It would be worth checking to see if the council are getting any grants for the new building. There is pressure on councils to provide new housing. The Eu give out grants for new builds but not for converting and renovating existing buildings.

I haven't heard anything about this yet. I had a similar set of circumstances when I lived in Devon and was shocked at the red tape in such affairs. More was spent on consultations and legal fees than the demolition of the building (in this instance a 1920's theatre on the seafront). The costs of the new building spiraled out of control and is universally hated, poorly thought out and has very poor workmanship. Not so much that architects fault asn the 'design my comittee' approach taken by the council.

So I'd like to ask the council: Are you getting any extra grants or funding by knocking down the pools and building on a brownfield site? Are you getting any extra grants or funding by building new homes on a brownfield site? This is something the office of the deputy prime minister is trying to promote.

Lastly, why hasn't there been a design competition for this? They did it with the bridge between the Tate modern and St Pauls. We have some of the best designers and architects in the world. Architects could propose costed schemes that look at both replacing the baths or using the existing facade (which I'd favour, especially if contrasted with some form of modern extension to contrast with the old building). Then the public could vote for the favoured design and we bypass all the council expensive, lengthy consultations and just get on with the job.

Look at the buildings that adapt existing facades: Tate Modern, the Oxo Tower, St Pancreas, Butlers Wharf. Or would you rather have a wavelengths brick box?

If the pools are knocked down, they are gone. You are left with whatever replaces them for your lifetime. Isn't that important?