1. sports
2. swimming

DETAILED ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT
OF
DKM - Economic Consultant’s
BUSINESS CASE FOR NEW LEISURE FACILITY AT GLEALBYN
PREPARED BY
SPORTING CLUBS OF GLENALBYN SWIMMING POOL
Foreword
DKM’s report is deeply flawed for the reasons listed in the executive summary and
detailed in this review. This review has been prepared by clubs who used Glenalbyn
Swimming Pool for many of the 47 years that it operated successfully, until it
suddenly shut down by Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council in December
2013.
Using the analysis prepared by the clubs, the income that a new facility would
generate will far exceed the Optimistic Scenario in DKMs report. DKMs report
cannot be accepted as a proper economic analysis predicting the costs of running a
new Leisure Facility at Glenalbyn.
As outlined in this review there are a wide range of reasons the new Facility must
be rebuilt. The future of Glenalbyn Pool to be based on the flawed economic
content of DKMs report would lead to a flawed decision.
Glenalbyn Pool when managed correctly has proven its viability over 47 years.
When rebuilt Stillorgan will once again have a public pool to complement and
complete the extraordinary range of residential, community, retail, business,
educational and sporting activities which combined make Stillorgan one of the
most successful areas in Dun Laoghaire Rathdown.
Prepared by Glenalbyn Swimming Club, in conjunction with Glenalbyn
Masters Swim Club, Sandycove Waterpolo Club, Glenalbyn Waterpolo Club,
Dalkey Scubadivers and Curragh Sub Aqua Club
May 2015
PAGE 1
Executive Summary
This report is an analytical review of the DKM Economic Consultants ‘Business
Case for New Leisure Facility at Glenalbyn’ Final Report 2014. It has been
prepared by the Glenalybn Swimming Club, in conjunction with Glenalbyn
Masters Swim Club, Sandycove Waterpolo Club, Glenalbyn Waterpolo Club,
Dalkey Scubadivers and Curragh Sub Aqua Club. It critiques the report according
to each section and it is therefore worthwhile for the reader to have the DKM
report to hand. The following are the main findings of this review:
1. It is noted that there were no Terms of Reference in the DKM report.
2. It is disappointing that the report was completed in May 2014 but was
only made public in February 2015.
3. No reference is made to the fact that Glenalbyn pool operated successfully
for over 47 years in evaluating its effectiveness.
4. The report fails to recognise that parking and access issues have worked
for 47 years. Nor does it mention the other extensive parking facilities in
the area, the fact that it is well located and well served by good public
transport.
5. DLR Council Policy to “protect, retain and enhance existing urban sports
facilities” outlined in the DLR County Development Plan 2010-2016 is not
referenced in the DKM report.
6. The expected demand from Kilmacud Crokes, who alone have 2,000
members, is not addressed or even mentioned in the DKM report.
7. Further analysis of the DKM report reveal that despite the fact that
Glenalbyn pool was one of the oldest, it still accounted for between 25%
and 34% of swimming visits to Council pools in the county.
8. Given the great demand experienced by Meadowbrook since its
rebuilding, it is obvious that the demand would increase if a new pool was
provided at Glenalbyn. This point is not made by the DKM report.
9. In addition, the analysis of the figures used in the DKM report reveal that
total number of swims were under representative and did not include
swims generated through aquatic clubs who rented the pool privately.
The clubs estimate this to be an additional 35,000 swims.
10. The catchment area for the Stillorgan pool and leisure facilities used by
DKM Economic consultants is challenged and found to underreport the
user population by 26,755 or 163%.
11. Despite the fact that the Equal Status Act 2000 prohibits discrimination on
9 grounds, including age, DKM emphasise the high number of elderly
people and implied that this would be a reason for not provide a pool in
the area.
12. The critique finds that the DKM report does not sufficiently demonstrate
why a Leisure Facility at Glenalbyn should generate a surplus of €100,000,
nor does the DKM report explain why each facility should generate the
same surplus when each is very different in size and facilities.
13. The report does not take into account the positive impact that members of
our clubs would have on the financial viability of a new pool and
gymnasium constructed at Glenalbyn.
14. It is suggested in the review of the DKM report that the Council should
own and manage their public sporting facilities themselves.
15. There is no explanation of how DKM arrived at a running cost of €1.2m for
a new Leisure Facility at Glenalbyn.
PAGE 1
INTRODUCTION
This review follows the sequence of the DKM Economic Consultants ‘Business
Case for New Leisure Facility at Glenalbyn’ Final Report 2014 and comments in
turn on each section of their report. It is therefore assumed that those reading
this analytical review will be familiar with the DKM report and should have a copy
to hand.
In the first instance, it is noted that in reports of this nature, it is customary to set
out the Terms of Reference or outline the brief that the consultants are working
to. However no indication is given regarding the nature of the brief that DKM
have received from DLRCoCo. Also it is very disappointing to discover that the
report was completed in May 2014 but was only made public in February 2015.
1.1 BACKGROUND
In reading the opening section of the DKM report one would be forgiven for
concluding that there was never a swimming pool at Glenalbyn. In our opinion it
is highly relevant that in 1966 a swimming pool was constructed in Glenalbyn and
operated successfully for over 47 years, until its closure in mid-December 2013
on health and safety grounds.
The fact that the pool was operating successfully until its closure at the end of
2013 would raise questions as to why it was necessary to spend public money on
such a report when as far as we know the Council did not undertake a similar
exercise before rebuilding the swimming pool at Meadowbrook. Nor did it
undertake such a study before building the LexIcon in Dun Laoghaire, which is a
community facility.
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 THE PROJECT
Glenalybn Swimming Club, along with the other clubs who helped to compile this
review, are in favour of the construction of a new leisure facility that would
combine both a pool and gymnasium.
PAGE 2
2.2 PROJECT SITE AND ACCESS
Much play is made in this section of the report regarding the purchase of land
from Kilmacud Crokes for access and car-parking; while the Council meeting held
on the 13th of January 2014 talked about sustainable access and car parking
rights, which are rather different. At the same time, no mention is made of the
arrangement that worked well for the 47 years that the pool was in operation,
whereby those using the pool were able to park in the car park provided by
Kilmacud Crokes. In addition, no mention is made at all of the other extensive car
parking facilities in the general area, nor of the fact that the site is very well
located and well served by good public transport. It is very disheartening to read
the time line for the project and to realise how much time has been wasted since
the decision was taken to fund the project over a year ago.
2.3.1 Project Objective
We support the project objectives.
2.3.2 Strategic Fit
As an introduction to this section of the report a selective quotation is made from
Policy Objective OSR9 of the DLR County Development Plan 2010-2016 but
leaves out the section that states “The benefits accruing from participation in
sport and recreational activities are well documented. Sports facilities and
grounds in Dun Laoghaire -Rathdown include a variety of both indoor and
outdoor recreational facilities, which provide in the main for the active
recreational needs of the community”.
However, the report does not mention the next section of the DLR County
Development Plan 2010-2016 which is Policy OSR10: Protection of Sports
Grounds / Facilities which states that - “It is Council policy to ensure that
adequate playing fields for formal active recreation are provided for in new
development areas and that existing sports facilities and grounds within the
established urban areas are protected, retained and enhanced”. This begs the
question if it is Council policy to protect retain and enhance existing urban sports
facilities why has public money been wasted on the DKM Business Case Report.
Note: When the 2010 - 2016 Development Plan was published the Glenalbyn
PAGE 3
Pool was still operational.
Under this heading we would expect to see an exploration of the benefits of
collocating the Leisure Facility with Kilmacud Crokes and Glenalbyn Sports Club.
Kilmacud Crokes alone have 2,000 members. In our opinion there would be huge
benefits for the local community if the successful combination of sporting
activities was to be continued on the same site. Such combination would also
have a very positive impact on the numbers likely to use the leisure facility on a
regular basis which in turn would help fund the operation of the facility.
Stillorgan Local Area Plan: In relation to the lands within the Stillorgan Local Area
plan given the oversupply of retail shopping in the greater Dublin area and the
lack of adequate housing supply, it is more than likely that a significant
proportion of the lands will be developed as residential accommodation which
would increase demand for leisure / swimming facilities at Glenalbyn. We note
that the Stillorgan Local Area Plan recommends that a new pool should be
provided in Stillorgan.
3 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL MARKET FOR PROJECT
3.1 DEMAND FOR LEISURE ACTIVITIES IN DLR
We note the reference to the DKM “Demand for Leisure Services in Dun
Laoghaire-Rathdown” which was published in December 2013 and assume that it
was commissioned by the Council when the pool at Glenalbyn was one of 4 pools
in the county.
3.1.1 Utilisation of Old Glenalbyn Pool
At the start of this section of the report, it is correctly suggested that the
numbers swimming in the old Glenalbyn pool might have been less than other
pools in the area due to the fact that it was the oldest pool run by DLR and built
in 1966. However the figures quoted indicated that the pool over a four year
period accounted for between 25% and 34% of swimming visits to Council pools
in the county. Given the great demand experienced by Meadowbrook since its
rebuilding, it is obvious that this figure would increase if a new pool was provided
at Glenalbyn.
PAGE 4
TABLE 3.1 of the report indicates that between 2010 - 2013 that the Old
Glenalbyn Pool accounted for on average 146,750 swimming pool visits per year
and 28% of total swimming pool visits to Council pools in the county during that
period. However, in addition many of the swimming clubs booked the pool in a
private capacity and it is therefore unlikely that these figures have been included
in the DKM Table below. The figures compiled by the clubs who completed this
review indicate that the number of swims by our members would total an
additional 25,000 swims per year. They are included in Table 3.2 below.
Table 3.1 Glenalbyn and DLR Leisure Centres: Swimming Pool Visitors, ‘000s
Glenalbyn Visits
Total Swimming
Visits to DLR
pools
Glenablyn as %
of Total Swims
2010
158
626
25%
2011
170
645
26%
2012
143
421
34%
2013
116
424
27%
% Change 2010 2013
-26.6%
-32%
Source: DKM Report 2014 that referenced DLR Leisure Services
Table 3.2 below includes the 25,000 additional swims generated from the clubs
that rented the pool for training. The demand for the pool is demonstrated in
the evidence, with glenablyn accounting for 40% and 33% of total swims in the
two years prior to its closure.
PAGE 5
Table 3.2 Glenalbyn and DLR Leisure Centres: Swimming Pool Visitors
including private club swims, ‘000s
Glenalbyn Visits
Total Swimming
Visits to DLR
pools
Glenablyn as %
of Total Swims
2010
183
626
29%
2011
195
645
30%
2012
168
421
40%
2013
141
424
33%
% Change 2010 2013
-23%
-32%
This section of the report concludes by stating that “In 2012 the Glenalbyn pool
accounted for 34% of all swims in DLR centres, in 2013, this proportion was lower
at 27%”. These facts alone demonstrate that it makes sense to rebuild the pool at
Glenalbyn and the evidence from Meadowbrook indicate that the numbers will
increase when the facility is rebuilt.
The information from this section of the report demonstrates very clearly that
there is more than sufficient demand to continue with a swimming pool in this
location. Common sense indicates that combining the swimming pool with
exercise studios/gym would increase the draw even further. In our opinion there
is no need to delve further and the fact that this data came from DLR Leisure
Services begs the question why, when this information was readily available, was
it necessary to waste money engaging external consultants!
3.1.2 Location of Glenalbyn Relative to Other Pools in DLR
The content of this sub section of the report might be relevant to a commercial
enterprise contemplating the opening of a leisure facility as a business venture
but of little relevance to a County Council whose remit is to serve the community
rather than engage in business ventures. What is significant is that Meadowbrook
is 6.4km from Glenalbyn and 3.7km from Monkstown and 8.1 from
Loughlinstown.
PAGE 6
We have perused the current County Development Plan as well as the Draft
County Development Plan and note the emphasis on sustainable patterns of
living and walkable neighborhoods. In particular we note that the Vision
Statement of the Draft Development Plan is:
“To continue to facilitate appropriate levels of sustainable development predicated
on the delivery of high quality community, employment and recreational
environments - allied to the promotion of sustainable transportation and travel
patterns - but all the while protecting Dún Laoghaire–Rathdown’s unique
landscape, natural heritage and physical fabric, to ensure the needs of those living
and working in the County can thrive in a socially, economically, environmentally
sustainable and equitable manner”.
And the Community Strategy Vision Statement is:
“To promote social inclusion and enhanced ‘quality of life’ through integrating the
continued sustainable growth and planning of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown with its
social and community development by ensuring the retention, provision and
maintenance of well considered and appropriate levels of social, community and
cultural infrastructure readily accessible to all citizens of, and visitors to, the
County”.
It would be totally against these policies to cease the provision of a swimming
pool at Glenalbyn in favour of the pools at Meadowbrook and Monkstown.
3.2 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HINTERLAND
OF PROPOSED NEW GLENALBYN FACILITY
3.2.1 Demographics: Stillorgan Ward
Under the sub heading Population Growth the report states:
“The population in the Stillorgan Ward constitutes the immediate hinterland of the
proposed new Glenalbyn facility and it is expected that most of its customers will
originate from there. Its population grew by 2.6% between 2006 and 2011 and
reached 16,430 at the time of the latest Census. Together, the six ED’s of the
Stillorgan Ward constitutes 8% of the DLR county population”.
PAGE 7
Given that a considerable amount of the DKM Report’s findings are based on the
analysis of the demographics of the Stillorgan Ward it is worth putting this
statement under the microscope.
Firstly, are DKM correct to state that “The population in the Stillorgan Ward
constitutes the immediate hinterland of the proposed new Glenalbyn facility and
it is expected that most of its customers will originate from there. An
examination of the Ordnance Survey of Ireland’s map of “Dublin Administrative
Counties” coupled with an analysis of “Table 6 - Population of each province,
county city, urban area, rural area and electoral division , 2006 and 20011” from
Census 2011 published by Central Statistics Office would indicate that this
statement is only partially correct and the use of the words immediate and most
are utilised to give cover to the authors. From the 2011 Census and the OSI map
it is clear that the Stillorgan Ward makes up part but not all of the catchment
area for a pool at Glenalbyn.
Secondly, we wonder if DKM are correct in confining their demographic analysis
to the Stillorgan Ward, when they know that only 8% of the population of DLR
County live in the Stillorgan Ward and are aware of the pool usage in the years
2010 - 2013 (Table 3. 3.1 (which indicates that between 25 % and 34% of the
swimming visits between 2010 and 2013 occurred in the old Glenalbyn pool). If
they are correct in confining their study to the demographics of the Stillorgan
Ward, then it would be logical to conclude that the 8% of the population who live
in the Stillorgan Ward swim far more often than those in the rest of the county.
Or alternatively, and more realistically, it would be more logical to conclude that
the catchment area of the Glenalbyn pool stretches beyond the narrow confines
of the Stillorgan Ward.
Given the foregoing, either DKM have made a fundamental mistake compiling
their report or, alternatively there is a hidden agenda at work and they are
deliberately being selective rather than objective. Either way, it is not safe to rely
on this section of their report nor the analysis that is based on this section of
their report!
So what is the actual catchment area for a swimming pool and leisure facility at
PAGE 8
Glenalbyn? Table 3.3 Travel Distances by Road (from Glenalbyn) to Surrounding
Pools is a good place to start. Given that Glenalbyn is 3.7 km from the
Monkstown Pool and 6.4 km from the pool at Meadowbrook, it is logical that the
catchment area would extend 1.85 km east towards Monkstown and 3.2 km
westwards towards Meadowbrook.
As there are no public pools provided by DLR to the north, it is logical to assume
that the catchment extends northwards as far as the border with Dublin City
Council and in a southern direction it is 8.1 km to the pool at Loughlinstown.
However, bearing in mind that DLR plan to provide a pool at Ballyogan, it is more
reasonable to assume that the catchment would extend halfway southwards
towards Ballyogan, which is a distance of 1.65km (as the crow flies). Based on this
description we can calculate the population of the catchment area by an
examination of the Ordnance Survey of Ireland’s map “Dublin Administrative
Counties” and data from the 2011 Census. The results are as set out in the Table
below.
Name
Population
Area
Clonskeagh-Roebuck
2,556
0.75
Clonskeagh-Belfield
2,740
1.92
Blackrock-Glenomena
1,795
0.44
Blackrock-Booterstown
3,328
0.75
Blackrock-Williamstown
2,676
1.07
Blackrock-Central
3,072 (80% of 3,841)
0.81 (80% of 1.02)
Blackrock-Carysfort
4,312 (70% of 6,160)
0.91 (70% of 1.30)
Foxrock-Deansgrange
608 (25% of 2,434)
0.25 (25% of 1.01)
PAGE 9
Foxrock-Torquay
1,439
0.97
Dundrum -Balally
4,229 (60% of 7,049)
1.51 (60% of 2.53)
Stillorgan-Deerpak
2,793
1.02
Stillorgan-Kilmacud
3,828
0.92
Stillorgan-Leopardstown
2,429
0.57
Stillorgan-Merville
2,744
0.96
Stillorgan-Mount Merrion 2,407
0.88
Stillorgan-Priory
2,229
0.55
Total*
43,185 (21% of
206,261(County
Population in 2011)
*Based on the assumption that a pool will be built at Ballyogan.
From the above it can be seen that 43,185 persons live in the catchment area of
the Glenalbyn Swimming pool which is 21% of the population of the County. This
figure is based on the assumption that a pool will be provided at Ballyogan.
However, if this does not proceed the catchment area would be greater and
therefore its population even larger.
From this data we can conclude that DKM’s Document under reports the
catchment population by 26,755 or 163%! As a consequence this section of DKM
report is fundamentally flawed and therefore their subsequent demographic
analysis and conclusions cannot be relied upon.
PAGE 10
3.2.2 Age Specific Participation Rates
The Equality Status Acts 2000 - 2012 prohibit discrimination on 9 grounds
including age; DKM and Dun Laoghaire Rathdown-County Council should be well
aware of that. For either organization to put age forward as a reason for not
providing a community swimming and leisure facility is quite reprehensible.
3.3 POTENTIAL DEMAND FOR PROPOSED NEW GLENALBYN
FACILITY
3.3.1 Scenario 1: Optimistic
As DKM have understated the population of the catchment area by a minimum of
163% this scenario, although it is titled optimistic, under reports the numbers
likely to use a Leisure facility at Glenalbyn. Also it plays down the fact that the
proposed facility would have a gym / exercise studios which the original pool did
not. Therefore under no circumstances can the projections by DKM be regarded
as an optimistic upper limit!
3.3.2 Scenario 2: Low Case
As explained above their figures and therefore analysis is fundamentally flawed.
3.3.3 Range of Possible Outcomes
Refer to comments above.
3.4 CONCLUSIONS
As DKM have underestimated the population of the catchment area for a Leisure
Facility at Glenalbyn by a staggering 163% they are totally incorrect in
concluding that “unfavourable demographics make the Glenalbyn site less than
ideal for a sports facility” .
In addition we note that, in summing up this section of their report DKM state
“Due to its location the new proposed facility will not be able to offer playing
fields and pitches which restricts its income streams and thus earning capacity”.
From reading this, one would be forgiven for thinking that community sports
facility are provided for the sole purpose of making money. While this statement
is made - the report provides no evidence from other DLR sports facilities to
demonstrate that they generate significant income.
PAGE 11
From our point of view we believe that there are both community and financial
benefits in placing a replacement pool and new leisure facility adjacent to
Kilmacud Crokes and Glenalbyn Sports Clubs.
Firstly, from a community point of view it would be good to have a broad range
of sporting facilities in this very central location. Secondly, it is highly likely that
members of the other sports club at Glenalbyn (who have over 2,000 members)
would be attracted to use a modern leisure facility and pool and given the
significant number of parents who bring their children to Kilmacud Crokes to
partake in gaelic games at the weekends, it is highly likely that a significant
number would take the opportunity to use the pool or gym while their children
are playing gaelic games.
4 FINANCIAL APPRAISAL
4.1 INTRODUCTION: OPERATIONAL BACKGROUND
4.1.1 Role of Local Authority
While we have been highly critical of some aspects of the DKM report we would
concur wholeheartedly with the statements regarding the benefits of physical
activity and the public service remit of the Local Authority and the significant
societal benefit.
In addition we note the reference to the Department of Arts, Sports & Tourism
(2007), LOCAL AUTHORITY SWIMMING POOL PROGRAMME Value for Money and
Policy Review Report. The executive summary of which states
“The Review points to the unique characteristics of public swimming pools in
sporting and, more importantly, recreational use. It suggests that no other piece of
sports/recreational infrastructure can provide the same level of access and
availability in terms of catering for all age groups and fitness levels, in all weathers,
for up to 18 hours a day, seven days a week. In addition to supporting general
health and fitness programmes, such facilities can play a significant role in primary
and secondary school physical activity programmes”.
PAGE 12
4.1.2 Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown Leisure Services Limited (DLR Leisure
Services)
The report advised that DLR Leisure Services was established in 2008. Minimal
information is given about the finances of the company before the report states:
“We understand that an annual surplus of approximately €400,000 per annum is
required towards running of the company and to provide a sinking fund which is
intended to cover unexpected major and minor renovation and repair works at its
facilities. By implication this means - ex ante - that the proposed Glenalbyn
facility needs to make, on average, a profit of around €100,000 per year. If this
cannot be achieved, it would have a serious long term impact on the viability of
the company. This in turn would have severe consequences for the other facilities
managed by DLR Leisure Services”.
This passage of the report raises as many questions as it answers!
The figures of €400,000 and €100,000 has not been generated by the Economic
Consultants but rather given to them by the County Council. Is this a requirement
for all community facilities? Was a similar business case review conducted before
a decision was taken to construct the “LexIcon” or provide an all-weather football
pitch at Marlay Park and are comparable profit targets set for both?
How was the figure of €400,000 arrived at and is it realistic and appropriate?
What sums do the facilities at Loughlinstown, Monkstown, and Meadowbrook
generate and are they in line with this requirement? If each location has different
facilities should the figure not be adjusted on a pro-rata basis? Why when grants
are available for the refurbishment of community sporting facilities via Lottery
funds is the figure set at this level?
If the County Council managed the facilities directly themselves, they would have
more flexibility should additional funding be required for major repairs etc.
Since the introduction of the local property tax, is there not a case to be made for
ensuring that funds collected locally are spent locally and is this not the type of
facility that everyone would be keen to support?
An examination of the accounts for dlr Leisure Services Ltd., available from the
Companies Registration Office Ireland, reveal that the various sporting / leisure
facilities operated by the company do not come anyway near generating the
level of surplus that DKM were instructed to use as the bench mark for assessing
PAGE 13
a new pool / leisure facility at Glenalbyn. In fact without the release of the
€308,011 from the general reserve fund there would have been a deficit for 2012
and 2013. Therefore it is totally disingenuous to set a totally unrealistic target for
a new pool and gymnasium at Glenalbyn when the Council and the Directors of
DLR Leisure Services know full well that the other facilities are not capable of
achieving it.
4.1.3 Implications of Operational Model
This section of the report sets out two operational models and the long term
consequences of both. In the first, if the public pool and leisure facilities are
owned and managed by the local authority, there is no impediment to the
Council making a subvention if an operational loss occurs. However, in the
second operational model, if the public pool and leisure facilities are operated by
an independent company the Council would de facto be prevented from
contributing financially if the facility got into financial difficulties.
Two obvious conclusions can be drawn from this information.
Firstly, it is clear that the setting up of DLR Leisure Services, as an independent
company to manage the public sporting facilities, was misguided and could have
negative consequences for the long term operation of community sporting
facilities in the county. Secondly, this mistake should not be repeated.
Going forward the Council should own and manage their public sporting facilities
themselves. Bizarrely, even though the report was commissioned by DLR County
Council and not DLR Leisure Services, DKM Economic Consultants overlook the
obvious conclusion that the Council would be better off to manage the facility
directly and instead go into great detail analysing what must happen to ensure
that DLR Leisure Services, which is an independent company, can generate a
surplus. Never the less we support the concept of generating funds, so that a
properly managed maintenance regime can be deployed.
Prohibition on Council Subvention and Public Tendering
According to section 4.1.3 of the DKM report, the Council is prevented from
contributing financially to the operational expenses of the management company
because the Council has outsourced the management of the Council pools on a
lease to an independent company. However, the section then goes on to say
that any pool built by the Council and managed by dlr Leisure Services Ltd. must
PAGE 14
contribute positively to the overall profit and loss account and balance sheet of
the company.
If the Council’s priority is the profitability of the company, how then can the
company be considered independent? It would appear to us that the company is
not independent but an arm of the Council – its directors are a mixture of DLR
County Councillors and DLR staff – and if that is the case, the prohibition on
subvention should not apply.
If however, it is contended that dlr Leisure Services Ltd. is an independent
company that cannot receive subvention, a tender should have been run by the
Council so that all independent operators could have an opportunity to tender to
manage the pools. Why didn’t such a tender take place before dlr Leisure
Services Ltd. was appointed to manage the existing DLR swimming pools? As
there was no tender, on what basis was dlr Leisure Services appointed?
Section 4.1.3 states: “Thus it is imperative that any new fourth facility built by the
local authority and managed by dlr Leisure Services contributes positively to the
overall profit and loss account and balance sheet of the company”. If dlr Leisure
Services Ltd. is an independent company, why does the Council care about the
profits of that company? And more fundamentally, why does the DKM report
assume that dlr Leisure Services Ltd. will manage any fourth swimming facility
built in DLR? Why are other operators not given the chance to tender for the
management of the existing and new DLR pools?
These are fundamental questions of public interest and we demand full
transparency and accountability on the matter. The Council cannot rely on the
prohibition on subvention on the one hand, but on the other hand, deny other
operators the opportunity to tender.
4.2 KEY ASSUMPTIONS OF FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT
Much of the analysis in this section is predicated by the earlier analysis in the
proceeding sections of the report which we have demonstrated are flawed and
underestimated. In working through the various categories of users no mention
is made of the various aquatic sporting groups that use the facility at off peak
PAGE 15
times including the following: Glenalbyn Swimming Club, Glenalbyn Masters
Swim Club, Sandycove Waterpolo Club, Glenalbyn Waterpolo Club, Dalkey
Scubadivers and Curragh Sub Aqua Club.
From direct experience we know that these groups contributed significant sums
to the operation of the old Glenalbyn pool and would have accounted for over
25,000 swims per annum at that venue. These swims would be additional to the
figures given in Table 3.1 of the DKM report.
4.3 FINANCIAL VIABILITY.
There is no explanation as to how DKM estimated the running cost to be
€1,200,000 per annum.
4.4 OTHER ISSUES
4.4.1 Community Gain
We concur with the report where it states “it needs to be born in mind that public
swimming pools are intended, first and foremost, as assets which exist to help
secure long-term social and health benefits for, and improve the well-being of,
the community they serve. They provide an opportunity for individuals to learn to
swim and to partake in water based and other fitness activities. Public swimming
pools are thus part of the wider social asset base in a community”.
4.4.2 Displacement of Visits to Other Pools
The heading and sentiments in this section are counter to the stated objectives in
the current Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Development Plan 2010 - 2016
regarding sport and recreation.
Policy 0SR9: Sports and Recreational Facilities states:“It is Council policy to promote the provision and management of high quality
sporting and recreational infrastructure throughout the County and to ensure that
the particular needs of different groups are incorporated in to the planning and
PAGE 16
design of new facilities.”
In relation to this report throughout being the critical word. More importantly
Policy OSR10: Protection of Sports Grounds/Facilities states :“It is Council policy to ensure that adequate playing fields for formal active
recreation are provided for in new development areas and that existing sports
facilities and grounds within the established urban areas are protected, retained
and enhanced.”
Both of these policies are well thought out, therefore the Council should be
prepared to follow the policies in the Development Plan. To do the opposite
would result in the Council breaching its own Development Plan.
We understand that the earlier DKM Report “Demand for Leisure Services in Dun
Laoghaire - Rathdown” written at a time when there were 4 swimming pools in
the county indicated that there was potential demand within the county for 4
public swimming pools i.e. one per 50,000 persons. Interestingly in the Border
Midland and West Region, the provision is better at one pool per 39,000 people.
Figures supplied in table 3.1 indicate that during the period 2010 - 2013 between
a quarter and a third of swimming pool visits occurred at the old Glenalbyn pool.
Thus we know that there is sufficient local demand for the continued operation of
a pool at Glenalbyn. In addition the experience of the dramatic increase in the
use of the pool at Meadowbrook, following its rebuilding, indicates that the
usage of the pool at Glenalbyn would be likely to increase significantly if the pool
was rebuilt. In addition it is clear that usage would be even higher with the
provision of a gym and exercise studios. On top of that, placing the new leisure
facility beside the vibrant Kilmacud Crokes and Glenalbyn Sports Club will
increase the numbers event further.
Comparison between the facilities that can be provided at Glenalbyn with those
that exist at Meadowbrook, Monkstown, and Loughlinstown. In several places
within the DKM Business Case Report, mention is made of the fact that a new
leisure facility at Glenalbyn would only have two income streams and the report
goes on to suggest that this would be a disadvantage for the other leisure
PAGE 17
facilities operated by DLR Services. However, no information is given within the
report on the income receipts generated by the various leisure facilities operated
by DLR Leisure Services.
The DLR Leisure Facility at Loughlinstown comprises a swimming pool, 3 Astro
Pitches, Gym, Exercise Studios and 3 Multi-Sport Indoor Halls. Obviously the
operational costs of such a facility would be far higher than the compact facility
proposed for Glenalbyn. One would therefore expect that the surplus that the
Loughlinstown facility would be required to generate would be significantly
higher than a smaller facility at Glenalbyn. Thus, it is not logical to suggest that
each facility should generate the same surplus.
While we do not accept the argument that a new leisure facility should only be
provided if it can be demonstrated that such a facility will deliver a surplus
income stream for DLR Leisure Services, we would nonetheless be of the view
that it would be more sensible that the target for each facility would be related
back to its running costs.
SECTION 5 RECOMMENDATIONS
From our analysis of the DKM report set out above, it is clear that their report
significantly under reports the population of the catchment by 26,755 or 163% .
Therefore, their subsequent calculations regarding the possible income stream
that a Leisure Facility at Glenalbyn is likely to generate are fatally flawed and
cannot be relied on. The summary of our findings are set out below:
1. There has been a public swimming pool at Glenalbyn for 47 years. It was
closed down on health and safety grounds not because of under usage.
Given these facts, we do not believe it was necessary to commission a
Business Case Study.
2. Throughout the life of the old pool the parking arrangements for patrons of
the pool worked well. While it might be necessary to formalise sustainable
access and car parking rights, we question the necessity to purchase land for
car parking.
PAGE 18
3. The commissioning of the report and the report itself does not reflect Council
policy which is to protect, retain and enhance existing urban sports facilities.
4. There would be huge benefits for the local community in continuing the
previous arrangement of having the swimming pool located beside Kilmacud
Crokes and Glenalbyn Sports Club. Such an arrangement would also have a
very positive impact on the numbers likely to use the leisure facility on a
regular basis which in turn would help fund the operation of the facility.
5. “In 2012 the Glenalbyn pool accounted for 34% of all swims in DLR centres, in
2013, this proportion was lower at 27%”. These facts alone demonstrate that
there is more than sufficient demand to continue with a swimming pool at
Glenalbyn. The evidence from Meadowbrook indicate that the numbers will
increase when the facility is rebuilt.
6. The recently published Draft County Development Plan Community Strategy
Vision Statement is “To promote social inclusion and enhanced ‘quality of life’
through integrating the continued sustainable growth and planning of Dún
Laoghaire-Rathdown with its social and community development by ensuring
the retention, provision and maintenance of well-considered and appropriate
levels of social, community and cultural infrastructure readily accessible to all
citizens of, and visitors to, the County”. It would therefore be totally against
this policy to cease the provision of a swimming pool at Glenalbyn in favour
of the pools at Meadowbrook and Monkstown which is suggested by DKM.
7. In analysing the age profile of the Stillorgan Ward, DKM emphasise the high
number of elderly people and imply that this would be a reason for not
provide a pool in the area. The Equality Status Acts 2000 - 2012 prohibits
discrimination on 9 grounds including age; DKM and Dun Laoghaire
Rathdown-County Council should be well aware of that. For either
PAGE 19
organization to put age forward as a reason for not providing a community
swimming and leisure facility is quite reprehensible.
8. The report does not demonstrate why a Leisure Facility at Glenalbyn should
generate a surplus of €100,000, nor does the report explain why each facility
should generate the same surplus when each is very different in size and
facilities.
9. The report does not take into account the positive impact that members of
our clubs would have on the financial viability of a new pool and gymnasium
constructed at Glenalbyn.
10. The setting up of DLR Leisure Services as an independent company to
manage the public sporting facilities was misguided and could have negative
consequences for the long term operation of community sporting facilities in
the county, should they experience financial difficulties. This mistake should
not be repeated. Going forward the Council should own and manage their
public sporting facilities themselves.
11. There is no explanation of how DKM arrived at a running cost of €1.2m for a
new Leisure Facility at Glenalbyn.
12. Finally DKM are correct to state that “it needs to be born in mind that public
swimming pools are intended, first and foremost, as assets which exist to help
secure long-term social and health benefits for, and improve the well-being
of, the community they serve. They provide an opportunity for individuals to
learn to swim and to partake in water based and other fitness activities. Public
swimming pools are thus part of the wider social asset base in a community”.
The foregoing analysis and observations should encourage the Council to
follow through with the decision taken at the council meeting in March
2014 to fund the development of a new pool and gymnasium. In addition
we would encourage the Council to strive to have the same level of
PAGE 20
swimming pool provision as in the Boarder Midlands and Western region
and proceed with a swimming pool at Ballyogan also.
PAGE 21