Sunderland seafront losing out on leisure facilities

editorial image

The announcement made by Coun Speding said that the provision at Stadium Park (September 21) could include an ice arena and other recreational activities.

If this is the case does that mean the wishes of the people of Sunderland who signed a petition requesting an ice-rink, a swimming pool and other indoor leisure facilities, such as a bowling provision to replace those facilities lost when the council closed down the popular Crowtree Centre, are disregarded?

It would appear so, and I question the draft plan, that the Sunderland City Cabinet has approved as being a means to scupper the seafront – the choice of the people who want to have indoor recreational facilities at Seaburn.

I questioned Coun Speding during the meeting of the full council about the plan for the Stadium Village as being a distraction to take pressure away from Siglion in its lackadaisical management of the seafront. Both the university and Siglion want houses on the seafront rather than give the area a real boost with the development it needs. It does not need more urbanisation nor does it need the green space being lost for ever.

Regarding the Stadium proposal, I, among many, would like to see additional development around the Stadium of Light but not at the expense of the seafront losing out on the indoor leisure facilities that would give the people of Sunderland and visitors attractions throughout the year.

Coun George Howe,

Fulwell ward