Pool's future in doubt due to 'historic issues'
In a statement, North Yorkshire Council said: "In addition to the essential repairs required, we also know that other areas are in urgent need of improvement and key equipment requires replacement."We now want to take more time to assess and compare all possible future options available to us, including the costs and impact of these options."
The council said it appreciated the closure was disappointing and apologised for the disruption caused.The statement added: "We thank you for your ongoing patience and would like to remind customers that you can use pool facilities at our neighbouring Active North Yorkshire sites."The café and adjacent gym remain open as normal, the Local Democracy Service reports.The site was previously owned by Richmondshire District Council until it was dissolved in 2023.The district authority came under fire in 2022 for giving the trust almost 5% of its income to run the services - and then having to provide an extra £75,000 in funding to cover a 400% increase in energy bills.The council also agreed to pay compensation to the trust of up to £85,000 due to lost income from issues with a £1.9m revamp, which included a new heating system and solar panels on the roof.The upgrade work took longer than expected and meant the pool had to close for several months in 2023 due to issues with the heating system.
Listen to highlights from North Yorkshire on BBC Sounds, catch up with the latest episode of Look North.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
11 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The UK's bank ringfencing doesn't need large-scale reform
One reason to worry about the chancellor's plan for deregulation in the financial services sector is the dramatic language in which she pitched it. Rachel Reeves's metaphor in her Mansion House speech last month about regulation in too many areas acting as 'a boot on the neck of business' felt wildly over the top when you remember why tougher financial rules were needed in the banking sector in the first place. It was because the light-touch regulatory era caused the whole economy to be clobbered in the collapses of 2008-09. In the event, it took until 2019 to fully implement the centrepiece of the clean-up operation – bank ringfencing, which requires UK banks of a certain size to separate their retail and investment banking activities. Now, six years later – no time at all in the grand scheme – the Treasury, lobbied by most of the big banks, is contemplating 'meaningful' changes to ringfencing in the interests of economic growth. It feels far too soon to try anything radical. The definition of 'meaningful' is vague, it should be said. Outright abolition of ringfencing is off the table, thankfully, and some of the possibilities floated by the Treasury could be viewed as innocuous. Letting banks share back-office resources across the ringfence? Yes, that could be regarded as mere housekeeping. Allowing ringfenced banks to provide more products to UK businesses? Possibly, if we're talking about low-octane services. But the details do matter. The danger is that, if you create too many holes in the fence, you end up defeating the purpose of the construct. There are at least three reasons why Reeves should drop the inflammatory language and err on the side of caution. First, remember the primary goal: to ensure the state never has to bail out banks again – at least not the riskier trading activities. The plea from reformists is that other measures, such as stiffer capital requirements and 'living wills' to organise an orderly wind-down, do the same job. Yet ringfencing is surely genuinely different because it is a structural measure – the core UK deposit-taking operations have to sit inside their own legal entity. Maximum protection for the deposit-taking core still feels a sound principle given what happened in 2008-09, and how the whole of the wretched Royal Bank of Scotland was dragged down. Second, ringfencing may lower funding costs for banks. The perception of greater resilience should, in theory, attract a funding bonus. Put another way, regulators – with their eye on the overall stability of the system – might demand even higher capital buffers if ringfencing were to be meaningfully weakened. Would-be abolitionists grumble about the costs of trapped capital. Fair enough, but they probably wouldn't like bigger capital buffers either. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion Third, if the chancellor's aim is more growth, why make it easier for UK banks to chase higher returns outside the UK? She should listen to the commonsense point made by Andrew Bailey, the governor of the Bank of England: 'Removing the ringfence would most likely have a negative effect on UK lending, both in terms of cost and quantities.' If ringfencing has meant cheaper mortgages, it would be a political risk for a chancellor to mess with the formula. None of which is to pretend that ringfencing has been a free lunch. Friction and expense clearly exist – the big banks spent a small fortune setting up the structures and have to carry extra overheads. Competition may also have suffered as big ringfenced banks have concentrated on UK mortgage lending and smaller banks have been forced towards riskier lending. Visions of a post-crisis world full of dynamic 'challenger' banks never materialised. But that is just to say that trade-offs exist. For the UK – a country that simply cannot afford another crisis like 2008's – financial stability should still be the priority. A few minor fiddles might be an improvement because no design is perfect. But major reform is not needed.
BBC News
11 minutes ago
- BBC News
Claire's Accessories on brink of collapse putting 2,150 jobs at risk
Claire's Accessories is on the brink of collapse after the fashion retailer said it will appoint administrators in the UK and Ireland, putting 2,150 jobs at risk. The company has 278 stores in the UK and 28 in Ireland but has been struggling with falling sales and fierce the shops will continue trading while administrators at Interpath, once appointed, will "assess options for the company". Interpath chief executive Will Wright, said options include "exploring the possibility of a sale which would secure a future for this well-loved brand". Claire's in the US filed for bankruptcy in the US earlier this firm operates under two brand names, Claire's and Icing, and is owned by a group of firms, including investment giant Elliott Management.
Daily Mail
11 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
PHP defeats KKR in takeover battle for NHS landlord Assura
Primary Health Properties (PHP) has defeated a US private equity giant in the battle for control of a GP surgery owner. Shareholders backed PHP's £1.8billion takeover of Assura, despite KKR's plea last week for the board to reconsider. Investors owning nearly 63 per cent of Assura's shares had voted in favour of the merger by yesterday afternoon, making the offer 'unconditional'. The vote ends a long-running tussle to buy the NHS landlord, which owns surgeries, hospitals and hospices. Assura will delist from the stock market as soon as possible, the companies said yesterday. But the deal still faces hurdles after the competition watchdog last week stepped up its probe into the tie-up.
