Michael - can you just clarify your position please. You appear to be arguing that the pools frontage block should be pulled down.

Is this now official FH Society policy? Up to know, the FHS had a position which acknowledged there were differences of opinion on demolition and that these positions should be tested in a democratic fashion. Has this now changed? Surely a majority of FH Society members support a free and open consultation which tests these two views whatever their consequences for facilities on site? This is a fair and democratic option. Why aren't you supporting this view? You have already acknowledged that there is a difference of views within the FHS - so why are you opting for the demolition view without testing this within the FHS or in the wider community?

Can I also challenge your assumption that the pools frontage needs to be pulled down because there isn't enough room behind it for two pools. The SFFH group do NOT want to refurbish the existing pools "shed". We wish to retain the frontage and construct a new building behind the frontage and to its side in the "pocket park." There were already two pools in the old shed. With the addition of the pocket park there is surely enough room for pools, plus changing rooms plus gym/meeting rooms behind and to the side? Or perhaps the dry facilities could be sited in Louise House as you suggest. I see no reason why not - then there really would be room for two pools behind the frontage.

Opinion is divided in the area. "Demolition without Democracy" simply isn't an option. The only solution is to put the two viewpoints to the public (this time in a properly run consultation) and for the side who is defeated to live with the consequences. That's democracy - and surely we all believe in it.

Barry Milton