than with, for example, ARU.
That said, I’m not sure how you would try to involve them more without taking away some very good bits of the Cambridge student lifestyle – guaranteed accomodation, good transport links and the like.
George Owers, the Labour City Council candidate for Abbey, has responded on Twitter saying:
I agree completely – the key part of the obligation the University has is to get on and build the facility.
Mr Owers is campaigning against Christopher Brown (Lib Dem), Lara Hillman (Con) and Adam Pogonowski (Green).
In response to Mr Owers’ statment “Libs totally in hock to the Uni”, I am publishing below the University of Cambridge related interests declared by councillors at the February 2010 full council meeting:
Lib Dem Cllr Reid – Personal Interest: Husband employed by University of Cambridge
Labour Cllr Herbert – Personal Interest: Partner employed by University of Cambridge
Lib Dem Cllr Rosenstiel – Personal Interest: MA of Trinity College
Lib Dem Cllr Pitt – Personal Interest: Wife employed by University of Cambridge and taught for a college
Lib Dem Cllr Cantrill – Personal Interest: Wife employed at University of Cambridge
Lib Dem Cllr Smith – Personal Interest: Employed at University of Cambridge
Lib Dem Cllr Blackhurst – Personal Interest: Employed at University of Cambridge
Lib Dem Cllr Taylor – Personal Interest: Employed at Cambridge University Press and sister-in-law was employed by the University of Cambridge
Lib Dem Cllr Baker – Personal Interest: Fellow of Emmanuel College
Lib Dem Cllr Ward – Personal interest: Wife employed at Cambridge University Press
Lib Dem Cllr Nimmo- Smith – Personal Interest: received supervision and examination fees from Cambridge University (Cllr Nimmo-Smith implied when making his declaration that he only sometimes gets paid for the supervisions he does and appeared to be using the declaration to make this point; the official minutes missed it though).
Lib Dem Cllr Blackhurst – Personal Interest: Wife Employed by University of Cambridge
Labour Cllr Todd-Jones – Personal Interest: Employed by University of Cambridge
Source
It’s worth noting that “personal interest” means that having declared the connection these councillors still vote on matters affecting the university.
This strikes me as a slightly odd point for someone with a cantab.net email address to be making. Lots of people in Cambridge have connections to the University; it’s hardly surprising. Nobody would suggest that because you spent 2001-2005 at the University that you are in any way “in hock” to it, yet here you are suggesting that Lib Dem councillors are, because of their University connections. Yet more evidence that when you have an opportunity to criticise the Lib Dems, rational argument goes out of the window.
Phil [Queens’ College 1984-87]
Phil Rodgers is a Lib Dem activist.
The Cambridge Student today has an article reporting that the University of Cambridge has significantly scaled down its sports centre plans.
http://www.tcs.cam.ac.uk/uncategorized/cambridge-university-accused-of-scrapping-sports-centre-plans/
re 5. Indeed; and a user of the Fenners gym, for that matter. I don’t quite see how this defends your claim that the Lib Dems are “totally in hock” to the University.
I didn’t make the claim the Lib Dems were “totally in hock” to the university, the Labour candidate for Abbey – George Owers – did. What I did was provide evidence of the number of councillors with a declarable interest relating to the university of Cambridge.
You quoted George Owers and then said “I agree completely”. Are you now saying you don’t agree completely after all?
Richard,
I believe the University is the second highest employer (NHS is first?) in the City? So, surely we should have a lot of councillors with connections to it? Isn’t that quite representive?
There is no way this centre could be financially viable without cooperation between the university and city in it’s usage.
A couple of follow-ups:
*I have been told Cllr Herbert’s partner doesn’t work at the University of Cambridge, but at ARU and there was an error in the minutes.
* It is often very useful to have councillors with a connection to the university – what’s important is that their connections are, and how they might be influenced, is publicly known.
*I agree – the council has a key role here and needs both to push the university to make good on its commitments, and to contribute positively by opening a transparent negotiations with the university on public funding and public access.
Richard,
You have invited my reaction and indeed I was at the Peterhouse hustings where this issue came up.
I regret that I am not sufficiently up to speed on this topic to offer an informed view right now.
The only thing missing is an indoor pool, any mention on that?
A 50m pool is currently listed as being “phase 3” of the sports centre project.
On the 25th of July 2013 the University of Cambridge announced the price list for users of its soon to be opened sports centre.
It appears the pricing structure is not aimed at the typical student, or city resident for that matter, who is seeking to keep fit. The costs appear to pitch the new facility up against expensive commercial offerings so aimed at serious gym-goers or those with plenty of spare cash and not the student, or city, populations at large. Public membership is £31-£49 per month and student charges are from £19-£43 per month.
I see Imperial College, where I did my undergrad degree, in sharp contrast with the approach taken by Cambridge University, offers free gym and swimming pool usage to all its students.
The initially published pricing information for the University of Cambridge Sports Centre is unclear in my view in a number of areas:
There appear only to be monthly subscription options, and no published charges for casual use of the facilities.
Even the community pricing has “blue” as its top level. This shows an astonishing arrogance from the university, assuming the wider public will be aware of their terminology and use of the term “blue” for elite athletes representing the university. I suspect many new students and those from outside the university will be confused.
Agreement Waiving Development Taxes In Return for Sports Centre Provision
The relevant section of the S106 (development tax) agreement signed in February 2013 describes the conditions set down by the local councils for the provision of the sports facilities.
In terms of operating the sports centre the agreement refers to the “West Cambridge Sports Facility Management Strategy”. The definitions section of the agreement states this is to be submitted to Cambridge City Council associated with planning application 11/0979/REM, it has not yet appeared online as a document associated with that application so presumably is yet to be submitted and considered.
When the management strategy is submitted that appears to be an opportunity for councillors to set out their requirements in relation to things like pricing and access. I hope our councillors are on the ball and ensure the strategy is considered and debated in public and appropriate publicity is associated with submission so that all those with an interest, in particular student representatives, can let councillors know their views. The university is being let off contributing to public facilities, so the arrangements for public access need to be tightly regulated by councillors to ensure a fair deal is obtained in the public interest.
As yet it appears concessions are offered to students and alumni; other groups such as the elderly or those recommended to make use of the gym on medical grounds but without the means to pay. Another group not considered is City Council staff (councillors negiotiated free swimming for their staff at those pools they own and contract out the operation of in the city).
On a related point the agreement states that if the University of Cambridge does not build the swimming pool within seven years of the first property being occupied on the University site between Huntingdon and Madingley roads the University will have to stop development and pay a “fine” to the Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire District councils.
If the direct link to the document doesn’t work (the council’s system is very broken) visit http://idox.cambridge.gov.uk/online-applications search for 11/1114/OUT and from the documents tab select Application Legal Agreement/S106/UU SCHEDULE 08 – SPORT AND PUBLIC ACCESS TO WEST CAMBRIDGE or view the full 641 page agreement via South Cambridgeshire District Council.
I don’t know if development taxes from elsewhere in the city have been put towards the University Sports Centre, as the above article notes was previously proposed. A long promised (speciality by Cllr Cantrill) public database of how development taxes are raised and spent in Cambridge has yet to appear, Cllr Cantrill has pointed those waiting for it to:
https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/s106
I presume it is there that, if it is ever published, it will presumably appear.
It’s not that different to the cost of joining Kelsey Kerridge, though ( see http://www.kelseykerridge.co.uk/index.php?pageid=4030 ) though with some gyms this is optional as you suggest. I can’t see this being looked on badly though it would be nice if they did have pay by session charging of course.
Does Cambridge University Sports Centre not have a swimming pool? I would expect a semi-olympic length of 25m to be the absolute minimum.
As noted above a 50m pool is proposed; and the council is requiring one be built within 7 years of the occupation of the first homes on the site between Huntingdon and Madingley roads.
Condition 2 of the planning approval for 11/0979/REM states:
The University has announced it intends to open the sports centre on the 19th of August; it submitted a proposed management strategy on the 21st of June. A direct link cannot be provided as the council’s online planning system is very broken. It is listed as DISCHARGE DETAILS – CON 2 on the documents tab of the online application file.
The planning file does not show this has been approved and the council’s meeting calendar doesn’t show any upcoming meeting at which it is to be considered by councillors.
The management strategy submitted is a brief three page document containing few details. It does state that monthly membership will need to be paid by direct debit and that it “will be taken for 9 months” though the question of a contract or the ability to cancel at any time is not addressed.
The minutes of the planning meeting which approved 11/0979/REM state it was approved by a 7-1 vote, as per the officer recommendation. The minutes do not show clearly if councillors or officers are to consider the management plan. It is possible that councillors have delegated this important decision to their officers.
The management strategy submitted to the council by the University only contained pricing for “non-university” users of the centre; the alumni and student prices published were not included.
My understanding is that if the University wish to charge students to use the centre they will have to apply to the council to be able to do so.
The University has today removed the webpage on which it had published its proposed prices. It was at:
http://www.sport.cam.ac.uk/facilities/CambridgeSportsCentre/join-us/index.html
(They have re-done their website though; although the broken link is from their top news story).
I’ve written to Cllr Owers:
Cllr Owers has responded:
I have not claimed that Cllr Owers is any more responsible for the sports centre pricing and access arrangements than any other councillor.
I think it’s odd that a councillor thinks that a pre-election statement; something which electors may have taken into account when deciding if to vote for them, is not something which their performance should be assessed against later, when they are in office.
The relevant executive councillor is Tim Ward, who I have contacted, his response is below.
Cambridge City Council’s executive councillor for planning, Tim Ward, has tweeted:
I suspect that from a council officer’s point of view there will be no problem unless someone alerts them to the university actually doing something like charging students for use of the centre without an appropriate approved management strategy, putting them in breach of their planning permission.
Cllr Brown has committed to look into including the sports centre in the council’s “exercise referral scheme” – a good example of the sort of thing I’d expect councillors to ensure is covered in the management strategy:
Cllr Ward has sent me a message from council planning officer Sharon Brown. Commenting on the status of the submitted sports centre management strategy she states:
This makes clear there is no approved management strategy in place ahead of Monday’s planned opening. The centre will not be able to open legally as planned though they may be able to perhaps offer tours of the facilities.
Officer Brown adds:
presumably the use of the past tense indicates the council are now re-considering their position. It would be scandalous if they were to allow the the university to run the sports centre without the required planning permission in place, and in a manner which has not been agreed by elected representatives.
The officer also reveals that while the consideration of the management strategy was to be delegated solely to officers councillors are now being invited to get involved. As yet there is no plan for the consideration to take place in public at a public meeting, but that is what I would like to see. I don’t think councillors ought be considering the submission, debating it, and making the decision on if to accept it or not, behind closed doors.
Cllr Owers has sent me a fuller copy of the email from planning officer Brown. This reveals that a number of councillors are interested in being involved in the decision on the sports centre management strategy. Those councillors I’m now aware want to have an input are Hipkin, Reid, Owers and Brown.
Presumably with this level of interest the council will have to “un-delegate” the decision and take control of the matter back from their planning officers.
Looking at the Cambridge News it has indeed open. It’d be interesting to have a councillor here to explain how the planning actually works to allow this. Please.
I meant ‘has indeed opened.’
The Cambridge News article is very brief, and doesn’t mention the lack of planning permission:
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Education/Universities/Kick-off-for-Cambridge-University-Sports-Centre-20130820060000.htm
A development without planning permission is not “allowed”; councillors will now have to decide if to take enforcement action; which could ultimately include sending the bulldozers in. The council has to behave reasonably though and the reasonable course of action is to get on and negotiate a management strategy and tie up the other lose ends required before permission can be formally granted. The council told me, before they formally told the university, that they weren’t happy with the management strategy proposed by the university; hopefully Cllr Ward will be putting a rocket under his officers and explaining to the next Environment scrutiny committee (or full council) what went wrong here and what’s been done to prevent a recurrence.
Evidence the centre opened has emerged on Twitter
I’m mentioned in the The Cambridge Student article
on the openingheadlined £16m for what? Disappointment over white elephant Cambridge University Sports Centre which states:that’s derived I presume from the musing in the above article that:
Tweeter Phil Rodgers alerted me to the fact the article wasn’t about the opening, but had been written some time ago.
One issue affecting public access to the sports centre is parking – not everyone will want to walk or cycle there. I get the impression that there won’t be any nearby public parking; on enquiring by email a couple of weeks ago I was told “Car Parking information for the new centre will also be appearing on the website shortly, but nearby is the Madingley Road Park & Ride which can be used and is a short walk away.” – in fact it’s over half a mile away, and I’m not sure how pleased the County Council would be at this suggestion.
Well if they’re going to compete for the drive to the gym to sit on cycling machines crowd from Nuffield Health they’ll need parking.
Once the 50m pool is in, that’ll surely attract people from a very wide area; many of whom I’d expect would drive.
I’ve checked the online planning file for 11/1114/OUT on the City Council website and there has been no updated management plan submitted and no formal correspondence on the subject.
There is no public speaking slot at Cambridge City Council planning meetings, so I raised the problem with the West Cambridge Sports Centre opening without an agreed management plan at the West Central Area Committee:
Watch on YouTube
It is astonishing that despite officers being aware of Cllr Reid’s interest in the sports centre they had not expressly told her it had opened without permission leaving her unaware.
A question which I would like to see put at the next full council is if planning officers are acting within their powers when in deciding not to act against the university. I would like to know what process is in place so councillors and the public can have their views heard in public during the negotiation on the access and pricing arrangements.
As I’ve noted above one of the key omissions in the University pricing structure is any arrangement for casual use by those not willing to enter a monthly subscription arrangement. This is one of the areas where it is quite different to the City Council owned gym.
The Cambridge News has covered this: Councillor calls for planning chiefs to “come down hard” on Cambridge University over sports centres fees, reporting the University as claiming the council gave them the go-ahead:
Cambridge City Council’s executive councillor for environment and planning, Tim Ward, has called the university’s behavior “disappointing”:
I agree enforcement wouldn’t be proportionate; what we need is negotiation, ideally in public.
Coverage in the Cambridge student press this week…
(Page 31)…
http://www.tcs.cam.ac.uk/download/TCS_Volume15_Michaelmas_Issue2.pdf
A further update:
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/News/Councillors-criticise-dons-for-shabby-affair-of-allowing-public-to-use-Cambridge-Universitys-sports-centre-20140430070500.htm
http://www.sport.cam.ac.uk/documents/en/Mem/Membership_Info_Sheet_21042015.pdf