This always looked like a foregone conclusion.

I'm still taken aback by their shamelessness.

As a quick recap:
1. Neglect the building; then
2. Close it when it becomes so dilapidated it is unsafe; but
3. Don't bother looking seriously at minimum cost options to keep the building open, such as repairing the roof and adding an extension for changing rooms; instead
4. Claim it needs replacing - i.e. we have to pay for something new essentially because you haven't looked after your old one; but
3. Pretend you'd like to retain the pools, although of course that depends on what you find...so
4. Commission reports; but
5. Ignore them; and
6. Declare that the building has to be demolished- although we know that was always what you meant at point 3, really; and
7. Get it knocked down before developing any detailed plans to replace it; and
8. Make sure that any replacement if it does ever get built is of the greatest architectural mediocrity by not bothering with a competition.

Somewhere in there fits the exclusion of Louise House from consideration as part of the overall solution for the site when it didn't suit them, but then bringing it back into the frame for demolition when it did.

You utter, utter toads.