Letter: sports hall study evidence is undermined

IN RESPONSE to a County Times information request, Horsham District Council supplied a list to identify the Horsham District Sports Halls referenced in the Leisure Futures Study (LFS) report. This list detailed 22 ‘Sports Halls’ (following HDC’s lead, we will ignore the fact that many of these are school halls with limited public access).

Of these 22 ‘Sports Halls’, 14 of them are in the north of the district, while eight are situated in the south. Using HDC’s own published 2011 parish population figures reveals that 65 per cent of the district’s population reside in the north. Sixty-five per cent of 22 is 14.3 Sports Halls.

So, on a population basis, there is a small margin of Sports Hall provision in favour of the south! This ‘under allocation’ to the north will (no doubt) become even worse when the West of Horsham (WoH) 2,000 extra homes are built and populated. Presumably this was why HDC originally proposed to extend BBHLC as part of the WoH Local Development Framework Masterplan?

Living in the north, I would not in any way wish to inflict a reduction in Sports Hall provision on residents of the south.

Equally I can see no case for BBHLC being declared by the LFS report as an ‘overprovision’ due to ‘geographical skewing’.

NB. The ‘dodgy dossier’ (aka LFS report) makes great store of availability of ‘out of district’ facilities in the north (eg K2 Crawley); but these are outside of that report’s declared accessibility limit (5km drive) for Sports Halls and so are completely irrelevant.

The more you study the LFS report, the more its so-called ‘evidence base’ is undermined.

Definitely not good value for a £6,000 spend of ratepayer money!

PAUL KORNYCKY

Cox Green

Rudgwick