Please send your comments to newpooltoosmall@ntlworld.com
We'll post your feedback here as we get it.
Mr S.M. of St. Albans writes to Julian Daly (9th July)... Our family of four have been swimming at Westminster Lodge for over 20 years, first learning to swim and then as regular lane swimmers. We agree with the points made by David Gilroy. In particular that the proposed main pool will be too small to meet future needs. I have spent many hours following the progress of the scheme and I attended the planning meeting in April. It is clear the proposed scheme has not been properly planned and I suggest it is sent back to the drawing board. It would be a huge mistake to spend £26m on an inadequate facility, and not value for money.
Mrs S.W. of Bricket Wood writes to Julian Daly (5th July)... I am writing to add my concerns to those of the Westminster Lodge’s pool users re. the matter of the proposed redevelopment of the leisure centre. This facility is used by a steadily increasing population. As a former user of the Bricket Wood leisure centre, I frequently pass the pool, which is still full of water and using a pump – it can be heard when in the vicinity – and which is also necessitating an employee as security. How can one rely on the common sense of a council who will close a venue which was of value to many people, when it still had three years’ lease to run, but will spend a fortune of local taxpayers’ money to produce a facility which, from the beginning, will not be fit for purpose? The proposed pool size has not even taken into consideration the “refugees” from Bricket Wood. I have spoken with David Gilroy several times, and am impressed by his obvious understanding of the shortcomings of this proposal. It is a great pity that someone with his qualifications and concern for the people of St Albans was not consulted before such a flawed scheme was presented as a fait accompli. I would urge you, Mr Daly, to reject forcibly this travesty of council decisions at the meeting on 19 July.
Mr A.G. writes to Julian Daly (5th July)... I am emailing to voice my concern on New Westminster Lodge's plans for the new swimming pool. I welcome new refurbishment, however the proposed pool does not meet the needs of the next generation of St Alban's citizens. Not only does the main pool need to be bigger (to cater for the needs of casual and competitive swimmers, learner swimmers, school holiday 'fun activity' programmes and possibly private hire) but I would agree with many that the facility needs diving boards and flumes. How can competitive water sports athletes, with one eye on professional divers competing at the London Olympics 2012 in two years time, seriously train or at least be enthused by diving if there are no diving boards! St Albans is close to London. Shouldn't London and its neighbouring counties be providing MUCH better water sports facilities so close to our historic Olympic games. I whole heartedly back David and Ingrid Gilroy and Michael Mathison with their 'pooltoosmall' campaign. I hope you can influence the District Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee and get a much more suitable swimming pool for St Albans
Mrs B.P. copies us an extract of her original letter (8th March) to the planning department (29th June)... [...] This is not the time to be going backwards when the health of our needs to be going forwards. Our health would be better served by into a larger complex, preferably 50mtr swimming pool that indeed promised when the original pool was built. St Albans does not need standalone Bistro/cafe, it needs healthier inhabitants with a capable of taking its expanding population. Why is it the City gets and our facilities get smaller? That does not make sense. We're also Bricket Wood swimming pool so more demand will be put upon Lodge. Make our pool bigger NOT smaller. Our children are having to less accessible facilities and we appear to be paying more money! [...]
Mr R.H. writes to Julian Daly (24th June)... I'm pleased that you are taking time to re-assess the planning process for the new leisure centre. I am sure that you will investigate the planning approval for the new centre and expose any irregularities that may have taken place. It would also be interesting to examine the consultants recommendations to ensure that they weren't politically driven. In line with the many other comments about the new centre I believe that the package is flawed. The pool configuration is inadequate with the emphasis on other less used facilities squeezing out the most important facility. What is so frustrating is that other towns and cities in our region manage to provide better leisure facilities. For example Norwich and St Albans are quite comparable. They are both -
Belong to the same politically contrived Eastern Region
However when it comes to swimming facilities, Norwich has two public
Riverside Leisure Centre - 1 x 25m pool and a learner pool Sportspark UEA - 1 x 50 metre pool which can also be changed to 2 x 25m
We, in the South East, probably contribute more to the GDP of the UK than any other area so we seem to be sponsoring others, including those in our own region, to provide better facilities than we can currently enjoy or have Our politicians, local, county or our MP, seem unwilling/incapable of fighting our corner and are happy to settle with second best whether it's with our Hospital, Leisure facilities or roads. St Albans disserves better. I hope that through your Scrutiny Committee you will thoroughly investigate the possibility of reversing the proposal so that we can properly develop a centre that will satisfy future demands and provide us with a facility we When Westminster Lodge was first built we missed an opportunity then of not getting the most out of the site, don't let us make the same mistake again. (User of the pool from when it first opened -my wife and I, our children and now our grandchildren)
Mr S.M. of Bricket Wood writes to Julian Daly (14th June)... I am a current NPLQ lifeguard and RLSS trainer who has worked at Bricket Wood/Townsend and currently at Woodside. I am also chairman of St.Albans Girls School swimming pool Association. I support the pooltoosmall campaign because I believe that the current plans are inadequate for swimmers. Firstly, I dont believe it it will be large enough for the demand given the closure of Bricket Wood.The maximum bather load of 140 doesnt mean that 140 will be able to happily swim about on a busy day. From my experience, by the time that a 25 metres by 8 lane pool reaches 70-80 a bather can do little more than stand around in the water. Secondly, asking teaching pools to take up extra swimmers is naive. Again from my experence teaching pools are used only by parents with small children or those learning to swim. Thirdly, the new plans appear to mean the end of the diving boards and flumes at the Lodge. I think this is a great shame for the general public who want to build water confidence and just have fun. From my experience of the Lodge after 16 years as a St.Albans resident the queues can get quite long when they are open. Fourthly , having attended the recent vote at the Council offices I found it very disheartening that the voting appeared to be done purely on party political grounds. I found it hard to accept that all Lib Dems on the committee just happened to think the proposals were acceptable and all non Lib Dems just happened to think they werent. In brief, my support would go to a 50 metre pool or 25 x 10 lane pool with a diving boards and pit.
Mr J.M. & Mrs S.M. of St. Albans write to Julian Daly (14th June)... ref Replacing Westminster Lodge Pool My wife and I were extremely disappointed that such a landmark decision as replacing the Major recreational facility in St Albans could be passed by the Chairperson of the Planning Committee. The fact that it came to that confirms that the proposals are flawed and are less than acceptable to a very high percentage of the target users. My observation of the use of the existing Pool is that at General Public usage periods it is crowded and is a dangerous mixture of swimmers and fun seekers interacting badly, aggressive swimmers maintaining their belief to achieve the fastest lengths with random ‘Kevins’ of this world either deliberately or accidental standing or swimming in less than desirable locations, the comparison to Road Rage being all to obvious. This situation is brought about by the pressure people are under to strive for a healthier life style and the lack of flexible space that the over thirty year old design offers. On the bases of this the design brief should clearly be directed at the users and allow sufficient flexibility to address the desires of the paying public and the clubs. Allowing for the above the proposal passed is totally inadequate, offering a very poor experience to the largest cross section of public at the highest entrance fee, with no provision for growth over its design life of twenty five years or more.
Mr S.O. copies us his excellent letter to the press (29th April)... I was at the SADC Planning Referrals Committee meeting on 28 April, and was disappointed by the decision to approve the proposed redevelopment of the Westminster Lodge site. Although I am a regular swimmer at Westminster Lodge, I am not some kind of swimming fanatic, and have never previously attended a council meeting, doing so this time in order to register my concern at the new design and the apparent misallocation of public funds. I was particularly incensed by the remarks made by Councillor Robert Donald, who indicated that the campaign to increase the size of the main pool was supported exclusively by a self-interested minority, expecting the residents of St Albans to subsidise their leisure activities. An alternative explanation is that we might object to spending £26 million on a new centre with a main pool only marginally larger than the one it replaces. Cllr Donald pointed out that spending will be under considerable downward pressure over the coming years, in which case the unseemly haste to spend £26 million on the new design is even more puzzling. He stated that the incremental cost of building a larger pool would be in the 'hundreds of thousands'. Perhaps some of this amount could be saved by not, for example, incorporating a moving floor in both the main and learner pools. As the meeting progressed, I was left with the impression that the residents of St Albans should feel grateful that we are being given this new leisure centre, conveniently missing the point that we are in fact paying for it.
Mr B.G. sends us a copy of his letter to the planning department (28th April)
Ms V.G. writes to the planning department (28th April, original emphasis)...
Dear Mr Moorhouse, Erection of a two / three storey leisure facility at: Westminster Lodge, Holywell Hill, St Albans The Local Government Association’s ‘Probity in planning’ document advises both councillors and officers; “The successful operation of the planning system relies on mutual trust and understanding of each other’s role. It also relies on each ensuring that they act in a way which is not only fair and impartial but is also clearly seen to be so”. The timing of this meeting, only days before local elections to determine applications submitted by the council to the council as planning authority, in which one political party has invested so much political capital I believe cannot be seen as fair and impartial. This means in simple terms that it is not good enough just to be told no rules have been broken but also it is clear for all to see that a fair and impartial process is taking place. Therefore in summery summary I have the following concerns;
Aspects of the planning application report prepared by officers. This scheme has been actively promoted by one political party in their political literature even in recent days. The questionable moral correctness of holding the planning meeting within days before local elections. The chairman of the committee is also a member of the cabinet who voted this project through and therefore I cannot believe can be considered impartial. The vice chairman has also been forced to withdraw due to considerable evidence that his impartially was questionable. My concern is fellow councillors with whom he has ‘close association’ will also be so disposed.
Therefore despite harbouring legitimate planning objections to this application, I feel there is little chance that they will be taken into account. I will observe the meeting and draw my own conclusions as to “whether a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that that within the proceedings, during the run-up to local elections there was real possibility of bias shown by elected representatives deliberating on these applications”.
Mr B.B. of St. Albans writes to the planning department (28th April)... FAO: Mr A Moorhouse, Planning Development Control Dept, St Albans District Council Ref.: My objection to the proposed new Westminster Lodge Swimming Pool development Case No 5/10/0259 I would like to state my and my mother's [...] objection to the proposed pool development for these reasons: Too small, at only 25m, by how many lanes I do not care, it's a sad backward step from the existing 33m + the child pool. The existing pool is a rarity, most in the surrounding area only being 25m. I understand that in the original plans all those years ago Westminster Lodge was meant to be 50m / Olympic category, but they divided it into 33m + infant pool. I think great facilities for current and future sports swimmers is rather important. Even considering the current economic situation, this city remains an attractive proposition to many and if we play our cards carefully, a great design with high standards sport facility will only encourage greater investment and chic. From the images that I have seen, the design is lousy, boring, uninspiring. In fact it matches The Maltings, Christopher Place, and the Civic Centre as embarrassing shoddy architecture / "shittytechure" that no future generation will ever remark on kindly especially when one considers the St Albans ~2000 year "collection" of buildings and how they cityscape so well ( Roman remains, Abbey, Tudor.....). We are so fortunate to inherit such a legacy and therefore we all have an obligation to match and enrich. I am absolutely all for modern design / architecture, but it must be great architecture in line or to the standard of the surrounds. 3. Its proposed location is no good / destruction of green belt Its proposed closer proximity to Holywell Hill - St Stephens Hill is a bad idea since this causes a dark tunnel effect ( buildings either side of the road) and destroys the "grand" presentation of Verulamium Park and the magnificent St Albans Abbey Cathedral to those entering the city. Please be aware of light through the small trees seen in any direction. Do not destroy the sense of space, GREEN SPACE, nature amongst us in the heart of the city. Notice the wisdom of the planners of the existing building: they tucked it into a corner, almost out of view. I would be grateful if you would consider my points, please think how we can enhance St Albans and its public facilities. The last 30 years have only seen one or two buildings added to the collection (the museum and the hypocaust), our beautiful city is starting to look battered. I often bring family and friends from all corners of the globe ( some lived here, other visited back an forth over 30 years, a lot of them are architects, artist etc). They have all made comments on the steady decline in quality of design and layout!
Ms P.K. of St. Albans writes to the planning department (28th April)... I wish to lodge my concern at the proposed new Westminster Lodge pool development. In particular, I understand that the new pool will only be able to accommodate an extra 9 people compared with the old one and also that there will be no diving boards/facilities or flumes. As the mother of young children who love to swim, I strongly believe that the new proposal is short sighted and contrary to encouraging people to keep fit and active. Swimming is such good exercise and such a good social opportunity for everyone but particularly children, youngsters and families. I strongly believe that to spend so much money on a facility that will reduce the current offering far less be able to take into account future growth and demand in the local population goes against sensible, community minded planning. If the current facilities are effectively going to be reduced, then would it not be a better option to use some of the proposed £26 million expenditure on upgrading the existing facilities? I hope you will take these views into consideration in the planning process.
Mr M.M. (me!) writes to the planning department (27th April)...
Mrs M.T. of Garston writes to the planning department (27th April)... I am a Watford resident who uses the Westminster Lodge Swimming Pool currently with my grandchildren as it is within walking distance of their home. I recently learnt that the new facilities that you are planning will not be any larger than the current one. This is surely an oversight. With all under 16s and over 60s receiving swimming for free as part of the government "get active" campaign, surely the demand for the faciltiy will increase in the near future and planning to accomodate this now would be the sensible thing to be doing. I hope that you reconsider.
Mr A.M. of Sandridge writes to the planning department (27th April)... I would like to object to the Westminster Lodge Planning Application for the Situated as it is within the conservation area I believe that any development within Verulamium Park must be shown to be sensitive and appropriate beyond any reasonable doubt. I believe that a body of evidence now exists that the proposed pool size is insufficient for any future growth and therefore this development is inappropriate for an area I consider to be a jewel in the crown of St Albans. As a regular swimmer, user of the running track and someone who enjoys simply walking around the lakes with my two year old son, I am anxious that the park is maintained with its facilities for future generations. I do not believe this will be the case if the proposed pool proves to be insufficent in size and requires extending or pulling down in a few years time - even I believe the loss of exisiting facilities such as the diving boards and flumes with the addition of new facilities such as a climbing wall, 180 station gym, 75 cover restaurant and sports hall further constitute inappropriate development of what is essentially a wet based leisure The location at the bottom of the currently very conjested Holywell Hill is not in my opinion the correct place to site these new facilities. I thankyou in advance for considering my objection.
Mr B.D. of St. Albans writes to the planning department (27th April)... Dear mr moorhouse - I do believe there are serious faults to the decision of SADC to demolish the existing facility and its proposed replacement. I believe it to be contrary to all community feeling that in addition the bricket wood pool has now ceased to exist. This means greater concentration at westminster lodge with an inadequate configuration without taking into account the anticipated expansion of usage over the next 25 years as st albans gets a larger population. I am at a loss to understand, how in the current financial crisis, SADC can seriously be considering such a development which will inevitably go way over budget if this plan goes ahead. If sadc is afloat with such a lot of cash, there are many many local people who have greater and more urgent need who would be happy to continue to use the existing swimming pool. The pool at present could easily be given a radical face lift and a new lease of life. it would need efficient maintenance not run down as it appears to be now, and could continue for many years to come. This proposed project is a folie de grandeur on the part of sadc. I do hope you will reject this application. ps is there any truth in the rumour that sadc want to also find room for a hotel in the same area?
Mr and Mrs A.R. of Napsbury write to the planning department (27th April)... For the attention of Mr A Moorhouse Objection to Westminster Lodge Main Pool Proposal on grounds it is too small As regular users of Westminster Lodge's Pool, our family is very disappointed by the proposals St Albans' Council have for the new pool. To build a new pool that adds space for just nine extra people is inadequate. We need a pool that will sustain the growing numbers of users, in particular families with young children - and believe your current proposal will not fulfill this requirement. We suggest the new main pool should be 10 lanes instead of only 8 lanes as this will ensure service for decades. We request these plans be re-drawn to provide a facility for future generations, not one that will be at full capacity and overload in the first year.
Mr S.L. and Ms J.P. of St. Albans write to the planning department (27th April)... In reference to the above planning application for the building of a New Main Pool at Westminster Lodge located in St.Albans, Hertfordshire. We wish to lodge our objection towards; St.Albans District Council’s (SADC’s) planning application, for a 25 metre by 8 lane pool as unfit for purpose as it would not allow sufficient overload at peak times in the future. The existing pool is already inadequate when the pool is at full capacity, and by only proposing an increase of an extra 9 places within the pool area. Is itself an under-estimate of the popularity of Westminster Lodge as a local facility and is providing poor value for money for residents who frequent the pool on a regular basis for swimming lessons (Children), pleasure and exercise (Lane swimming).
Ms G.O. sends us her letter to Council on the subject of the forthcoming planning meeting (27th April)... As a St Albans Resident and voter I am wriring to ask that you postpone any porgresson this matter until after the elections next month. It appears from certain political party literature that some council menbers involved in the process have already made their decision. Surely the fairest approach would be to wait until the people have had their say before the politicialns, some of whom may be out of power in a fortnight's time, get to vote "on our behalf". I have lived in St Albans for almost 20 years, currently at [...], and believe that this is one more incident of a costly building programme being pushed forward by interested parties with us local residents picking up the tab. I trust you will act fairly in this matter and postpone any further movement for the immediate future.
Mr D.C. of St. Albans writes to the planning department (26th April)... Re. Planning Application Case No. 5/10/0259. I am writing to protest about the proposed development of the new swimming pool at Westminster Lodge. Firstly, to pay over £26 million just to achieve an additional 9 places in the pool at peak times is clearly a dire waste of public money. Secondly it must be obvious that the first time a warm spell of weather coincides with school holidays the pool will overload again, so there is no built in scope for any further increase in the pool usage. Remember, the population of the City is still increasing and shows little sign of stabilising. Thirdly the proposed pool apparently has a projected life of only 25 years whereas at the present time, with proper design, it is entirely possible to build a pool that has a life of up to 50 years. Finally the proposed project appears to give very poor value when it is compared with the new pool complex recently installed in Hillingdon. As I’m sure you will know, that project has not one but two 50 metre pools, one indoor and the other outdoor, together with many other assets, all for just an extra £4 million above the current estimated cost of this project (And at its current price it has already suffered a 50% increase even before a spade has been raised to excavate the very first foundation trench. Many more increases will no doubt follow before completion is achieved.) I therefore reject the present proposals, both on Health and Safety grounds as well as grounds of the costs of the project, which it is clear are already spiralling out of control.
Our own Mrs I.G. copies us her letter to Council on the subject of the forthcoming planning meeting (26th April)... Hello Mr Goodwin and Mr Lovelady [...]
I am shocked at the disgraceful way some of our elected SADC politicians will sink to any level to manipulate legal processes to the detriment of the people and for their own party political gain. Not only is the application a travesty in it's substance but the manner that certain politicians , specifically Cllr Brazier and Frearson have behaved makes a mockery of democracy .See www.pooltoosmall.com What they have done during the legal planning process period and during an election campaign is unforgiveable , immoral and probably illegal. Long will they regret it ! There is only one way to restore my faith in these politicians - that is to postpone the planning decision until after the Elections.Then go back to the drawing board to GET IT RIGHT - consulting Pool users and frontline staff this time. Incidentally, how many of the Referrals Committee actually use Westminster Lodge Swimming Pool? As of now 280 people have formally objected to the Application with only 3 in favour ! This is surely sending a serious message as each and everyone of them has either handwritten or emailed their own thought feelings on this important subject . In conclusion - please postone the Wednesday Referrals Meeting until after the Elections on 6 May 2010.
Ms S.T. of Chiswell Green writes to the planning department (26th April)... Please accept this email as my support to the "New Pool too Small" Campaign. I have been turned away from the pool in recent times and with a brand new facility and Bricket Wood closing, demand for the facilities will only increase, not to mention the new houses being planned on King Harry Lane and all the back garden developments. I implore you to consider an increase in the pool size so that this excellent new faciltiy will be a good talking point amongst the locals and not a running joke, or lottery. Having children keyed up for swimming and then not being allowed in causes many a serious issue for parents!
Mr E.B. of St. Albans copies us his letter to Mr Goodwin, Council Chief Executive, on the subject of the forthcoming planning meeting (26th April)... I am disturbed to see that, in the latest election pamphlet from the Liberal Democrats, Martin Frearson, the vice chairman of the planning referrals committee, is shown in a photo with the caption stating that he is inspecting the start of the work on the new leisure centre at Westminster Lodge. As you know, this matter has not yet gone through the planning process, and, together with the earlier leaflet from the council which said, 'New Leisure Centre gets the go-ahead', this represents a blatant use of a planning issue to try to get a few extra votes. The planning department has had over two hundred and fifty letters complaining that the new swimming pool will not be big enough, one of them from me, yet we are told that, in the meeting this week, we have just three minutes in total to put our point of view. This short period of time will apparently be given to the first person to phone up on the day! We believe that we are facing a 'kangaroo court', where our objections will be brushed aside in order to make a cheap political point before the election, which takes place the following week. It seems to me, from e-mails that I have received, that there will be a large group of protesters outside the council offices on Wednesday evening! In order for this important issue to be discussed properly, and without political prejudice, this planning meeting needs to be deferred until after the elections, and in order to make sure that it is properly considered, a reasonable amount of time needs to be allocated to the swimming pool user groups, with a minimum of thirty minutes in total given to those with an objection to the new proposals. We just want to get this important development done properly for the benefit of the people of St Albans. Depending on how you deal with this situation, we may have to refer this matter to the Standards Committee or to the Local Authority Ombudsman. In view of the short time available, can you please treat this with some urgency.
Mrs M.C. of St. Albans writes to the planning department (26th April)... To. Mr A. Moorhouse planning development control Dept, St. Albans District I am writing regarding New Westminster Lodge Main pool proposal is too small. I do not want the greens to be destroyed, and make the pool. We need the green for our environment there are the points below. Maximum 133 persons has reached overload at peak times. New only adds just 9 extra people and no diving boards or flumes. New main pool has only 142 persons that will overload even in its opening years and it will get worse as the time move on. It is 177 million disaster. WLLC users believe a 25 metre by 10 lanes main pool (177 places.) or a configurable 50 metre main pool would give overload free service for decades. Please reject SADC planning application now. Reject council’s planning application case no.5/10/0259
Ms P.J. of St. Albans writes to the planning department (24th April)... I am writing to object to the planning applications for the St Albans Westminster Lodge main swimming pool and ask you to reject it. I do not accept that a pool of 25m by 8 lanes which I understand has a maximum bather load of 142 people is going to be adequate for the next 25 to 40 years for the poeple of St Albans. The current pool has an MBL of 133 people and already is at capacity at certain peak times - last summer people were being turned away. The Office of National Statistics show our population growing steadily for the next few decades so this capacity issue is only going to get worse. In my view it is pointless spending a potential £19m to £26.7m on a pool that we have already outgrown and I do not understand the basis for St Albans District Council recommending that size. It doesn't make any sense. All the pool users that I have spoken with believe that a 25m by 10 lane pool or preferably a 50m (configurable) pool would be a much better idea. We should have a pool life of 40 to 50 years after all and should be looking much more long term otherwise we are doing our children a disservice. I look forward to your response
Mr G.F. & Mrs A.F. of St. Albans write to the planning department (24th April)... As regular swimmers, we are writing to voice our opposition to your proposal to build a 25 metre pool whose width is 8 lanes. First of all, the country is concerned about the increasing obesity of children. Getting regular exercise is recognised as key to combating this and swimming is acknowledged as an effective, enjoyable and simple way to exercise. We need to encourage all children to learn to swim, not only for their health but also as a matter of safety. Second the current pool is very nearly full, as we can attest from regular visits. We understand that customers had to be turned away on several occasions last summer. Third the population of St Albans is growing. The demand for swimming facilities will only increase over the projected lifetime of the new pool. With the closure of Bricket Wood you have already reduced the facilities available to the public. In the face of these pressing priorities, you are proposing a pool that will increase the capacity over the current pool of only 9 places! Surely now is the time to reconsider your plans. We would strongly back a 50 metre pool. This has the advantage of being a true Olympic size, of which there is a scarcity in this country. Having swum competitively, we know that training in a 25 metre pool is no preparation for competing in a 50 metre one. We therefore urge you to think again and produce a proposal that will meet the future needs of St Albans.
Mr N.Mc.G. of St. Albans writes to the planning department (23rd April)... Please add me to the list of residents who believe the planned pool will be too small.
Mr J.C. of St. Albans writes to the planning department (23rd April)... I am writing to object to the planning applications for the St Albans Westminster Lodge main swimming pool and ask you to reject it. All 3 of my boys have swimming lessons at Westminster Lodge and probably will continue to do so for some considerable time - they are good swimmers and I hope they will be club swimmers as they get older. I do not accept that a pool of 25m by 8 lanes which I understand has a maximum bather load of 142 people is going to be adequate for the next 25 to 40 years for the poeple of St Albans. The current pool has an MBL of 133 people and already is at capacity at certain peak times - last summer people were being turned away. The Office of National Statistics show our population growing steadily for the next few decades so this capacity issue is only going to get worse. In my view it is pointless spending a potential £19m to £26.7m on a pool that we have already outgrown and I do not understand the basis for St Albans District Council recommending that size. It doesn't make any sense. All the pool users that I have spoken with believe that a 25m by 10 lane pool or preferably a 50m (configurable) pool would be a much better idea. We should have a pool life of 40 to 50 years after all and should be looking much more long term otherwise we are doing our children a disservice. I look forward to your response
Ms C.D. writes to the planning department (22nd April)... I have concerns about the proposed new St Albans pool. Until today I thought there was a refurbishment planned for the current pool. Instead the facilities are being substantially reduced, no diving boards or flumes. This would be a great loss, I do not know of any other pool with these facilities in Hertfordshire. I strongly feel this would reduce the amount of customers. Also it being 25 metres, as a avid swimmer this would not fulfil my needs at all. I drive specifically to St Albans as it is the biggest pool closest to me. I would like to suggest instead spending the money for this on increasing the size of the existing pool and refurbishing it. Maybe the new parking could be put where you intend to build this new smaller pool with fewer amenities. I look forward to hearing from you regarding my concerns and sincerely hope they will be taken in to consideration.
Mr A.Mc.G of London writes to the planning department (22nd April)... Re: Case Number 5/10/0259 I am writing to voice my concerns over the proposals for the new pool at Westminster Lodge. I have many great memories of swimming there as a child, and I am currently expecting my first child and would hope that they could have the same great experiences that I did. The pool currently not large enough for the number of swimmers (as was shown by potential swimmers being turned away last summer), and developing to 25 metres with 8 lanes will not rectify this issue and raises health and safety issues. It appears to be an ineffective use of over £26million of tax-payer money and would urge you to reconsider these plans.
Mr D.P. of St. Albans writes to the planning department (22nd April)... re Case Number 5/10/0259 Westminster Lodge With reference to the new Westminster Lodge planning proposal I wish to submit my objection to the new pool on the grounds that it is too small. The increase in capacity of only 9 people seems paltry for the expense of $26.7M and with the closure of the Bricket Wood facility and population growth within St Albans and district I cannot see how it will cope in the short or long term future.
Ms J.B. of St. Albans writes to the planning department (21st April)... With reference to the new Westminster Lodge planning proposal. I wish to submit my objection to the new pool only being 25 metres long with 8 lanes as this will only increase the actual capacity for people by 9. With the closure of Bricket Wood swimming pool there is already an increase in demand on the present pool. Ideally a 50 metre pool would be an appropriate legacy for future generations particularly with the Olympics coming to London in 2012 and the emphasis being on the youth of our country. Wouldn't it be wonderful if you could be instrumental in giving the youth of St. Albans and the surrounding area a swimming pool to be proud of? How good would that feel?
Mrs R.B. of St. Albans writes to the planning department (21st April)...
E.I-C & J.I-C of St. Albans write to the planning department (21st April)... I am writing to object to the planning applications for the St Albans Westminster Lodge main swimming pool and ask you to reject it. All 3 of my boys have swimming lessons at Westminster Lodge and probably will continue to do so for some considerable time - they are good swimmers and I hope they will be club swimmers as they get older. I do not accept that a pool of 25m by 8 lanes which I understand has a maximum bather load of 142 people is going to be adequate for the next 25 to 40 years for the people of St Albans. The current pool has an MBL of 133 people and already is at capacity at certain peak times - last summer people were being turned away. The Office of National Statistics show our population growing steadily for the next few decades so this capacity issue is only going to get worse. In my view it is pointless spending a potential £19m to £26.7m on a pool that we have already outgrown and I do not understand the basis for St Albans District Council recommending that size. It doesn't make any sense. All the pool users that I have spoken with believe that a 25m by 10 lane pool or preferably a 50m (configurable) pool would be a much better idea. We should have a pool life of 40 to 50 years after all and should be looking much more long term otherwise we are doing our children a disservice. I look forward to your response
Ms C.S. of St. Albans writes to the planning department (21st April)... I object to your proposal of the new Westminster lodge main pool as it will be too small. I regularly swim at the main pool and believe that what you have planned is not appropriate for our swimming needs. There are an increasing number of people using the lanes which becomes crowded at times. I feel that reducing the lane length would be a risk especially as it appears we would not be getting any more lanes to accommodate the problem. As health and safety is foremost in any new planning application, surely these issues have to be seriously taken back into account. I will look forward to hearing from you soon.
Mr I.L. of St. Albans writes to the planning department (20th April)... Dear Mr. Moorhouse, I'm writing you with regard to a conversation I held last week with Mr. David Gilroy at the entrance of WLLC. He explained to me the new development plans for building a new sports centre on the basis that the existing one has become undersized according to the current and future demand. At this point I cannot agree more with the such idea since, as a regular member of WLLC, almost every time I pop in the gym I have to queue for a while not to mention the changing rooms. However, Mr. Gilroy made a number of observations which caught my attention and caused me a bit of concern: a) The planned swimming pool will not increase significantly its capacity compared to the existing one. b) During the construction works, the existing WLLC will probably close down. c) The total cost of such project sits around £26 million. Based on above points and assuming they are close to the reality of the project, I cannot but disagree with the current plan and ask you to reconsider Mr Gilroy's proposals Sincerely,
Ms C.L. of St. Albans writes to the planning department (20th April)... I strongly object to the current proposals for the new pool at Westminster Lodge and fully concur with the proposals made by ‘poolstoosmall’ that you should:
Reject St. Albans District Council's planning application now as unfit for purpose - inadequate Main Pool size and a safety and operational nightmare for customers and site operator alike! We recommend the SADC team go back to the drawing board and do the planning professionally. St. Albans District Council should recruit a professional of chief engineer calibre to do the in-house planning and supervision of such a major project. The public should be provided with a Main Pool able to meet up to 40 years’ demand and population growth. Westminster Lodge users believe a 25 metre by 10 lane pool (177 places) or a configurable 50 metre pool would be far better choices than the current ‘dead in the water already’ 25 metre by 8 lane proposal.
It is time that SADC provided proper facilities for residents and utilise our taxpayers money correctly. St Albans has become a third rate city in terms of amenities hence it is not surprising that we have such a massive problem with ‘lager louts’ on our streets. Why should we, as taxpayers, have to travel to Hatfield, Hemel, Luton or Watford for a cinema, bowling, skating, swimming etc. You may be surprised to learn that not everyone has a car! What right does SADC have to deny budding swimming/diving athletes the opportunity to train in their home town, or for ordinary residents (taxpayers) to enjoy decent facilities. We owe it to both existing and future generations.
Mr J.G. writes to the planning department (20th April)... I am writing to register my objections to the propsed new build swimming pool, the so-called "replacement" for the current Westminster Lodge Pool. It is clear, from a common sense point of view, that insufficient clarity of thought and technical expertise has been brought to bear in this project thus far; the result will be the wasting of £25M pounds of tax payers' money at a time of considerable economic pressure. No matter how shiny the new pool may appear when completed, it is the availabilty of swimming spaces that actually matters; the provision of so few extra spaces for so much expenditure cannot be justified. The UK is in the grip of a health, fitness and obesity crisis and this project is a golden opportunity to provide much expanded capacity, especially in the provision of active swimming (lane swimming) for the younger generations of the future - generations for whom the obesity issue will be very real. This proposal must be reconsidered and the council has a moral duty to spend our money wisely and in this case provide what is genuinely needed - a properly designed swimming pool that provides real expansion in available capacity. Anything less should be regarded as a deriliction of concil responsibility and a gross misuse of tax payers' money.
Mr A.H. C Dip AF of St. Albans writes to the planning department (19th April)... Planning Development Control Dept. Sir - I am writing to support the campaign to resist the development of a swimming pool at Westminster Lodge which it seems clear will be too small for demand in the medium to long term. Incidentally, I am grateful to public-minded citizens, such as David Gilroy, who are making such an effective stand against this error of planning.
Mr G.Y. and Ms G.Y. of St. Albans write to the planning department (18th April)... Re: Case Number 51/10/0259 I am writing to reject the council's planning application to the new westminster lodge main pool and it is too small given the current status of the existing pool, which, during peak, time, is overcrowded. I would like to see a bigger pool and a longer design life of the new pool, 50 years instead of 25 years. Hope to hear from you soon.
Mr G.D. of St. Albans writes to the planning department (17th April)... I am writing to request you to reconsider the size of the proposed pool that will replace the facility at Verulam. I use the current pool regularly for lunchtime swims from work and find the lane swimming at peak times restrictive even with the current size of 33mtr x 10 lanes [6 lanes- ed.]. My son also swims for St Albans swimming club and again the facilities currently are only just about about adequate. The proposed pool size is similar to Hatfield pool. However even this has 10 lanes x 25meters. An 8x 25mtr pool is simply not adequate to meet current or future usage predictions, especially as we reach 2012 and Olympic fever grips the nation and everyone starts to use their local facilities more frequantly - This is the lagacy that we keep hearing about and absolutely mirrors the experience of Sydney after the 2000 games. I urge you to think again about the size. The proposed pool size is the equivalent to the decision taken to create the M25 as a 2/3 lane motorway - Simply daft with hindsight!!
Ms K.S. of Watford writes to the planning department (16th April)... Dear Mr Moorhouse — I write to express my concern about the proposals for the new pool at Westminster Lodge. I understand that the new pool will only have an extra capacity of NINE swimmers, and with no diving or flume facilities. The cost of this pool at £26.7 million with the very limited extra capacity would seem poor value for a very large expenditure, and to be inadequate for the increasing demand. I have myself, with my grandchildren, been unable to use the present pool because capacity had been reached. The population of St Albans is increasing, and people also use the pool from neighbouring towns and villages. Planning permission has not yet been finalised, and I urge the planning committee to reconsider the proposals.
Mr G.R. of Hemel writes to the planning department (15th April)... I am writing to object to the new pool you are planning to build at Westminster Lodge. The plans presented seem ludicrous. No diving area – This facility is used by the divers and sub-aqua enthusiasts. I obtained my BSAC (British Sub Aqua Club) diving qualifications through the St Albans BSAC. The St Albans BSAC need a deep pool at Westminster lodge to train at divers. Not making the length 50m – A 25m pool is far too small. Although I have no interest in the Olympics, I understand that many people do. A 50m pools is required for any competitive swimming. People with interests in competitive swimming should be encouraged. I am sure that if anybody who did use the Westminster lodge for competitive swimming, and subsequently won medals, the SADC would be the first to mention it. No extra capacity – Why??? Basically the whole plan has been ill thought out. I have tried to investigate the reasons for this short sighted approach, but cant find anything (apart from a bit of spin). If you truly believe that your solution is best for the area, delay the building and give us some The designs for the new pools are as play areas. Although every body has a right to play, the serious sports people also have a right to fa cilities. It is possible to play in a proper size pool but it is not possible to use a play size pool for serious sporting activities.
Dr A.P. of St. Albans writes to the planning department (15th April)... Re: case number 5/10/0259 I would like to voice my concern at the proposed Westminster Lodge pool re-development plan. Having seen the proposal it appears that the pool will only be marginally more capacious than the current pool. As a resident here since 2004, I feel that the proposed plan as it currently stands shows a lack of foresight. Summer months regularly mean an overcrowded pool with people often turned away. I would politely urge you to consider the expected boom in population and in local housing, and consider building a much larger facility that will be future proof and save money and many complaints in the long term.
Mr A.R. of St. Albans writes to the planning department (14 April)... Please take note of my objections for the current proposal of the main westminster lodge swimming pool which I believe is too small and should be made larger with consideration for the long term future.
Ms R.G. of St. Albans writes to the planning department (14th April)... I take my son to Swimming lessons at Westminster Lodge every Wednesday and am delighted that a new complex has been proposed. I am, however horrified that it will only accommodate 9 more swimmers than the current pool and would like you to note my objection to the current plans (Case number 5/10/0259). I believe that 'A city' such as St Albans should have a 50 metre pool and at the very least, a 25 metre pool with 10 lanes.
Ms G.O. of St. Albans writes to the planning department (13th April)... I would like to express my objection to the proposed plan for the new pool based on it's size and lack of diving facility. There is no point spending so much public money on a mere replacement for what we currently have with little, 9 swimmers, extra capacity. St Albans deserves a better new facility and one which has been properly research with adequate consultation. The 2 week period over last summer was far too small a sample and time period. Perhaps an on- line questionairre publicised through the local press and schools would be Better and it should be during term time. I believe that this proposal be scrapped and a larger, more cost effective plan be developed in conjunction with the council tax payers, your customers.
Ms A.S. of St. Albans writes to the planning department (13th April)... As a regular user of Westminster Lodge's leisure facilities, I have recently been alerted to the fact that the council are intending to fund the building of a new pool at the cost of nearly £27 million which will consist of eight 25m lanes. Clearly this extra provision for only another nine people and at such a cost is not adequate for the needs of local people and I would like to add my voice to the mounting swathe of local opinion that this proposal needs to be reconsidered. I live very close to Westminster Lodge and am not aware of any sort of consultation or seeking of views on what local people really want in their sports facility. I look forward to hearing what your intentions are regarding this matter.
Ms H.McG. of Waltham Abbey writes to the planning department (13th April)... I am writing to object to the new pool you are planning to build at Westminster Lodge. I swam in Westminster Lodge as a child and sometimes I go for a swim there now as I have relatives in St Albans and I don't live too far away in Waltham Abbey. You are planning to spend 27million on the new pool and the main pool will only have capacity for 9 more swimmers! The new pool is going to be shorter and wider, I like the pool the length it is and it could even be olympic size. I have swum in the olympic pool in Barcelona because there are no pools of a decent size anymore local to me. They have lane swimming going width wise and the widths are longer than the length of the pool you are planning! I think this is better for people's health and fitness and for sports. It is ridiculous to suggest putting people like me who like to swim lengths into the training pool which is what the architect is suggesting should happen with the additional number of people. The training pool is for babies, young children with their parents and nervous swimmers. Also there are not going to be any flumes or diving boards. I used to go on the flumes and diving boards when I was younger and that is what children enjoy and contributed to my love of swimming now. I don't think they go out of fashion although the ones at Westmister Lodge are a bit leaky probably because of lack of maintenance. If you are going to be spending that much money the design needs to be right. Last summer people were being turned away because the pool was at capacity. If it is at capacity now it makes sense that the new pool should be bigger. If you cannot afford to build a much bigger pool at the moment it would be better to wait a few years until the money can be raised. It is better to spend a bit more and have a pool that is what people really want than spend all that money on something that is not really right.
Mr N.B. of St. Albans writes to the planning department (13th April)... I was just e-mailing my objections to the current planning application for the proposed St Albans pool. I swim 3-4 times a week, average around 52 lengths (1 mile) and believe a configurable 50 metre pool would be a much better choice than the proposed 25 metre alternative. This would allow a larger number of people to enjoy the facilities at peak times, and since Bricket Wood shut, I have also noticed a significant increase in people, especially @ 0630 on Tuesdays' and Thursdays - numbers have doubled…. The 25m alternative would be too small to accommodate the proposed increase in future populations and also, when lane swimming, you would lose the additional 8metres the current 33metre pool provides (i.e. greater congestion at peak times). I do not see how a 50m pool will cost twice as much as the planned 25m pool, and surely a 50m pool will attract greater numbers of people and therefore pay for itself in terms of the increase in footfall….
Mr P.B. of St.Albans writes to the planning department (12th April)... [...] I beg you to reject the SADC's planning application before it's too late. My family and I (all five of us) enjoy swimming and were thrilled to learn that a new facility was being built on the site. Now we are told that it will be a new pool, but alas it will be in fact smaller. Smaller? Why on earth when the population of St Albans keeps getting bigger and bigger would you even consider creating a new pool that is smaller? Have you ever been swimming at peak times? We need a bigger pool otherwise no one will go there....surely. I never write letters to the council but I ask you to please reconsider this planning application. This is another example of why ordinary tax payers think the council is not working! REJECT THE APPLICATION NOW!!!!
Mr A.S., King Of The Flumers, writes (12th April)...
"KING OF THE FLUMERS" As the uks no1 waterslider who is universally known as the "KING OF THE FLUMERS" i was the one who made the first descent down the ORIGINAL flumes at westminster lodge and learned to flume on the original flumes! ten years later i was again the first one down the PRESENT FLUMES which opened in 1997 and the rest is history the flumes at westminster lodge effectively produced the uks most dedicated and prolific flumer namely myself! Not only that i am the uks first waterslide historian and have a unique specialist knowlege on all things relating to flumes and fluming.I can confirm the reason for omitting the flumes is the close proximity of AQUASPLASH in HEMEL HEMPSTEAD (which has 6 flumes) and as "Honorary Resident Flumer" at this location i can inform everyone that even with 6 flumes this facility goes into overload on regular occasions as one has to queue even to get into the door before one gets anywhere near the flumes,where the queues continue! Clearly there is tremendous demand not only for pool space but flume space also! If this awful proposal at westminster lodge goes ahead,then AQUASPLASH will become even more crowded as flumers displaced from westminster lodge will be coming here as this will be only one of TWO flume facilities in the whole of hertfordshire (the other is NORTH HERTS LEISURE CENTRE LETCHWORTH which has a single 30 metre flume!) At one time there were 6 flume facilities in hertfordshire which were ;WESTMINSTER LODGE,BRICKET WOOD POOL,WATFORD SPRINGS,SPLASHLAND WELWYN GDN CITY,NORTH HERTS LEISURE CENTRE LETCHWORTH AND AQUASPLASH HEMEL HEMPSTEAD, we lost watford springs in 1999 when watford did exactly what SADC are doing now we lost SPLASHLAND at around the same time,and the small 20metre flume at BRICKET WOOD POOL has fell silent and we are to lose the flumes at westminster lodge! how absurd! when demand for flumes is as strong as ever! The solution for westminster lodge is to dismantle and relocate THE PRESENT FLUMES AT WESTMINSTER LODGE IN THE NEW FACILITY which are in excellent condition as provision should be made for this to happen as NO CONSIDERATION has been given as to what will happen to the present flumes when demolition begins in 2012 as it would be a tragic waste to demolish them if they are in such good condition,as rumour has it that Aquasplash have their eyes on the westminster lodge flumes ready to buy them to enlarge it to 8 flumes! Anyway we must not lose our flumes! WE WANT FLUMES IN THE NEW WESTMINSTER LODGE OF THE SAME STANDARD AS THE PRESENT ONES and relocating the present flumes in the new westminster lodge is the OBVIOUS SOLUTION! WE WANT FLUMES IN THE NEW WESTMINSTER LODGE! WE WANT FLUMES! WE WANT FLUMES!
Mr B.W. of St. Albans writes to the planning department (11th April)... I am registering my absolute disappointment at the proposed downsizing of the major swimming facility in St Albans in the new swimming complex. This shows a total lack of aspiration when we should be encouraging sport participation with the benefits of the 2012 olympic games. Swimming and diving will become more popular. Currently the fastest growing sport in the UK is triathlon, and such athletes always seek out larger pools for training. St Albans has a strong tradition in triathlon and even has a triathlon shop. But there are many other examples where swimming will become more popular, and certainly competitive swimming (which usually requires a 50 m pool) is on the increase. The case for a bigger pool in terms of Health and Safety is well made, let alone the lack of aspiration. St Albans could be a centre of excellence for swimming. If a 50 metre swimming pool is good enough for Hillingdon, it should be good enough for St Albans.
F.J.P. writes to the planning department (10th April)... I wish to agree with all the objections made by the pooltoosmall case no 5/10/0259. In addition I believe it very shortsighted to build a new pool for future generation which does not cater for competions at olympic level both swimming and diving. My preference would be for a 50 m pool with diving boards
Mr D.F. of St. Albans writes to the planning department (9th April)... Planning Application Case No. 5/10/0259 I should like to object to the above planning application as detailed Commercial grounds and accommodating the peak load The proposed pool of 25 metres and 8 lanes has a peak load of 142 swimmers. This is only 9 more than the current peak load of 133 persons which is already regularly hit. Therefore, if one of the objectives of building the pool is to add capacity at peak times, replacing the existing pool at a cost of £26.7 million for 9 extra places cannot be justified from a commercial perspective. I imagine the council leaders would not wish to see a newspaper headline reading “St Albans council planners approve new pool at a cost of £3 million per swimmer”. The council should look at population growth since 1971 to 2010 and then for the next 50 years and configure the pool to accommodate an appropriate peak load in, say 30 years from now, rather than the peak load of now. The size of the proposed pool will mean that peak load is hit more often in years to come. If the pool is effectively full, day after day, it increases the risk that swimmers will collide with each other more frequently and that one day, such a collision might result in a serious incident. Incompatibility with the status and historical importance of the city of St St Albans has been an important English city in welcoming visitors from far afield for over 2000 years. State of the art roads linked the city to London and the North of England since Roman times. These communication links have for thousands of years have helped the city to stay toward the forefront of development in any given era. The recently restored hypocaust and the excellent Verulam museum and the impressive Cathedral with the longest nave, 84 metres, of any cathedral in England are some examples of the city’s cultural treasures which its forefathers have bestowed for our The council’s stewardship of the development of St Albans is an extremely important responsibility and needs to be considered in the above context. With the above planning application, the council has an opportunity to make a decision that is more in keeping with the legacy and the ambitions of the city’s forefathers. Accordingly I believe that the council should look into building an Olympic sized pool of 50 metres rather than the proposed 25
Ms J.R. of St. Albans writes to the planning department (9th April)... I was shocked, today, to find out about the plans for the new Westminster Lodge swimming pool. St Albans residents, including myself, were under the impression that the new pool was going to be bigger and better and able to cope with bigger future demand. Instead, I find out today that it is only 25m in length and overall will only offer another 9 places. On top of this, I hear there will be no diving facilities. What a missed opportunity. They are spending a huge amount of money on something which is not an improvement and is not looking to the future to allow for population growth. I would urge you to reject this application and so ensure a bigger better pool is finally constructed.
Ms C.B. of St. Albans writes to the planning department (8th April)... As residents of St Albans we would like to put forward our views on the New Westminster Lodge Pool proposals. My family have always enjoyed swimming and have been using the pool for many years. Although we are pleased that there are plans for a new pool, we were very disappointed with some of the key elements of the proposal. The new pool seems to offer less than the existing one can. As it stands, we have already had to use other pools e.g to get swimming lessons for our children (We now have to travel to Hertfordshire Sports Village). In the beginning of 2009, we began to use the Bricket Wood pool as Westminster Lodge was very crowded. This has now closed so there will be an even greater need for extending the size of the proposed pool in order to cope with increased capacity. Attention also needs to be paid to the range of people the new pool will appeal to. As our children have become confident swimmers, they have become much more interested in using diving boards, slides and other amenities. We have been attending the Friday 'family fun night' at Westminster Lodge, where a wide range of children up to older teenagers ( e.g scout groups) really enjoy using the diving boards. As someone who has worked with teenagers for the last 16 years, I know how important it is for young people to have activities to do and to feel included in the community. The new plans seems to totally neglect this group. As a city, I think St Albans also needs to be aware that people have begun to expect modern and up-to-date facilities which cater for all groups. The current proposals seem to lack any real vision for the future. Surely St Albans deserves a more dynamic facility for the future!!!!
Mr S.O. writes to the planning department (7th April)... I would like to object to the proposed redevelopment plans for Westminster Lodge sports centre. The current pool and other facilities are clearly in need of updating, but replacing the current pool with an even shorter, albeit wider, pool seems to be a wasted opportunity. As the land appears to be already owned by the applicant, I cannot see the incremental cost of building and operating a longer (50m) or wider pool being material in relation to the existing budget. Following this year's closure of Bricket Wood sport centre, I understand demand for the Westminster Lodge pool will be even greater than usual, particularly in the summer. Allowing public funds to be spent on a new pool that is already barely adequate seems, frankly, negligent.
Mr O.F. of St. Albans writes to the planning department (6th April)... With reference to the planning application for the new Westminster Lodge pool, I strongly oppose the current planning application for a main pool size of 25m by 8 lanes. As a regular swimmer @ Westminster Lodge, I had on numerous occasions struggled with congestion in the main pool and even had to return home on a few occasions because of the pool being at maximum capacity. Moreover, a 25m pool is not ideal for good swimmers! Considering that the Government and the Council is encouraging people to do more exercise and to use the available facilities, the pool will soon be insufficient and would discourage many new comers to this wonderful sport. I strongly believe that the Council should reject the above mentioned planning application and consider planning for a larger pool with increased capacity, fit for purpose for the next 20-30 years.
Mr P.R. writes to the planning department (6th April)... I wish to raise my objection to the Council’s Planning Application relating to the new Westminster Lodge pool. It seems illogical, especially given the current financial climate, that a plan costing some £20+ million pounds will not deliver a swimming pool capable of handling little more than the capacity we currently have – capacity which is clearly not enough, especially Please reconsider this proposal and opt for a 25 metre by 10 lane main pool – catering for 177 places – as opposed to 142 with the current scheme.
Mr H.P. of Colney Heath writes to the planning department (6th April)... I have been swimming at West. Lodge for 15 yrs. I am an OAP. The planning is ill thought out and needs a 50 mtr pool. We are all being encouraged to swim for health reasons, and more people will do so. To go backwards like the new plans, is ill considered. Think sensibly NOW and listen to your residents. Change the plans NOW.
Mr A.R. of St. Albans writes to the planning department (5th April)... I wish to object to the above planning application - building and redevelopment of Westminster Lodge swimming pool- on the following basis. Given the costs involved I feel the plan doesn't allow for significant growth in numbers using the pool now and in future years. It needs to be bigger. I understand that health and safety regulations currently allow a maximum of 133 persons in our existing pool. The new pool will allow a maimum of 142 persons. £26m plus for 9 extra bodies in a pool doesn't represent good value for current tax payers. Given the inevitable growth in St Albans population in the future this plan allows no significant growth margin in pool users. I ask that the current plan is rejected and that SADC re appraise the plan to increase the pool size thus allowing a great number of users at one time ( say 175-180 persons) which would benefit our city for many years to come and represent a far better use of the millions of pounds being spent in our name.
Mr M.P. of St. Albans writes to the planning department (5th April)... REJECT COUNCIL'S PLANNING APPLICATION, CASE NUMBER 5/10/0259 I hereby reject the St Albans District Council planning application as being unfit for purpose. Westminster Lodge users believe a 25 meter by 10 lane pool (177 spaces) or a configurable 50 metre pool would be far better choices than the current 25 metre by 8 lane proposal. The latter is effectively already "dead in the water".
Ms E.H. of St. Albans writes to the planning department (3rd April)... I love swimming and aim to lane swim up to 6 times a week. This helps to keep up my level of fitness and it is the only sport I feel comfortable with and enjoy. Some mornings the lanes at Westminster Lodge are already very congested and I jokingly say we need traffic lights! BUT I feel a larger pool than is planned is necessary to meet the needs of the community well into this century. I would hope to swim for many years to come but as I get older would like to feel that there are facilities and room for me to swim at my own pace. I would prefer a 50 m pool as when the shallow section is roped off for schools or classes this would make the remaining part of the pool very small indeed. While spending all these millions please make sure they are spent wisely to provide excellent facilities for many years to come.
Ms D.C. of St. Albans writes to the planning department (3rd April)... Reject St Albans District Council planning application as unfit for purpose. Westminster Lodge users believe a 25 meter by 10 lane pool (177 spaces) or a configurable 50 metre pool would be far better choices than the current "dead in the water already" 25 metre by 8 lance proposal.
Mr J.N. (RIBA) writes to the planning department (2nd April)... FAO Mr A Moorhouse, Department of Enterprise and Civic Environment, St Abans District Council: I am writing to register my objection to the proposals for a 25m swimming pool as part of the proposed new leisure centre at Westminster Lodge. I am a regular user of the existing pool for lane swimming which is my principal form of exercise. I am also an architect and have a good understanding of the development possibilities that the Westminster Lodge site offers. The capacity of the proposed pool will be inadequate to meet demand for the future. On the admission of those designing and developing it the capacity of the new main pool will only allow for 9 more swimmers than the existing main pool. As the existing pool is already working at full capacity at times and the Council have reduced local availabilty by closing down the leisure centre at Bricket Wood this will plainly be inadequate for current needs let alone the future. Bearing in mind the projected increase in population in the area over the coming decades the design of the pool falls far short of the likely public demand. In summary the proposal displays a woeful lack of aspiration and enterprise by St Albans City Council. The Council's Leisure Committee appears reticent about what facilities are to be provided. There is no aspiration to provide the best for the people of the town. We seem to be looking over our shoulder at the surounding area and accepting that other places are justified in having better facilities for example Hatfield is where a 50m pool should be located because it has the university. (But the university has already built a pool - 25m only - and does not appear likely to build another in the near future.) We seem to be forgetting that St Albans is an important centre with attractions and institutions that are of regional and national significance e.g. Butterfly World, the International Organ Festival, the National Rose Society, The Royal Entomological Society, the National Pharmacy Association, Rothamsted Research, the Mosquito Museum etc. However, it lacks any sport or leisure facilities to match this. St Albans should not simply try to 'keep up' with other towns in the area. It is a nett attractor of visitors from outside the area, witness the thriving restaurant trade and speciality retailers, and these visitors make a significant contribution to the local economy. If visitors think that St Albans is an attractive and interesting place to visit for all these other reasons why should we accept a second-rate leisure facility for the town? I suggest that a 50m pool is what should be built for the following reasons: 1) The 50m pool will meet the demand for swimming facilities for the projected present and future demand. 2) As a regional centre it would attract wider usage than a municipal facility. 3) Revenue would be bolstered by the usage of the pool for training and competitive events by swimmers and by audiences to competitive events. 4) Having a regional centre would add to the attractions of St Albans that bring visitors and trade from a much wider area. I have examined the plans for the leisure centre and there is adequate site area to accommodate a 50m pool by adding to the building on the Holywell Hill side. Clearly the layout will need to be revised to accommodate the commensurate changing and audience facilities. I trust you will take my submission into consideration when preparing your report to the Planning Committee. I would be a happy to speak at the Planning Committee meeting when the application is to be heard to put forward my view.
Mr R.M. of Chesham writes to the planning department (1st April)... I am writing to express my concern at the proposals for the replacement to the current swimming pool at Westminster Lodge. I do not live within the St Albans area but do work within the St Albans area and currently regularly use the Westminster Lodge facility. I also travel to use the Westminster Lodge facility at weekends because it is now the only pool in the area which is longer than 25M. The reasons for my objection are twofold: Firstly, the area is in desperate need for 50M pools as all of the old 33M and 50M pools have gradually been replaced by 25M ones. The fact that Westminster Lodge now needs replacing is a fantastic opportunity to provide an up to date 50M pool for use by the local community. Secondly, the proposals do nothing to address the issue of overcrowding which currently exists at Westminster Lodge. The new pool will have a maximum capacity broadly the same as the current facility which on many occasions has not been sufficient. And with the population projected to increase and the emphasis which is placed on fitness and swimming in particular increasing demand this can only get worse. I would therefore urge you to reject the planning application and to recommend that the planning team revisit the proposals for the new complex before it is too late. A configurable 50M pool would be a much better solution, or if that is impractical, a 10 lane 25M pool would at least address the capacity issues.
Mr C.S. of St. Albans writes to the planning department (1st April)... I wish to express my objection to the proposed new swimming pool development. I reguarly use the pool after work and the capacity is often full. I would support increasing the capacity of the new pool significantly to ten lanes. Also I would like to express my objection to a 25 year proposed lifespan for the building. This type of life time is not sufficient and will in the long term cost tax payers money. Quite simply - If we are to grow the active healthy population in St albans the pool capacity needs to be increased.
|
