“I know many share your concerns Mark (sorry I called you Gary before) but lets hope the Trust succeeds in its forecast to be able to keep the pool open with promised grants and donations, despite our fears about the associated risks. If it doesn't, North Somerset Council has warned it will not take the pool back if all goes wrong.

You may be interested to know that after receiving the Local Government Ombudsman's final response, saying it could not investigate further because the council had reported the pool was opening this year under the Trust making the complaint futile, I wrote to senior staff within the LGO to express dissatisfaction with the outcome as the reason given for not pursuing the investigation was totally irrelevant to the original complaint about the inaccurate Review Report. I received a letter today confirming the Ombudsman has taken on board my concerns and the file is to be reviewed again by someone unconnected with the original decision.”

“Sorry Ms/Mrs Hennessey, no intention to offend. I simply meant that once it was made public how inaccurate the figures and information being used by the council actually was, I would have expected both local residents and local town/district councillors to press for an investigation or explanation.
Sadly it appears that dishoinesty and corrupt practices have becomethe norm these days and people just accept them.
I applaud the efforts made by the Friends Of The Pool in the past few years but do somehow feel that the formation of a trust has undermined those efforts long term.”

“Gary, "more effort" by whom? The Outline Report by the Friends of Portishead Open Air Pool (page 11) and Response to the Review Report (page 7) clearly expressed the need for complete council control to be considered, excluding the management contractor. The actual council Review Report also states that direct NSC management "could have a beneficial impact on levels of subsidy". However, the Deputy Leader of North Somerset Council in his superior wisdom (?) refused to explore this option. And why would he, when the council had other ulterior plans for this site?

Ultimately, as the Local Government Ombudsman has pointed out, the fact the district councillors were voted in by the people means the ruling party within the council has the power to do what it wants and can achieve its goals in whatever manner it sees fit. Even it that means producing a document recommending closure without substantive evidence to back it up. Dr Liam Fox MP could only 'encourage' the council to act appropriately but could not interfere with the process and the Audit Commission who gave advisory support in the dilemma, also had no power to control the manner in which the council conducted itself.

The council's decision was to work with the Trust rather than be accountable itself. Of course, another option still open to people is to vote differently at the next election but the couoncillors have a close ally in Assistant Director of the Department of Development and Environment within NSC, who is not a fan of the open air pool having recommended its closure on more than one occasion.”

“I must agree with the Clevedon Resident. Without the TV makeover the fundraising was totally inadequate, was not sustainable and the formation of a trust has simply delayed permanent closure by a year.

More effort should have been made to convince the council to take complete control of the pool and run it based on pre-management company days.

Sadly, temporary hype and cheap TV ratings based makeovers do not ensure the long term survival of what should be the jewel in Portishead's tarnished crown.

I wish those trying to save the Pool well but eventually they will need a reality check by which time it will be too late to once more question the extreme lengths certain council figures have gone to to falsify figures to justify closing the facility, and makeover or no makeover the bulldozers will still move in before the ink on the closure notice has dried.

How can the trust claim that criteria to extend the lease have been met before they have proved the point by getting customers through the door, cash in the bank and the cafe running profitably?

Take away the glamour of cheap TV celebrity fever and there is little substance.

Season Ticket holders have now spent their cash for the year so very little income will be generated by those who will probably be using the pool the most and who are probably the staunchest pool supporters/volunteers.

What happenned to the 'donations' by local companies of solar panels as mentioned in this paper a few months ago?

With a council opposed to the premises remaining open, a trust run by people with unproven success in business and huge wage bills, overheads and running costs the project was doomed from the outset and the council are completely aware of this.

The whole Save The Pool campaign may have made good press but with all topical news stories time will forget the efforts made and by this time next year a different issue will dominate the headlines and the closure of Portishead Pool will get a few paragraphs in the obituary column.”

“May I just point out to the Clevedon Resident, that it was not just Portishead people who criticised the council and its Review Report, it was people from all over the district including Bristol. They had good cause to do so and were able to soundly justify in many formal written challenges why the council's report was inaccurate and unsubstantiated. Indeed, at a council meeting last night, district councillor Arthur Terry commented on the report's lack of credibility, something the Review Report's author has so far failed to accept despite his own Tory councillors speaking out against it.

Many pool supporters actively wrote letters to the press and council, not just because they use the pool themselves but because they wish to safeguard this open air facility for future generations,

Many people were unable to use the pool as often as they wished because of the inflexible opening times dictated by the council and managing contractor, and the fact that families with babies and toddlers had no children's pool caused difficulties. However, their support was invaluable in raising awareness of how important this facility is. People do not have to ALL use an amenity or service to appreciate how vital it is for the community and wider inter and outer county areas.

I don't know which changing rooms you used, but certainly the female ones were adequate and more satisfactory than the hot, cramped conditions at Parish Wharf indoor pool.”