FOLLOWING on from last night’s Warrington Borough Council Cabinet meeting, the Save Woolston Hub Committee has reviewed the Deputy Leader’s responses regarding the future of Woolston Neighbourhood Hub and released a statement saying they fail to withstand scrutiny.
They say their conclusion is clear: the Council’s position is inconsistent, under-evidenced, and fails to meet the standards of transparency and Best Value expected of Warrington Borough Council.
1. Failure to Explore External Funding
The Deputy Leader stated that they were “not aware” of any external funding available.
This directly contradicts the Full Council motion of 1st December, which required exploration of all funding options.
Failure to identify or assess funding opportunities is not a justification — it is evidence that the motion has not been properly implemented.
In particular:
Pride of Place funding is discretionary and allocated by the Council.
Investment decisions should reflect borough-wide need, not arbitrary ward boundaries.
With significant cross-borough usage, Woolston Hub is a strategic asset relieving pressure on other sites.
2. Misrepresentation of Section 106 Funding
The claim that Section 106 (S106) funding cannot be used has been presented in a misleading way.
S106 cannot fund ongoing operational costs — this is correct.
However, no one is proposing this.
S106 is explicitly designed to fund capital improvements to community and leisure infrastructure, including: repairs, upgrades and facility improvements.
We formally request that the Council identifies:
The specific S106 agreements relied upon.
Any clauses that legally prevent investment at Woolston.
In the absence of this, the assertion that Woolston is “ineligible” is not substantiated.
3. Inconsistent Financial Narrative
The Council’s position on financial viability is contradictory.
In 2024, during the £8.8 million support package to LiveWire, Woolston Hub was identified as a key strategic site.
It cannot credibly be presented as essential one year and financially unviable the next.
Furthermore:
The Council has secured significant Exceptional Financial Support.
The cost required to enable partial reopening is minor in comparison.
No evidence has been presented that closure materially improves the Council’s financial position.
4. Safety and Maintenance Concerns
The Deputy Leader cited safety and structural issues as justification for closure.
However:
There is no published, building-wide health and safety report.
No intrusive structural surveys have been undertaken.
Cost estimates remain “high-level” and unverified.
It is also important to note:
The Council has a duty to maintain safe systems, including compliance with Legionella control requirements.
Failure to maintain assets and then cite resulting deterioration as justification for closure raises serious governance concerns.
5. Breakdown Under Scrutiny
During the supplementary question, key statements made by Cabinet raise further concern:
Admission that there is “no option but to use what we have” confirms current arrangements are insufficient.
Acknowledgement of limited internal capacity undermines confidence in the robustness of decision-making.
Deferring detailed answers to written responses avoids accountability at the point of scrutiny.
Conclusion
The Council’s position on Woolston Hub is:
Not supported by verified technical evidence.
Inconsistent in its financial reasoning.
Unclear in its use of available funding mechanisms.
Insufficiently transparent for a decision of this scale.
We urge Cabinet members to carefully consider the evidence before them.
A decision of this magnitude must be:
✔ evidence-based
✔ legally robust
✔ financially sound
✔ and demonstrably in the best interests of residents
At present, they say, that standard has not been met.
During the Cabinet meeting local resident Dan Warren said: “The Council recently secured a £20 million Pride of Place grant for Orford, yet no similar external funding applications have been submitted to save Woolston Hub. Furthermore, there is over £250,000 of Section 106 funding legally identified for sports provision in the Woolston area.
“The Council’s current mitigation strategy relies on displacing Woolston residents to Orford Jubilee Hub. However, Orford is already operating beyond capacity, with residents frequently turned away due to full car parks, fully booked classes, and recurring pool closures.
“Can the Cabinet explain why a fraction of available capital—or the £250,000 Section 106 funds—cannot be applied to Woolston Hub to relieve the unsustainable pressure on Orford? And how does failing to apply for external grants for Woolston legally represent Best Value under the Local Government Act 1999?”
Deputy Leader (Cllr Jean Flaherty) – Responded: “We are not currently aware of any available external funding which we would be eligible to apply for for Woolston. There are a number of specific requirements… national grant bodies often require assurance of long-term financial viability. The investment required for Woolston is for structural repairs and safety.
“As you will be aware, the Council has been granted £179 million in Exceptional Financial Support (EFS) and has to make significant savings. As such, match funding is currently not available.
“In relation to Section 106 funds, they are legally tied to specific planning agreements. They cannot be repurposed for ongoing operational costs.
“Finally, regarding the Pride of Place grant, the Government allocated the funding to specific areas. This money is strictly ringfenced by the Government for that specific area and designated activities; the funding cannot be moved.”
Resident (Dan) – Supplementary Question: “The training pool at Orford has been broken since January. So then, what is the mitigation strategy?”
Deputy Leader (Cllr Jean Flaherty) – Responded: “At present, we have no option but to use the facilities that we have. We have had some challenges with that… there have been incidents with closures, but we are doing our very best to make sure the remaining pools are open and facilities are open as much as possible for everybody to use. In the interim, we can’t just magic up a lot more facilities. Unfortunately, that’s the situation we’re in. I can try to get you a more detailed response by letter.”
