Committee Report NSC

                                                                           Item 6.1

North Somerset Council

 

REPORT TO THE STRATEGIC PLAnning and economic development Policy and Scrutiny Panel

 

Date of Meeting: 9 December 2008

 

Subject of Report: Portishead Open Air Pool Working Group Report

 

Town or parish: Portishead

 

Officer/Member presenting: Councillor Tony Moulin

 

Key Decision: Yes

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

The working group recommends that

 

1)     The Council explores the possibility of involving a not-for-profit community based trust in operating the Portishead Open Air Pool, either by transferring the asset to a trust or by setting up a partnership between the council and a trust.

 

2)     The Council initiates talks with interested parties in the community with a view to setting up a not-for-profit community trust.

 

3)     The Council introduces a decreasing sliding scale subsidy to support the trust during its first three years of operation.

 

In relation to the Council’s general management of leisure centres, the working group recommends that the Council

 

1)     produces a Swimming Pool Strategy for all of North Somerset by April 2009 to help review the management of assets, consider how pools should be provided in the future and plan for such provision. Leisure and sports facilities may not be statutory, but they are very important to residents. There is a need to ensure measures are identified in order to deliver well-maintained, modern and inviting facilities.

 

2)     explores how it can work with private businesses and interested parties in the community to improve the appeal and profitability of our leisure centres.

 

1.               Summary of Report

The Portishead Open Air Working Group has sought to complement and further develop the information and ideas presented by the Portishead Open Air Pool Review Panel in October 2008. The working group concludes that:

 

Ø      The pool is a good asset. It provides much more than just a sports facility, and there is a large potential for improving the site and the management of the facility.

 

Ø      The pool does not provide value for money. Due to the current running costs and low visitor numbers over the past two years, the subsidy per person is excessive compared with those for other pools. The council’s economic situation and the current contract make it difficult for the council to invest in the pool to increase income or reduce costs.

 

Ø      Taking the current contract and the need to provide better value for money into account, two options for the future are considered:

1)     Terminate the current contract and close the pool.

2)     Transfer the pool to a community trust.

 

Ø      Closure of the pool will be costly as health and safety issues must be addressed and paid for. The net saving of closure of the pool would be limited to £34,400 in year 1.

 

Ø      A financial appraisal (page 8) shows that transferring the pool to a community trust would provide savings compared to status quo in year 2, and a net saving in year 3.

 

Ø      Considering the benefits of the open air pool to the community in Portishead and potentially the wider district, the working group finds that a transfer to a trust could provide the council with excellent value for money.

 

Ø      The working group therefore recommends that the council explores the possibility of transferring the open air pool to a community trust.

 

2.               Details

 

Scrutiny Process

The Portishead Open Air Pool Working Group first met in spring 2008. Immediately after this, the Deputy Leader set up a Review Panel to look into ways of reducing the subsidy to the open air pool. This action was unprecedented.

 

The Review Panel’s report was referred to the Community Services and Strategic Planning and Economic Development Policy and Scrutiny Panels on 6 and 21 October 2008. Both panels agreed to revigorate their joint working group to consider the Review Panel’s report in more detail.

 

The working group first met on 8 October. The group identified flaws in DC Leisure’s accounting procedures, and in parts of the data backing the Review Report’s conclusions. The group decided there was a need to complement the findings of the Review Panel and focus on 1) ways of increasing pool usage, and 2) ways of decreasing costs. An extension to the initial deadline of 28 October 2008 was granted.

 

The working group has:

Ø      Interviewed seven witnesses from local stakeholder groups and David Lawrence, North Somerset Council’s Assistant Director of Environment and Development (see appendix E for a full list).

Ø      Undertaken a review of open air pools in the UK, which have been transferred from local authorities to community trusts or managed by the local authority and a trust working in partnership. This included a survey which was sent to 10 trusts. Four trusts responded, two by filling in the survey, another two by offering more general comments.

Ø      Considered written representations from local stakeholders and residents.

Ø      Investigated the marketing of the pool on the Internet.

 

The working group would have liked to interview more expert witnesses, and to have undertaken a more detailed survey of lido trust solutions. However, this has not been possible due to time constraints.

 

Findings

1.  The open air pool provides something special

The pool

Ø      is not just a sports facility. It is a community asset, an attraction for family outings and potentially for tourists.

Ø      is an opportunity for people allergic to the fumes of indoor pools to swim.

Ø      contributes to the special character of Portishead’s Lakegrounds – an iconic part of Portishead.

 

2.  The open air pool provided little value for money in 2007 and 2008

Ø      The subsidy levels per person were high in 20007/08 because visitor numbers were particularly low.

Ø      Attendance was higher in 2008/09, but a major repair to the electrical system pushed up the subsidy per visit to ~£12[1]. If the extraordinary repairs are disregarded the subsidy is ~£10. Both figures are well above the subsidy levels at the council’s other Leisure Centres (between £0.54 at Hutton Moor Leisure Centre and £1.74 at Strode Leisure Centre per visit[2]).

 

3.  Many factors impact on an open air pool’s success

The weather is important for the pool’s success, but so is:

·        the water temperature

·        the pool’s state of repair

·        the marketing of the pool

·        the opening hours

·        a learner/paddling pool

 

Portishead Open Air Pool has:

Ø      Lower water temperatures than other open air pools looked at. Other pools aim for 27-30°C, Portishead only 23°C.

Ø      The pool is in a good state of repair, but it has a dated look and is in need of refurbishment.

Ø      The marketing budget for the pool is very small, and the internet based advertisement is very poor (see appendix A).

Ø      The pool’s opening hours exclude people working full time from using the pool on weekdays. Also there are no special events for particular groups. All other pools looked at have evening sessions – the earliest close at 7pm compared to 6pm at Portishead. Some pools provided morning sessions and had special sessions for young people and for parents and toddlers.

Ø      Portishead Open Air Pool has a paddling pool, but this closed in 2006. It is not clear why DC Leisure decided to do so, but other pools emphasise the importance of a learner/paddling pool (see appendix D).

 

The Review Panel argued that the importance of these factors were negligible compared to the weather. The working group has talked to local stakeholders, lay people and managers of other pools, and whilst the weather is an important factor that makes an open air pool more vulnerable than an indoor pool, the working group has found that

1)     there is no clear statistical relationship between weather and attendance (see appendix C).

2)     other open air pool have had good seasons over the last couple of years.

3)     swimming pool professionals and local swimmers all emphasise the points above as equally important, particularly the pool water temperature.

4)     warmer pools (~28°C degrees) attract people all year around.[3] With its current water temperatures Portishead Open Air Pool could not achieve this.

 

It has been raised that DC Leisure has taken little initiative to improve the pool’s popularity, for example by introducing better advertisement of the pool, increasing the opening hours, introducing special events, making improvements to the site or reopening the learner pool has been raised. The Review Report suggests that this is a business decision based on a cost-benefit calculation of the impact of such measures. However, DC Leisure has a large contract with the council and makes most of its profit at Parish Wharf and Strode Leisure Centres, particularly from the fitness rooms. From a business perspective it makes better sense for DC Leisure to focus on these facilities than on the open air pool.

 

4.  Energy costs are a major post – but innovation could reduce it

In 2008, heating the pool cost £18,852.[4] The pool uses oil and gas, but through talks with people involved in the Portishead Pool Community Trust, the working group has learned that there are substantial savings to be made from using pool covers and solar energy. For example

Ø      A pool cover reduces the heat loss by approximately 70%. Assuming the pool is covered 12 hours a day it can save around 35% of its heating costs (£6,598 in 2008).

Ø      A cover costs between £8-10,000, a cost which would be recouped within two years – as was the case at Backwell Pool.

Ø      Solar energy can potentially supply between 42-52% of the pool’s heat requirement. The savings would be substantial enough to pay back the investment in 7-12 years depending on collector type. See appendix F for details.

 

5.  The current use of the café site

Other open air pools suggest that a café is less important in attracting visitors than the factors above. However,

Ø      the site could be leased to an entrepreneur as a year-round café/restaurant serving Lakeground visitors as well as pool users

Ø      this lease would be a steady income to the pool, but the option has not been explored.

 

6.  The current contract binds us

Under the council’s current contract with DC Leisure, savings on energy and 90% of any increased income from higher visitor numbers would go to the contractor. The working group finds that this is a barrier to improving the pool’s current financial situation. There is no incentive for the council or DC Leisure to introduce cost-saving or income-generating improvements.

 

7.  Transferring the pool to a community trust could be a viable solution

The working group has found many examples of successfully transferred open air pools across the country (see appendix B and D). It also finds that the Review Panel did not fully explore this option including the actual costs related to a transfer.

 

A transfer could remove or significantly reduce a council’s expense. It would also be in line with the Government vision of local authorities acting as facilitating and catalytic organisations that work with grass-roots community organisations, other social entrepreneurs and public sector organisations to make better use of public assets.[5]

 

Advantages of trust management

A trust has many organisational and financial advantages compared to a local authority:

 


 

 

 

See appendix G for how a transfer of a community asset can benefit the community.

 

Portishead Pool Community Trust

A handful of residents has already set up a trust (see appendix H for details) with the aim to run the pool and potentially take ownership of the site. They have shown initiative by setting up a company limited by guarantee; putting forward a draft business plan; a business case for installing solar heating and a pool cover; and a technical report. Support from volunteers and local businesses has also been secured.

 

Portishead Pool Community Trust is also

 

The council’s role and expenses

The pool is in good condition. Some improvements are desirable, but there are no major liabilities for the council to address prior to transferring the pool. The Council can minimise risks through initiating sound dialogue and ensuring financial support in the first years of a Trust’s stewardship. [7]

 


Options for the Future

The working group has identified the following five options for the future:

 

Option 1)          Status quo
The council continues with DC Leisure for the remainder of their contract.

 

Option 2)          Continue contract but put in more resources
From next season the council could invest in the pool for example in a new sustainable energy/heating system, better quality marketing, re-opening children’s pool, leasing out the café and extending the opening hours.

 

Option 3)          Negotiate a new contract
– with DC Leisure, to run from next season. To include better incentives for the contractor and council to improve the site and the running of the pool.

 

Option 4)          Terminate the contract and close the pool
The original contract with DC Leisure has been poorly conceived and allows for no incentives for either party to increase volume of attendances.

Option 5)          Transfer the pool to a trust

 

Options 1, 2 and 3 have been dismissed for the following reasons:

 

1)     Status Quo:
The current cost is unacceptably high in light of the low visitor numbers, and there is little prospect of improvements under the current contract (see above).

 

2)     Put in more resources:
Financially the council would not benefit due to the outlay of the current contract. It is not a sound solution to invest with no access to the gains.

 

3)     Negotiate new contract:
It’s unlikely that DC Leisure would want to give up a good deal three years before their contract runs out.

 

Viable Options: Closing the Pool or Transferring It to a Trust?

The table below compares the costs of the two options. It shows that:

 

Ø      Closing the pool would achieve a £34,400 saving in 2009/10, but there would be ongoing costs associated with mothballing, site security and perhaps demolition in future years. 

Ø      Compared to closing the pool, a transfer to a trust would result in a net saving to the council of £14,500 by year 3.  After year 3 there would be no further substantial costs to the council.
Table 1            Comparison of costs for closing the pool versus transferring the pool to a trust

Expenditure/income

Option

2009/10

2010/11

2011/12

Closure

Trust

Closure

Trust

Closure

Trust

Expenditure operating site

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contractor payment

 

£75,000

 

 

 

 

Premises maintenance

 

£10,000

 

 

 

 

Premises NNDC

 

£9,000

 

 

 

 

Central support

£6,000

£6,000

£4,000

£4,000

£4,000

£1,500

Subsidy (trust)

 

 

 

£30,000

 

£15,000

Total

£6,000

£100,000

£4,000

£34,000

£4,000

£16,500

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Expenditure closing site/terminating contract

 

 

 

 

 

 

Electrical repairs 2008/09

£6,600

 

£6,600

 

£6,600

 

Contractor penalty payment

£30,000

 

£30,000

£30,000

£30,000

£30,000

Mothballing/site security

£20,000

 

£20,000

 

£20,000

 

Total

£56,600

£0

£56,600

£30,000

£56,600

£30,000

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Income[8]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Council’s share of entrance fee

 

£3,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Net expenditure

£62,600

£97,000

£60,600

£64,000

£60,600

£46,500

Annual saving

£34,400

 

£3,400

 

 

£14,100

 

Table 1 assumes that:

-        If the pool is transferred to a trust, DC Leisure will manage it alongside the trust for the first year. In years 2 and 3 the trust will take over supported by a two-year, phased grant from the council.

-        The 2008/9 capital investment in electrical repairs would be lost if the pool was closed. It is shown as an opportunity cost phased out over 2008 and the remaining three years of DC Leisure’s contract.

-        Mothballing/site security cost incurred if the pool is closed would be ~£20,000 per year.[9]

-        The Trust would share the council’s maintenance costs during 2009/10 by using volunteer labour to carry out general maintenance works.

-        The central support costs would be similar for the next two years regardless of whether the site was closed or transferred to a trust. There are substantial costs involved in either of the two scenarios (breaking the contract and maintaining a closed site or supporting a trust during its initial stages). If the pool was transferred to a trust it’s very likely that officers could begin to withdraw from the facility from year 3.[10] This would not be the case if the site had been closed and consequently still had to be maintained/prepared for development.

 

Conclusion: Preferred Option

An ongoing council commitment to running the pool is not an option. The costs are disproportionate to the benefits.

 

Considering the advantages of having an open air pool and of introducing trust management mentioned above the working group finds that:

Ø      a £27,000 extra spend compared to the cost of closing the site would provide very good value for money for the council, especially as the council would still save more than £80,000 over three years compared to the status quo.

Ø      with the substantial support from the council assumed in table 1 and the amount of commitment, energy and ideas in the local community, the trust would have very good basis for succeeding.

Ø      if the trust should fail the council would be under no obligation to take back the pool. Indeed, the council could argue that having transferred the pool to a trust it had exhausted its options and fulfilled its obligations to the community.

 

The working group therefore recommends that the council explores the possibility of transferring the pool to a community trust before making a decision to close the pool. 

 

Risks Arising from Closing the Pool

If the council chose not to follow the working group’s recommendations and close the pool immediately, it could substantially harm the reputation of North Somerset Council.

 

By not giving residents the chance to develop and secure a local community asset which they have shown a deep interest in preserving, the council could be presenting itself as an organisation, which

1)     does not engage with local people, and

2)     does not work in partnership with community groups to enhance local areas.

 

A 2007 survey showed that North Somerset’s residents feel less well informed by the council than a few years earlier. They also feel there are few opportunities to get involved. An immediate closure of the pool would be very likely to add to these concerns.

 

3.               Consultation

The Working Group has consulted local stakeholders, regular users of the pool, council officers, and managers of open air pools in the UK that are managed by community trusts.

 

4.               Financial Implications

See page 7 and 8

 

5.               RISK MANAGEMENT

See page 6 and 9

 

6.               Equality Implications

The delivery of leisure facilities has several equality implications.

Ø      The situation of leisure facilities determines how accessible it is for people who cannot or will not use private cars.

Ø      The design and layout of a leisure centre can either be a barrier to Disabled people or encourage their use of the facilities.

 

Through its wider stakeholder involvement, a community trust swimming pool could potentially address needs that are not currently being met.

 

7.               Corporate Implications

Transferring the pool to a trust could be one way for the council to address the issues raised by the Government in general, and the Quirk Review in particular (see page 5 and appendix G).

 

8.               Options considered

The working group considered five options for the future, see section 2.

 

 

Authors

Councillor Tony Moulin (Chair)

Councillor Andy Cole

Councillor Bob Cook

Councillor David Jolley

Councillor Alan McMurray

Councillor David Pasley

Councillor Howard Roberts

Councillor Clive Webb

 

Contact Officer:

Jo Gadegaard

Scrutiny and Performance Officer

( 01275 88 4282
8 Jo.Gadegaard@n-somerset.gov.uk

 

Background Papers

APPENDIX A: Limited Marketing

APPENDIX B: Swimming Pools Run by Trusts

APPENDIX C: Relation between Weather and Number of Visitors

APPENDIX D: Responses to Questionnaire to Swimming Pool Trusts

APPENDIX E: List of Witnesses

APPENDIX F: Solar Energy

APPENDIX G: How Transfers Can Benefit the Community

APPENDIX H: Portishead Pool Community Trust’s Outline Proposal

 

 


APPENDIX A

 

 

Limited marketing

 

Many of the local residents the working group talked to have highlighted the lack of advertising of the pool. Many regular users report that they usually have to call the council to find out when the pool opens for the summer season.

 

Using the internet to get information about the pool

You need to know what you’re looking for in order to obtain information about the pool online.

 

In a Google search for “outdoor swimming pools near Bristol”, Portishead Open Air Pool comes up as the sixth hit, but the link is for www.192.com/directory.cfm/AVON/SWIMMING_POOL - 48k, a general business site, which provides the pool’s address but no further information such as opening hours or a link to a site dedicated to the pool.

 

When searching for “Portishead outdoor pool” (assuming that the person has enough knowledge of the area to know that there is a pool in Portishead), none of the hits on the first page take you to the pools website (either the council site or DC Leisure’s). As such, a google search doesn’t give you access to information about timetables and prices.

 

In order to get to pool specific sites, you have to know that the pool is run by NSC and that such information can be found on the Council’s webpage. Getting to the specific page is not easy though: it’s four steps from the front page, see below. The pool’s webpage is copied in below – you don’t have to be a marketing exec to see that the page leaves some room for improvement:

 


North Somerset Council’s Webpage for Portishead Open Air Pool

 

Home > Leisure > Leisure centres > Centres > Portishead Open Air Pool

Portishead Open Air Pool

Image of Portishead Open Air Pool



The Esplanade
Portishead BS20 7HD


Telephone:
01275 843 454


Portishead Open Air Pool is situated at the Lakegrounds on the town's promenade with stunning views of the estuary.

Its heated pool and sunbathing terraces are popular in summer months with a cafe also on site.

Season tickets will be available for the pool at £80 for adults and £47.50 for juniors and concessions, for the 2008 season. Alternately, you can pay per visit.

For further information please visit the Portishead Open Air Pool website.

Opening times:

Pool opens 24 May 2008
24 May to 25 July
Monday to Friday 10am to 6pm
Saturday and Sunday 10am to 1.30pm and 2.30 to 6pm

26 July to 31 August
Everyday 10am to 1.30pm and 2.30 to 6pm

1 to 28 September
Monday to Friday 2pm to 6pm
Saturday to Sunday 10am to 1.30pm and 2.30 and 6pm

 

Facilities / Accessibility:

33m main pool, cafè and tiered leisure and sunbathing area.

 

Directions:

Leave M5 at Junction 19 and follow signs to Portishead Lakegrounds. The pool is located on the Esplanade at the end of the Lakegrounds.

Map

 

Regular Events:


DC Leisure’s webpage for the Open Air Pool

(The site which the Council’s webpage provides a link to above)

 


APPENDIX B

 

Swimming Pools Run by Trusts

 

There are several examples of pools around the country which have been overtaken either wholly or in part by Trusts after local authorities decided that they were no longer able to run them. The following pools are some of the more recent ones:

 

Ø      The Lido at Chipping Norton (West Oxfordshire)

Run by community trust since 2006

Ø      Bovey Tracey Swimming Pool (Devon)

Run by volunteers

Ø      Weardale Open Air Swimming Pool (Durham)

Run by community trust since late 1990s

Ø      The Pells Pool (Lewes)

Run by a community association since 1999

Ø      Bourne Outdoor Swimming Pool (Lincolnshire)

Run by a preservation trust since 1990

Ø      Stonehaven Outdoor Swimming Pool (Aberdeenshire)

Run in partnership between community trust and council since 1994

Ø      Sandford Lido (Cheltenham)

Run by community trust since 1996

 

Most of the examples are similar to the one in Portishead. In Chipping Norton and Bourne, local councils built new indoor pools and decided that the old outdoor pools were redundant. In most cases the pools were rundown and badly in need of investments. In some cases, for example Stonehaven Open Air Pool, visitor numbers had decreased rapidly over the years just prior to the council’s plans to close the sites.

 

These community run pools have the following similar characteristics:

 

Financial Assistance from Local Authorities and Town Councils

During the first couple of years, the trust received financial support from either their District/County Council or the Town Council. For example:

Ø      In Chipping Norton the Town Council supported the pool for the first two years with £3,000 per year.

Ø      In Pells the Town Council contributed with £10,000 per year for the first three years, and still supports the trust through a partnership.

Ø      In Pells, throughout the first year, the District Council ran the pool as normal, but the Trust worked alongside the normal staff and was allowed to raise funds by selling refreshments.

Ø      Sandford Park took over a council car park to raise funds using a pay-and-display system.

 

Breaking even?

Most pools have an operating deficit which they cover by fundraising but successful trusts have turned around the business, for example

Ø      Pells has turned a deficit into a profit (Pells)

Ø      Stonehaven has almost tripled their visitor numbers (from below 15,000 to near 40,000)

 

Fundraising

Most trusts have managed to attract funding to hugely improve the sites, something which councils often have neglected prior to the trust taking over, for example,

Ø      Weardale has installed night-time pool cover, life-guard lookout chair, picnic tables and chairs with sunshades, plants, children’s slide and springboard, nameplate over entrance, facilities for people with disabilities, replacement of boilers, refurbishment of changing rooms and kitchen, additional water treatment equipment, new fencing and new flood lights.

Ø      Pells has secured funding for the first phase of a regeneration of the pool including providing changing and toilet facilities and improved access for Disabled people. Have also ensured funding for upgrading the straining and chemical dosing system.

Ø      Bourne has constructed a toddler pool, sand pit and play house.

Ø      Stonehaven has completely renovated the pool in art-deco colours, replaced their water chute, provided sun awnings, floodlights, thermal pool covers and set up marketing initiatives such as sponsorships and a new website.

Ø      Sandford Lido has secured full funding to complete a refurbishment of the main swimming pool and introduce new activities and educational programmes.

 

Often the fundraising is part of how a community trust raises awareness about their pool, for example,

Ø      Weardale has a monthly Sunday morning fundraising car boot fair where many people discover the pool for the first time.

 

Water temperatures

The pools are kept at substantially higher temperatures than Portishead currently is[11]:

Ø      Weardale is kept at 27 degrees

Ø      Bovey Tracey at 29 degrees

Ø      Stonehaven at 29 degrees

Ø      Bourne at 27-30 degrees

 

Opening hours – catering for locals

All pools run by trusts have extended opening hours, mainly in the evening, to cater for people in full-time employment and other groups[12]:

Ø      Stonehaven is open until 7.30pm, and have midnight swimming sessions

Ø      Bovey Tracey has early morning sessions (7-8.30am), closes at 7pm and has mother-and-toddler sessions

Ø      Pells is open until 7pm (9pm on fine days), and has “happy hour” between 6-7pm (nearly half-price entry tickets).

Ø      Weardale is open until 7.30pm and has special lane swim sessions in the evening.

Ø      Bourne is open until 7pm, and has under-15s fun nights two evenings a week

Ø      Sandford Park is open until 7.30pm and a special Christmas day swim session.

 


APPENDIX C

 

Relation between Weather and Number of Visitors

 

Several members of the public has pointed out that whilst there is a relation between nice weather and the number of visitors, statistical analysis suggest that there is no absolute correlation between the two: the weather seems an important but not overriding factor in determining a pool’s success.

 

Mr David Coombs, a member of the Portishead Pool Community Trust, has provided the working group with the following analysis of the correlation between the weather and attendance based on the Review Report figures (others have submitted similar pieces of analysis):

 

“I have carried out a statistical analysis on the extrapolated data:

 

Data pair

Correlation?

Combined attendance for each month (2000-2008) and temperature

Yes

Combined attendance (2000-2008) and sunshine

No

May attendance and temperatures

No

June attendance and temperatures

Yes

July attendance and temperatures

Yes

August attendance and temperatures

(no data given)

September attendance and temperatures

No

May attendance and sunshine

No

June attendance and sunshine

Yes

July attendance and sunshine

Yes

August attendance and sunshine

No

September attendance and sunshine

Yes – but negative”

 

David Coombs: Response to Review Panel Report on Portishead Open Air Pool, 4 November 2008

 

 

 

 


APPENDIX D

 

Responses to Questionnaire to Swimming Pool Trusts

 

Hampton Pool Trust (received 9 Nov 2008)

1.  What year was your organisation incorporated?

 

1984

 

2.  Is your organisation a:

(Please tick the right box)

 

Registered Charity

YES

Public Ltd company

YES

Other

 

 

If ‘Other’, please list:

Hampton Pool Trust was incorporated in 1984 as a not-for-profit company limited by guarantee (named Hampton Pool Ltd) and was registered as an educational charity in 1986.

Its name was changed to Hampton Pool Trust in 2008.

 

3.  What year did you run the pool for the first time?

 

1985

 

4.  What were the total costs of running the pool in

 

2008

£ y/e 31.3.08. accounts n/a

2007

£  y/e 31.3.07.    779,000

2006

£  y/e 31.3.06.    638,000

 

5.  What was your total income (including subsidies and grants) during

 

2008

£  y/e 31.3.08.  n/a

2007

£  y/e 31.3.07.  762,000

2006

£  y/e 31.3.06.   632,000

 


6.  Many factors can determine how popular a pool is. In your experience, which of the following factors are most likely to have a positive effect on the number of visitors to the pool?

 

Ø      Please rate the importance of each factor from 1 to 5, where 1 is ‘most likely to have a positive effect on the number of visitors’ and 5 ‘least likely to have an effect’

 

Factor

Rate (1, 2, 3, 4 or 5)

Sunny and warm weather

1

That it’s a weekend/bank holiday

2

That the pool and other facilities are in a good state of repair

1

Warm pool water temperatures

1

A good café/restaurant on site

3

Marketing of the pool

1

Early morning and evening swim sessions

1

A learner/paddling pool

1

Other activities such as special events and private hire

2

 

Other – please list                                                                                 Rate (1, 2, 3, 4 or 5)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7.  In 2008, roughly how much income did you get from the following sources?

 

Local Council

£ 28,500

Entrance/membership fees

£ 700,000

Charitable grants

£ nil

Individual donations

£  10,000

 

Other – please list:

1.four fund-raising concerts

£ 20,000

2.

£

3.

£

 

8.  During your first two years of operation, did your local council support you financially or otherwise (for example by a subsidy or by transferring an asset such as a pay and display car park to your trust)?

(Please tick the appropriate box)

 

Yes

   yes

No

 

 


8a. If yes, how did the council support you, financially or otherwise?

(Please comment below)

 

They provided matching funding of £20k towards our re-opening costs of £40k.  They helped to arrange a Government  MSC grant which provided free staff for reopening refurbishment work and the first summer season.

They seconded a senior member of staff from a Borough indoor pool to manage our pool in its first season.  They provided assistance to run the plant room until we had our own staff to take this on.

 

9. What was the biggest challenge for your organisation;

 

Ø      in the period when you were negotiating with the council about taking over the pool?
(Please comment below)

 

A perception among some Councillors and Council staff that there was no way that our open-air summer pool could be made financially viable and that open-air pools were now “dinosaurs” and that the only way forward was via indoor pools. In their last full summer season (1979) , they had 12,000 swims in the unheated pool and they told us that this involved a subsidy of more than £3 per swim.

 

We had to address this perception by showing that the gap between expenditure and income from an open-air pool could theoretically, and then in practice,  be narrowed to virtually nothing, by a series of measures.

Eg heating the water to a comfortable temperature (28 degrees centigrade), using thick insulating pool covers to minimise heat loss whenever the pool is not in use, promoting the facility through big leaflet distributions (eg 60,000 summer timetables), dispensing with the large central management overhead charge which our Council was making, and making extensive use of  the leisure time of trustees and other volunteers for many tasks , whilst using professional paid staff for day-to-day management and lifeguarding.

 

Ø      in the first two years after taking over the pool?

      (Please comment below)

 

Proving our belief that HEATED open-air swimming was still attractive to many people, often in preference to swimming in indoor pools, and proving that we could cope positively with the management and marketing of a public swimming pool and virtually eliminate the need for a subsidy.

 

10.  What is the biggest challenge for you today?

(Please comment below)

 

Our biggest challenge is continue to provide an excellent public service, which moves with the times, to the many people of all ages in our local community who benefit from our services, despite all the difficulties which beset our enterprise.   Come what may we must always be financially disciplined and find practical ways to cover our ever-increasing running costs. This includes expanding the numbers of swim-pupils, first class-marketing and never becoming complacent. It involves looking for ways to reduce our spiralling energy costs.

 

11. What has been your biggest success since taking over the pool?

(Please comment below)

 

Our biggest success has been to retain and grow the active support of our local community for the many things that they can enjoy at the pool and thus to increase attendances more than tenfold and to maintain financial solvency.  We are now open every day of the year  compared with 100 days a year when we started in 1985 and our water temperature is maintained at 28 degrees centigrade (and higher in the learner pool.).

 

Having survived the first couple of years, Hampton Pool has grown and developed over the ensuing 20 years and is now vastly improved from the

derelict cold water facility which the Council made available to us in 1985.

Attendances are now running at about 125,000 a year. (from 12,000).

We added an excellent learner pool (paid for by a grant from a charity).

We added a gym and multi-purpose room (for yoga and pilates classes)

and sauna . We managed to add a half-acre lawn which is great for picnics and games. Having failed to persuade the National Lottery to fund an ambitious programme to refurbish and improve our main swimming tank/pool

and 1961 support building (changing rooms/showers/ reception etc) we have instead raised the monies needed from various other sources (own fund-raising activities, grants from Council and a major local charity) and have invested close on £900,000 on this.  We were granted the Investors in People award.  We run four remarkable fund-raising open-air concerts each summer which include a swim and raise £20,000.  We have entered into a management agreement with YMCA Kingston and Wimbledon on 1.4.07 and this is working well.

 

Our annual grant from our council (LBRUT) has just reached £30,000, having started at £27,500 in 1986. This grant is targeted to assist us to accommodate people with disabilities and other special needs. Next summer we will enter our twenty-fifth summer.

 

Our permanent aim is to achieve breakeven on a year by year basis (with small deficits being balanced by small surpluses), and this we have so far done.

 


Chipping Norton Lido Ltd (received 13 November 2008)

1.  What year was your organisation incorporated?

 

2004

 

2.  Is your organisation a:

(Please tick the right box)

 

Registered Charity

x

Public Ltd company

 

Other

 

 

If ‘Other’, please list:

 

 

 

3.  What year did you run the pool for the first time?

 

2005

 

4.  What were the total costs of running the pool in

 

2008

£77,141

2007

£83,244

2006

£79,644

 

5.  What was your total income (including subsidies and grants) during

 

2008

£77,031

2007

£81,701

2006

£85,714

 


6.  Many factors can determine how popular a pool is. In your experience, which of the following factors are most likely to have a positive effect on the number of visitors to the pool?

 

Ø      Please rate the importance of each factor from 1 to 5, where 1 is ‘most likely to have a positive effect on the number of visitors’ and 5 ‘least likely to have an effect’

 

Factor

Rate (1, 2, 3, 4 or 5)

Sunny and warm weather

1

That it’s a weekend/bank holiday

2

That the pool and other facilities are in a good state of repair

4

Warm pool water temperatures

2

A good café/restaurant on site

3

Marketing of the pool

3

Early morning and evening swim sessions

3

A learner/paddling pool

2

Other activities such as special events and private hire

2

 

Other – please list                                                                                 Rate (1, 2, 3, 4 or 5)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7.  In 2008, roughly how much income did you get from the following sources?

 

Local Council

£3,000

Entrance/membership fees

£41,777

Charitable grants

£4,376

Individual donations

£2,012

 

Other – please list:

1. Fundraising

£18,347

2. Interest

£1,771

3.

£

 

8.  During your first two years of operation, did your local council support you financially or otherwise (for example by a subsidy or by transferring an asset such as a pay and display car park to your trust)?

(Please tick the appropriate box)

 

Yes

x

No

 

 


8a. If yes, how did the council support you, financially or otherwise?

(Please comment below)

 

The Town Council of Chipping Norton (equivalent to a parish council) awarded us a grant of £6,000 per year for the first two years. West Oxfordshire District Council (from whom we had taken over control of the pool) awarded us a small grant (c£1,200) towards lifeguard and National Pool Plant Operator training costs.

 

9. What was the biggest challenge for your organisation;

 

Ø      in the period when you were negotiating with the council about taking over the pool?
(Please comment below)

 

Getting to grips with all the different aspects of running a pool, eg health & safety requirements, recruitment of staff and TUPE negotiations, negotiating a lease with the District Council and the owner of the land, the Chipping Norton & District Fire Brigade Charitable Trust.

 

Ø      in the first two years after taking over the pool?
(Please comment below)

 

Recruiting a good manager;

Managing the cultural shift for the staff from ‘local authority-run’ to independently run on behalf of the community;

Continual requirement to fundraise to cover operational deficit

 

10.  What is the biggest challenge for you today?

(Please comment below)

 

Rising energy prices, especially gas

Need to replace elderly plant inherited from District Council

 

11. What has been your biggest success since taking over the pool?

(Please comment below)

 

Winning the Amateur Swimming Association’s Community Project of the Year award in 2007 for our work with young people and winning the Oxfordshire Business Awards Charity of the Year in 2008.

 

Both awards recognise that we are delivering against our vision of being a ‘swimming pool with a social conscience’.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX E

 

 

List of witnesses

 

The working group has interviewed the following witnesses:

 

  1. Barry Walters, Chairman of Portishead Town Council
  2. William Hunter, Treasurer of the Friends of Portishead Open Air Pool
  3. Tonia Carless, co-founder of the Friends of Portishead Open Air Pool
  4. Roger Whitfield, Portishead Pool Community Trust
  5. David Coombs, Portishead Pool Community Trust
  6. Duncan Faulkes, expert adviser to Portishead Pool Community Trust on use of solar energy and thermal pool covers
  7. Ray Shields, user of Portishead Open Air Pool
  8. David Lawrence, Assistant Director of the Development and Environment Department, North Somerset Council.

 


APPENDIX F








APPENDIX G

 

How Transfers can Benefit the Community in General – and Portishead in Particular

 

Transfers can benefit the community in several ways. According to the Quirk Review of Community Management and Ownership of Public Assets it can do so in the following ways:

 

(The Quirk Review (2007), p15)

 

A transfer of Portishead Open Air Pool could have the following specific advantages:


APPENDIX H

 

Portishead Pool Community Trust’s Outline Proposal

 

 

PORTISHEAD

OPEN AIR

POOL

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Community Leisure Facility

For now  For the Future  For Everyone

 
 

 


 

Outline Proposal (updated)

Prepared by

Portishead Pool Community Trust

November 2008

            

 


Executive Summary

Portishead open air pool is a unique asset on the Lake Grounds and threats to closure have resulted in strong local opposition. However as far as North Somerset Council is concerned, the pool is a financial liability, and the Review Panel report concluded that the only solution is closure.

 

The Portishead Pool Community Trust has been created in order to keep the pool open by taking over the running of the pool from the council and help reduce or eliminate council financial liabilities. It is the trust’s intention that over an agreed timetable the pool will ultimately operate independently of local authority financial subsidies. The Review Panel report concluded that a trust was not a viable option; we show that a trust, working in partnership with the local authority, is in fact a viable solution to the problem.

 

Introduction

The people of Portishead have demonstrated that they want their pool to remain open. The Council is operating under financial constraints, and needs to reduce expenditure. The Portishead Pool Community Trust (PPCT) offers a solution that satisfies both requirements.

 

Aims of the Portishead Pool Community Trust

The aims of the Trust are:

·        To keep the Portishead open-air pool open for the people of Portishead and surrounding areas, and for future generations.

·        To manage, maintain and enhance the pool as a strong, vibrant community facility.

·        To work in partnership with North Somerset Council (NSC), Portishead and North Weston Town Council and local community organisations.

 

Our vision

The PPCT aims to maintain a thriving open air swimming pool and facilities for local people and visitors. We aim to develop an imaginative and exciting pool which will take advantage of the pool’s unique setting.

 

Who are we?

The Portishead Community Pool Trust is a community group, which will have charitable status. The initial trustees, and interim roles, are:

 

·        David Coombes (Technical communications consultant) - Chair

·        Pat Gardener (Police community support officer) – Vice-chair

·        Prof David Gunnell (Professor of epidemiology, University of Bristol / Medical Practitioner) - Health and Wellbeing

·        Dr Jane Humphreys (Principal lecturer in experimental psychology, University of the West of England) - Secretary

·        Andy Richards (Maintenance supervisor & consulting engineer) - Technical

·        Roger Whitfield (Company director) - Finance

 

We are setting up steering and management groups to run sub-committees (such as finance, communications, and technical). These groups comprise members of the local community, including; those who have signed the petition (currently standing at around 3,000 names), signed up as supporters of a community-run pool (currently around 150 names), supported the Save Portishead Open-air Pool (STOP) campaign, and members of the Friends of the Portishead Open Air Pool pressure group. Local people and pool users will be invited to become Members of the Trust, which confers voting rights at general meetings, and put themselves forward as additional trustees.

 

The town of Portishead has a record of successful community trusts (such as the Portishead Lifeboat Trust) from which we can learn and from which expertise and experience has been incorporated in the planning of this proposal.  Portishead also has a strong community spirit, as demonstrated by the marches, public meetings and petition. We wish to share this facility with the rest of the region, which has few open air swimming facilities; we believe that ultimately the open air pool will be a popular tourist attraction.

 

What were the objections to the ‘trust solution’?

The following objections to a trust taking over the pool were raised in the Review Panel Report:

 

1.     No appropriate body is in place to take on the responsibility

2.     Forming a trust would take at least two years

3.     Forming a trust would incur costs of £50,000

4.     A trust would require assurances of an endowment and a continued subsidy at least until such time as alternative sponsorship could be guaranteed

5.     The council would be required to spend substantial sums of money bringing the facilities up to an acceptable health and safety standard

6.     If the trust failed the council would come under pressure to take the pool back

7.     Weather is the main factor influencing the viability of the pool and the major risk in terms of financial viability and suitability

 

We counter all these objections; and the first three points above are not true.

 

1. No appropriate body is in place to take on the responsibility

A trust has been set up; although it is true that it did not exist at the time of the report.

 

2. Forming a trust would take at least two years

Forming a trust has been achieved in the six weeks since the publication of the Review Panel’s report. The trust is a company limited by guarantee, and follows the model set by many other charitable institutions around the country, including some successful community pools (see Appendix).

 

3. Forming a trust would incur costs of £50,000

The costs of forming the trust were minimal, not funded by any public body, and entirely covered by donations from local people (current total £4,000+).

 

4. A trust would require assurances of an endowment and a continued subsidy at least until such time as alternative sponsorship could be guaranteed

The trustees are working on a detailed business plan, and hope to work with North Somerset Council in the development of this plan. It is clear that funding is available from various local and national sources, including funding streams that would not be available to the council, and the Trust is looking at ways of maximising these opportunities (such as Lottery Heritage Fund/Community Investment Fund/Awards For All, Carbon Trust, Entrust Landfill Communities Fund, and local council grants).

 

There will always be risks involved in the setting up of a trust, and for the council, the major risk is the fear of financial failure. With a facility of this type, the risk of financial failure is greatest in the early years, but this risk can be minimised. The trust is developing a sound business plan, and raising funds from the community. The council can help minimise risk in the early years by ensuring that some kind of financial support is given to the trust. This support can take many forms: financial, such as grants, priming funds, subsidies, or reductions in business rates; administrative or legal assistance by allowing the trustees access to the council’s solicitors or insurance advisors, or a full partnership where the council has representatives on the board of trustees.

 

The trust recognises that ongoing subsidy may not be a viable long-term solution for NSC. However, it seems that many pools in North Somerset receive a subsidy of around £1.40 per visit and if the council were to consider a similar level of payment to the trust not as a flat subsidy, but as an incentive payment to encourage short-term growth, it would have the effect of bringing this pool on a par with other pools in North Somerset, while having the added advantage of minimising the risk of financial failure. It is the trust’s intention that over an agreed timetable the pool will ultimately operate independently of local authority financial subsidies.

 

A detailed risk analysis is being conducted by the trust, although this is limited in scope until further information is available from the council.

 

In the short-term, the pool does not require any immediate large capital expenditure in order to re-open next year. In order to run the pool more cost-effectively, the trust is looking at installing a pool cover and solar water heating; various sources of funding are available for this (e.g. the E.ON UK Community Environment programme and the Energy Saving Trust), and our discussions with other community-managed pools (see Appendix) show the levels of savings that can be made through an efficient energy programme. Additional savings would be made by appropriate use of trained and qualified volunteer staff. The Trust is working on a phased regeneration and development plan in order to maximise revenue (see Marketing Strategy).

Marketing strategy

Key Objectives: 

1.      Restore the pool to former hours/season (see Immediate objectives below)

2.      Improve the pool in line with similar open air pools (Short-term objectives)

3.      Develop the pool in the medium and long-term to produce a first-class attraction for Portishead and the surrounding areas

4.      Work with user representatives from local primary/secondary school s and other local groups, as well as conducting a survey of existing users, to obtain community views concerning development priorities

Immediate

·         Increase the opening season

·         Increase the opening hours

·         Stay open at lunchtime

·         Increase pool temperature to 28-30°c (offset costs by installing heat retainers)

Short-term

·         Re-open the toddlers’ pool

·         Install solar panels

·         Paint and upgrade the toilets and changing rooms; install lockers

·         Revitalise the cafe; offer a more attractive range of food

·         Invite local schools to hold galas in the pool

·         Invite local clubs and societies to make use of the pool (water polo; police training; sub aqua; canoeists)

·         Develop activities in conjunction with North Somerset’s Go4Life scheme

·         Develop a pool website/ work with local media to promote pool opening

·         Make the pool available for private hire for parties of up to 80-100 people for £40-100 per hour depending on numbers

Medium term

·         Upgrade and reconfigure the changing rooms

·         Install a small gym, sauna, and hot tub

·         Add a slide and other features to the toddlers’ pool

·         Re-instate the diving boards (subject to safety regulations)

·         Improve access and amenities for disabled swimmers

·         Develop the cafe as an attraction in its own right

·         Offer one-off special attractions (e.g. midnight swims; water sports taster sessions)

·         Market the pool /cafe as an attractive destination for swimming, water-sports

Longer term

·         Develop year-round use of the pool (e.g. ice rink in winter; plays, private hire, cinema)

 

 

 

5. The council would be required to spend substantial sums of money bringing the facilities up to an acceptable health and safety standard

Given that the pool satisfied health and safety requirements when it closed at the end of summer 2008, it is unclear why the council would have to spend substantial sums of money before it re-opens in 2009. Indeed, substantial sums were invested on electrical and other maintenance work at the start the 2008 season (over £46,000) and this public money would be wasted if the pool was to close. While the trust wishes to work in partnership with the council it would be clearly unfeasible for the trust to require the council to spend additional money before hand-over, given that the council’s primary aim is to save money. The trust is happy to take on the pool in its current condition, subject to independent inspection, and as long as the pool was properly decommissioned at the end of the 2008 season.

 

6. If the trust failed the council would come under pressure to take the pool back

If the trust ultimately failed the council would be in the same position it is now. It would still have the site available for redevelopment, plus it would inherit all the improvements implemented by the trust. We doubt that the council would be under any serious pressure to re-open the pool in the event of the trust failing; and the council could clearly demonstrate to the people of Portishead and the surrounding areas that it had exhausted all other options before finally closing the pool.

 

Failure of the trust would have no financial implications for the council. Further, in the current economic climate, selling the pool site is likely to be difficult; it would be better to keep the site active rather than let it remain derelict with associated problems such as vandalism.

 

7. Weather is the main factor influencing the viability of the pool and the major risk in terms of financial viability and suitability

Weather is one factor, but detailed analysis of the data presented in the Review Panel report (see “Background Papers”) does not support this conclusion. In the view of the trust, other factors, such as pool water temperature and poor pool facilities, are more significant.


Concluding comments

We believe that the claims that a trust is not viable are unfounded. It is possible, however, that the trust would look for some kind of financial or other help from the local authority, particularly in the early days, but we understand the financial constraints that the council is under and, as tax-payers ourselves, do not ask for or expect to receive unfeasible subsidies.

 

We ask the Scrutiny Panel Working Group to recommend to the Executive Committee that North Somerset Council should open up a dialogue with the Portishead Pool Community Trust; this dialogue will have the aim of finding a mutually satisfactory way forward, so that this unique asset remains open for the people of Portishead and the surrounding area. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix

 

Legal Structure

The Portishead Community Pool Trust is a company limited by guarantee (No. 6748050), with any profits arising from operating the pool being put back into the trust. The Trust will also be a registered charity, and is now in the process of making an application to the Charity Commission for registration.

 

This structure follows the model set by many other charitable institutions around the country, including some successful community pools:

 

Jesmond Pool is a community managed indoor pool and social enterprise. Jesmond Swimming Project runs the pool, and is a company limited by guarantee and a registered charity. (See http://www.jesmondpool.co.uk/)

 

Hampton Pool is a community managed outdoor pool, open 365 days a year. Hampton Pool Trust runs the pool, and is a company limited by guarantee and a registered charity. (See http://www.hamptonpool.co.uk/)

 


Outdoor Pools Survey Results

The following table presents some results from our recent surveys of other community-run outdoor pools, and shows location and population served, visitor numbers, heating costs, and local authority support. Not all pools have been able to provide information in the time available, and more extensive survey data will form part of the Trust’s detailed financial plan.

 

Pool location (population of town)

Approximate visitor numbers (swimmers and spectators) per year

Visitors as percentage of  town population

Electricity/water/gas or oil costs

Level of local authority support

Chipping Norton (6,000)

17,000 (2006)

283%

£21,000

(Not known at this time)

Cottenham (7000)

1,000 - 2,000

14-29%

Approx £6,000

£4,000 in 2008

Moretonhampstead (1,700)

1,000 - 2,000

59-118%

Solar heated

£1,200 per annum. LA waive business rate

Petersfield (13,000)

20,500 (2007)

26,000 (2006)

158 – 200%

£24,000

£10,000 from town council

Stanhope (2,000).

Approx 5,000 in 2008, up to 10,000 some years

250-500%

£11,000

£6-15k parish council.

Street (11,000)

35,000 (2007)

318%

£25,000

£10-15k parish council

Shepton Mallet (9,000)

9,000 (average for 3 years)

100%

N/A – heat share with local bottling company

Sub-contracted by Mendip DC to run pool

Wiveliscombe (2,500)

c. 1,000; but in 2005 made £23,000 from entrance fees / season tickets

40%

Approx £10,000

Grant from LA of £3k most years

Chudleigh (6,000)

4,000 - 6,000

67-100%

£4,000 (ground source heat pump being installed)

Occasional small grants from local councils

Metheringham (4,200)

3,000 - 4,000

71-95%

£1,000 (solar being installed)

Occasional small grants from local council

Summary

 

Average: 150%

Range: £0 - £25,000

Range: £0 - £15k

 

 

Background Papers

The following papers are submitted with this document:

 

Solar Power for Portishead Open Air Pool; Duncan Faulkes

Comment on the threatened closure of Portishead’s outdoor pool; David Gunnell

 

The following papers have already been submitted:

 

Technical Report on Portishead Open Air Pool; Andy Richards

Draft Business Plan; Roger Whitfield

Review Panel Report on Portishead Open Air Pool Response; David Coombes

 



[1] August 2008 figures based on the visitor numbers for the first 21 days of the month, and September’s figures based on the visitor numbers for May 2008. Final figures for 20008/2009 were submitted after this report’s deadline. However, in these final figures, the last 10 days of August haven’t been included.

[2] Figures are from 2007/08. With the exception of Backwell Leisure Centre these figures are for combined wet-and-dry facilities. The dry facilities are cheaper to run than swimming pools and as such, help lower the subsidy per head for the facility as a whole. The figures would very likely be higher if they were provided for the wet sites only.

[3] Hampton Pool in southwest London (www.hamptonpool.co.uk).

[4] In 2007/08, £600 of the £19,452 oil and gas bill was spent on heating the showers, the rest went towards heating the pool.

[5] The Quirk Review of Community Management and Ownership of Public Assets, p3.

[6] In Sheffield a trust was established and took over a council pool within ten months.

[7] The Quirk Review concludes that “there is a clear consensus that risks exist. However, it is our firm view from examining the record of successful projects on the ground that this need be no barrier to action, as long as proper steps are taken to assess and manage the risks involved.” (The Quirk Review (2007): p19)

[8] Any profit from selling the pool site for development has not been taken into account as the working group is uncertain about 1) whether this is the appropriate strategy for the site, and 2) whether the site is protected against development.

[9] Council officers’ estimate. If the site was to be demolished immediately this cost would disappear, but substantial demolition costs would take its place. However, considering the current economic situation it is unlikely that the council receipts from a developer would be optimal, and it’s therefore unlikely that there would be no mothballing costs over the next three years.

[10] Experience from other open air pools that have been transferred show that council support often is phased out after the first two years.

[11] No information available for Chipping Norton Lido, Sandford Park and Pells Pool.

[12] No information available for Chipping Norton Lido.