Question is, is it genuinely redundant?

There doesn't seem to have been all that much honesty on this aspect.

It's also a slightly curious approach that some more recent posters are taking. Do any of you live in Victorian houses? Are they redundant too? After all, they're not listed - so hardly of any merit or importance, eh - and then they aren't as well insulated as modern houses, tend not to have built-in garages or en-suites etc etc...

Also, few would argue that what is needed is somewhere to swim, ASAP. However you would have had somewhere to swim all along if the council had looked after the building. How long now is it that the pool has been closed? And what has happened in all that time? A couple of surveys (which, let us not forget, do not fully support Bullock's argument) and that's about it. So I remain to be convinced that the best course of action is to go full steam ahead for a new pool, particularly if if it turns into the same sort of farce as Downham or heaven forbid Clissold. It is already showing signs of that and I won't get much comfort from saying "I told you so".