Council spent £200k on doomed centre
More than £200,000 of taxpayers money has been spent on doomed Willenhall Leisure Centre over the last two years, it was revealed today.
The outlay comes despite the controversial proposal to axe the facility in Bath Street, part of the cash-strapped council's plan to save £11.2 million next year. Figures seen by the Express & Star show the total of £221,000 includes £85,000 on new central heating, £50,000 on lighting and £58,000 protecting against legionnaires' disease.
A separate report also shows a total of £58,000 is being spent on rewiring the centre.
It comes as it emerged the number of visitors to the facility was set to rise from 80,784 in 2008/09 to 95,000 this year.
Speaking after a meeting of the council's community services scrutiny panel last night, Willenhall Councillor Carl Creaney said he was appaled that so much was being spent on a centre that was expected to close.
"I think it's a disgrace," he said.
"If they've got to close it, why are they spending all this money to keep it going?
"Given that they have spent all this money though, they really need to keep it open.
"I have seen a number of health reports in recent years which refer to around 9,000 young people aged between one and 15 years old in the borough who are obese.
"There are targets for how much the NHS needs to reduce that figure and at this rate we're not going to achieve it.
"Closing leisure centres is certainly not the way to do that. It just makes you feel like hardly any thought has gone into this at all."
Leader of the council Mike Bird told last night's meeting that proposals were being considered to subsidise the use of alternative facilities over the border in Wolverhampton and also denied claims his ruling group had "laid waste" to Willenhall.
"The evidence shows 2,000 people per week were voting with their feet.
"They have a preference for facilities in Wolverhampton," he said.
Other cost-cutting measures set out by Walsall Council for the next financial year include the shedding of more than 100 jobs and a reduction of a number of services.
