Children only ever allowed to swim for an hour

[LadyJos]

Most swimming pools in the south east only offer hour slots in which children can swim. Many only 45 minutes. The rest of the day is dedicated to adult lane swimming. This kills me. Kids only just starting to enjoy themselves and have to get them out! AIBU?

YABU - my kids don’t want longer than an hour.
YANBU - I want to have a relaxed time splashing with my kids and they have just as much right as adults to use of a pool.

My son has come lane swimming with me - he was allowed it just wasn't splash/play time

An hour is plenty.

People other than your kid exist. Many of those people enjoy swimming and want to do it without entitled parents kids nearby.

Not to mention these pools cater to whatever the market requires. Parents paring a few quid for a swim session will not keep these centres open - the adults with memberships, who use the adult lane swimming, will.

I think there's a big pool complex at Bracknell as well if I remember correctly.

Where ish in the south east are you? I sometimes think a lot of the best ones are very specific local knowledge. E.g. where I used to live in the home counties there was a random hotel with an outdoor pool that you could use in the summer and then there was also a municipal paddling pool and swimming pool outside by the river that you could stay at all day with a picnic.

Now where I am in the east there's a big lido a bit of a way away, lots of paddling pools that are free in the county town and I'm sure there are other places but I haven't found them all yet! Plus we're closer to the coast so tend to just sea swim instead.

Where’s your data for what the market requires @YaMuvva ? My bet is that the family dollar is a big old opportunity

Well it’s basic economics - if the cast majority of session are adults only that’s because those session make the most money. If ‘family dollar’ is a ‘big opportunity’ then they’d hold more family sessions. But they don’t.

Herts / Essex. Yes unfortunately Bracknell limited to 90 minutes, queues so long you could only go on two slides and constant announcements about wristbands. I want to stay all day and buy some chips!

I use the pool during the week when my youngest is in school. It’s rammed with adults usually, most of whom are ploughing up and down doing lengths. Even those sessions are carved out by the hour; ladies only, adults lane swim, adults free swim, aquafit, aqua natal etc. I’d be pretty hacked off if they trashed the timetable during the holidays just in case a few families might decide to pop down for a splash.

Family swims are weekdays after 4pm, on Saturday afternoons, and Sunday morning. Another leisure centre in the city has a ‘leisure’ pool that’s mince for proper swimming so most of the people who just want to chill use that pool, but even those sessions are timed at an hour, despite the pool only being used for family sessions.

If such a facility was profitable it would exist. It isn’t profitable because the weather is simply not good enough, the school holidays not long enough, there’s substantial staffing costs, energy costs etc etc.

Expecting such a facility to be subsidised by taxpayers seems ridiculous to me - there’s already opportunities for your child to get exercise and learn to swim. All day long socialising and leisure akin to a holiday is not the responsibility of society to provide, anymore than we expect council run playgrounds to be like a theme park.

So you’ve got zero data then? :-)

Basic economics (thanks for that btw) would indicate that if family sessions are regularly booked out then that’s your demand right there.

As I asked before: how much do you pay for your five-year-old and how much do adults pay for their lane swim?

Where are you in the SE? I am also in the SE and loads of pools here open all day for kids.

What kind of ‘data’ do you expect to be available?
I also can’t prove that restaurants only open when people are likely to visit them, but anyone with half a brain understand how economics work.

So what if family sessions are regularly booked out? Perhaps because that’s the only session and more sessions would mean all those people spread across the various sessions rather than just one. Again, that’s business. But I’m sure you know more than the directors who make decisions about what makes money and which customers it makes financial sense to appease. These people should just come on MN to make their business plans 😂

Got to say, every other European country would disagree with you…affordable indoor and outdoor municipal swimming facilities and an understanding of the value of leisure contributes to happy, healthy kids. But by all means, limit ours to 45 minutes. We should probably limit playground time too.

In my local leisure centre I think it’s about £44 for a monthly membership to include gym sauna and swimming.
When I take the kids for the fun session with a big inflatable (they have this twice a week) I pay about a tenner for 4 of us. The kids only cost about £2.50. Hardly where the ‘dollar’ is.

I thought it was an hour??

The world doesn’t revolve round your kids. And apparently the ‘dollar’ isn’t with families either.

Well, consumer data. You seem pretty sure that children’s leisure makes up no market demand (basic economics!) and I’m curious as to your basis for that. Which appears to be zero so far.

Yep and this is why she won't answer me. Even she can see it makes no sense to let a kid play in a pool all day for £2.50 when an adult will pay more and be in an out within an hour.

So you think leisure centres are sitting on a potential goldmine of “hours and hours for children to swim” but not actually utilising it?
OK then. Sure.

My basis is this: common sense.

Yep.
My local leisure centre has women only sessions, men only sessions, 65+ sessions, all sorts - paid for by people willing to fork out for the exclusivity. Some of these will pay £44 a month and never use the gym, meaning the outgoings for them being a member is absolutely minimal.

Thinking about it, £2.50 per child for an hour when you consider they have extra lifeguards on, the maintenance of the big inflatable, the no doubt enormous amounts of water used in the showers after, the cleaning required, the maintenance from blocked drains, damaged lockers etc (because kids DO cause damage and destruction where adults won’t) - I can’t imagine at the end of the day they make much profit per child.

You don’t need consumer data. It’s obvious by the fact what you want doesn’t exist that it’s not profitable or some enterprising person would have set it up, made a fortune and others would copy.

The reasons why it’s not profitable are fairly obvious - the fact there’s excess demand for a subsidised £3 swim at your subsidised (and cheaper to run to begin with) council run indoor leisure centre doesn’t mean there’s enough demand for a £20-£30 a day outdoor swim/sunbathe/eat chips opportunity which is the sort of price I might expect to pay for a whole day out for a child at a staffed attraction. And given the lifeguarding requirements, cost of all the infrastructure, crap weather, high energy costs and short season I’m not sure it’d be profitable even at those prices.

It only works if it’s taxpayer subsidised. I think there’s a good argument for subsidised opportunities for children to learn to swim and get exercise. Beyond that I can think of many better things to spend taxpayer money on than enabling you and your kids to have a holiday experience on the cheap.

Ok, so you’ve a view you’re stating with total authority and basing not on data but ‘common sense’ - glad that’s clear now.

There’s two different points being made here on this thread:

1. is it taxpayers’ responsibility to provide leisure facilities for kids that aren’t for the purposes of pure sport? Yes, I think it is.
2. In the absence of this, would families actually pay for the luxury of being able to stay ‘hours and hours’ if it were available to them? Yes, I think they would.

Oh, and please butt out of my threads with other people. I’m perfectly happy arguing with you here .-)

Your view that if there were demand then someone would have already set up a business and made money is interesting. Funnily enough, there ARE gaps in every market. I think that people would pay upwards of £50 a day, more, possibly, for that kind of facility. Therme Group say yes.

Nobody wants to pay much council tax but everybody wants well-funded facilities 😒

1. is it taxpayers’ responsibility to provide leisure facilities for kids that aren’t for the purposes of pure sport? Yes, I think it is.

Where does that principle end, though? Are taxpayers to provide theme parks, cinemas, soft plays, etc etc etc? Basically anything that kids do for fun should be funded by the taxpayer rather than their parents?

I can think of probably 3,000 things which would be a better use of taxpayers money than this. Parents, at some point, have to pay for their own children!