Embedded Files
Council Planning Application
HAVE YOUR SAY - JOIN THE COMMENTS ON THE COUNCIL'S PLANNING APPLICATION
Below are the general topics that people have been commenting under ... just to give you some ideas ... PLUS ChatGPT summary of comments made to date.
WHAT’S MISSING FROM THE PROPOSAL
No publicly available financial model
No comprehensive structural survey justifying demolition
No robust assessment of retrofit or alternative options
No whole-life carbon comparison between demolition and reuse
No integrated assessment of leisure and housing as a single site
No clear justification for reduced scale, capacity, and flexibility
WHAT THE PROPOSAL CLAIMS
A “first-class”, “state-of-the-art” leisure facility
A “transformational” development for the city
A regional destination attracting increased participation
A financially sustainable long-term investment
WHAT THIS MEANS
A smaller facility replacing a larger one
Increased financial exposure for the public
Key decisions based on incomplete or undisclosed evidence
A proposal that cannot be fully or properly assessed
WHAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS
Reduced overall floorspace and capacity
Loss of flexible and multi-use space
Significant increase in projected costs
Reliance on assumptions that cannot be independently verified
No clear evidence that demand will be met
WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN
Publish the full financial model and business case
Release a comprehensive structural assessment
Provide a full appraisal of alternative options
Assess the whole site as a single integrated development
Demonstrate how the proposal meets current and future needs
CHATGPT'S TAKEAWAY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS TO DATE
This is not an upgrade, it’s a downgrade funded by public debt.
You are demolishing a working facility without proving it needs to go.
A smaller building cannot serve a growing city.
The numbers don’t add up, and the evidence isn’t there.
This replaces flexible community space with fixed and limited use.
You are asking the public to trust a business case that hasn’t been shown.
The design looks more like a warehouse than a civic building.
This is being sold as world class, but delivers less in reality.
Where is the structural evidence that demolition is necessary?
You are reducing provision while claiming increased participation.
This scheme depends on claims that cannot be independently verified.
A public asset is being replaced with something smaller and less flexible.
The consultation does not reflect the scale of opposition.
Housing is driving this scheme, not leisure needs.
There is no clear justification for reducing capacity.
The proposal removes what works and replaces it with less.
This is a long-term financial risk with no transparent plan.
The evidence base is incomplete and inconsistent.
The city deserves better than an unproven and reduced facility.
You are asking decision-makers to approve something that cannot be properly assessed.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse