Leisure centre requires rethink

I read with interest the article about the Kingfisher Centre in Sudbury (Free Press September 27, 2012), and cannot say I am surprised.

I have to say that I think Babergh Council needs to investigate whether SSL is offering the people of Sudbury, and surrounds, real value for money as the gym is now probably the most expensive in Sudbury.

There are plenty of private gyms in the town, including Zest and Mwah, where the price per session is nearly £2 cheaper than the Kingfisher centre.

Also, the way memberships work is very out-of-date and inflexible, especially for those wanting to keep fit and manage tighter purse strings.

Many other gyms offer pay-as-you go monthly options, lower cost than the Kingfisher. The no-strings approach is what people are looking for.

Surely Babergh Council needs to control this? SSL should be inclusive for locals, not exclusive only to those who can afford it.

And, if we want to truly understand the losses, 18 months ago the gym got brand new equipment. And then £600,000 for the soft play centre. Is this value for money?

And you wonder why the cost to joe public is so high, and they still haven’t sorted out the horrific swimming changing rooms.

I have worked in sales and marketing for over 10 years and, if you aren’t giving people a value-for-money experience, and there is somewhere else on the doorstep that does, guess what - you’ve just lost your customer base.

Tracey Copping needs to re-think her strategy and price customers into her leisure centres, not price them out. Then she just might begin to pay off the financial white elephant she has just built in Sudbury.

Jonathan Skermer