I like to think of myself as a fully paid up member of the 21st Century Society!

If there is a campaign of the nature described above it will only serve to further frustrate and delay the reprovision of swimming facilities for local people, including many children. The demolition and newbuild option is unfortunately the only viable option. If the buildings were of any merit or distinction, their conservation and either full or partial retention would be a completely different matter.

With the greatest respect, people who are intent on saving an old building need to make a distinction between one with a benign future such as a library or a museum, and one which needs to be a pool, which is a much heavier use, resulting in a lot of wear and tear, with considerable infrastructure and environmental demands, all in the context of energy efficiency and value for money.
The concept of facade retention is also a very expensive one and as I see it not justifiable in public expenditure terms. I'm not sure where the figure of ?200k extraover came from - in my experience facade retention severely limits design options and its my estimation that to this would probably add on a further million and several months on the programme.