Latest from Govanhill Baths Trust

Govanhill Baths Community Trust
Registered Scottish Charity No: SC 036162
Latest Media Releases

On the last version of the media page, we indicated our concern about the council response to our further particulars.

For your interest, we present our response to DRS on this matter.

We write to express our serious disappointment at the ‘conditions’ that have been laid down in Mr Frank Sheridan’s email of 10^th September, 2005. There are a number of reasons for this and they are:
Govanhill Baths Community Trust
Registered Scottish Charity No: SC 036162
Latest Media Releases

On the last version of the media page, we indicated our concern about the council response to our further particulars.

For your interest, we present our response to DRS on this matter.


We write to express our serious disappointment at the ‘conditions’ that have been laid down in Mr Frank Sheridan’s email of 10th September, 2005. There are a number of reasons for this and they are:



* no indication was given at the initial call for ‘ further particulars’ by DRS that the timescale would be six months for the delivery of a final package. Nor was it indicated that this timeframe would include full financial backing, business plan and feasibility study. In fact we were clearly given an indication that the chosen bidders would be given a further six months to develop further their proposals.



* given the inordinate delay in arriving at a position where prospective bidders would be called for (we were initially told by Mr. Sheridan that this process would be completed by February 2005), we are seriously concerned that a voluntary community group should first of all be given a mere three weeks over the summer holiday period to deliver further particulars about a project and now a mere six months to have all funding and reports in place regarding the development of the complex. Our partner organisation, Govanhill Housing Association and Govanhill Development Trust have made it clear that this is a most unrealistic timeframe.



* our concerns should be seen against a background in which this Trust was forced to call upon the good offices of MP Mohammed Sarwar, who on our behalf, brokered a meeting with local MSP and Councillors in order to persuade DRS to grant our architects access to the complex. Notwithstanding this, the Trust was refused any further access after this initial visit.



* given the complexity of the proposed project and in particular where a community feasibility study has to be undertaken, it is both unrealistic and we believe insulting to the local community and this Board to expect such a deadline to be reached. It should be noted that in its Constitution the Trust lays out its total commitment to the community in respect of the proposed regeneration.



* we are concerned that a timescale of six months is purely arbitrary and we wondered how DRS arrived at such a conclusion. Indeed we further wondered whether it would be possible for DRS itself or any other large corporation to deliver such a package in six months.



* In the current climate where the development of the Community Planning Partnerships and Community Health Partnerships have not yet been finalised it is unrealistic to expect anything more than a verbal commitment from such organisations.



* We believe, as do our partners, that if the Council is seriously determined to uphold a commitment to delivering real community participation then it would be actively demonstrating a determination to provide opportunities that would assist the community and this Trust’s creative, innovative regeneration scheme. Instead, we believe the deadline suggests otherwise.



* quite clearly DRS and the Council have placed us in direct competition with a UK-wide building group with established working and business links and partnership work with Glasgow Alliance, which in its turn is funded by Glasgow City Council. We also note that John Gallagher of Crudens , as reported on the Glasgow Alliance website, is its Finance and Personnel Director. In consequence we are of the view that this ‘competition’ is not cast on a level playing field. Not least because of our relative and different scale of resources but also because Crudens is a profit making organisation with funding readily available and we are by formal charity status, ‘not for profit’.



* Crudens Estates is intent on demolishing the building. This desire quite clearly contradicts:



1. the clear wishes of the community as represented by the all the local Community Councils;

2. all the previous user groups of the closed Govanhill Baths;

3. our own partners as listed in the document submitted to DRS, including constituency MP Mohammed Sarwar;

4. Historic Scotland, Architectural Heritage Trust, Glasgow Building Preservation Trust amongst others have made it clear that they believe the building must remain in its original use as a functioning Baths;

5. the recommendations of the GCC commissioned Park & Page/Edaw report (2002) and the separately community commissioned Archie Fairley report (2003);

6. the preference of at least 82 local businesses (that we ourselves identified in August 2005 in a preliminary marketing study)

7. a very considerable and recent community petition drawing on some 4,000-community signatures.

8. support from various public bodies, Glasgow councillors and MSP’s together with a letter, from the office of the Minister for Communities, commending the project and our determination to see the baths reopened as a Healthy Living Centre.

9. The clear policy imperative of the Scottish Executive in relation to healthy living, particularly in the context of urban and deprived areas. More so is this the case in Govanhill set in Shettleston where national statistics continue to show major health inequalities compared to other more affluent areas.



Thus, in the light of the foregoing, we would formally request that there is a major extension to the timescale outlined in Mr. Sheridan’s letter. We believe that this timescale should be both justified and consistent with what we have been advised would be reasonable to achieve by a voluntary community based initiative.



Alternatively, we believe that there should be a negotiated discussion between the council, our Board and our professional partners with regard to what can be realistically achieved in six months.



We are confident that you will be disposed to give this matter your most urgent attention.



Community Partnership Planning Meeting



At a Community Partnership Conference in the Hidden Gardens on 15th September the new leader of the council, Steven Purcell, addressed a large gathering of people who were reviewing the East Pollokshields Community Planning project funded by Rowntree. Lord Richard Best Director of the Rowntree Foundation introduced and chaired the conference.



In his address and subsequent discussion Steven Purcell made clear that;

* he was totally committed to the concept of community partnership and had ensured that he would chair the council group in this area.
* that the council would continue to make decisions it thought best because it was democratically elected to do so
* there would be a need to change of culture in the council in respect of how decisions were made and he was "well up for the debate about how decisions were made".
* social renewal and regeneration were at the heart of the agenda and there was a need for there to be more focus on people.
* the Council's role along with Community Partnerships was to tackle problems identified by people and show that people can make a difference.
* The council's role was to offer strategic direction for the city in respect of the central issues (e.g. health, education, housing, culture and leisure services etc.)

Some 80 community members were present and an overriding feeling was expressed that the expectations of local people were not being met and that this was a challenge to the local authority.