I sympathise with this point of view but there have been repeated attempts over the last fifteen years to get the pools listed, I don't call that rushing into things. The last re-furb was only able to go ahead because a second attempt to list both buildings was in train. Continuing to campaign for retention whilst construction costs continue to erode the capital will ensure that nothing is built at all. If that happens and the Pools are not built, I hope the people who carried on will feel able to face the rest of us who took a more pragmatic approach.

Its the questionare itself that doesn't stack up. If a training pool can't be provided because of cost why do they ask respondants to make suggestions for more facilities? Is it because it will introduce further delay. Options 2 and 3 are very controversial in planning terms. How do all of the residents and school feel about having buildings this high so close to their homes, with the additional noise, traffic and parking issues it will raise? Were Options 2 & 3 designed this way to exite and worry them so that their objections are blamed for the councils failure to rebuild?
Option 1 with NO HOUSING is a clear intruction to the council to GET ON WITH IT!