THE charade over the future of Temple Cowley Swimming Pool is over. Now councillors and officers can sit back and relax.

They knew what they wanted and got what they wanted. And, best of all, fulfilled their obligations to the general public.

I admire Jane Alexander’s drive and enthusiasm. She desperately tried to save the pool from closure, at considerable cost to herself – both financially and health-wise.

She challenged the council in every aspect, from inflated building costs to the siting of the new building, which will not give everything Temple Cowley pool provided.

I was surprised that the executive committee casually dismissed the petition signed by more than 9,000 people, which she wanted to present, as being of no consequence.

I realised then that the debate between councillors and senior officers was a joke, and sensed it was a done deal – especially when a councillor had the audacity to say that access to the new pool was within easy reach, which it is not.

Among the many questions I asked, one referred to what the council proposed to do with the site if they decided to close the pool. Other than saying that the site would be sold, they ducked the issue.

It has been a long-established policy that existing recreational areas must be retained at all costs, for the benefit of future generations.

I believe this policy was adopted by all parties when they foresaw that the closure of schools could see recreational areas lost to housing.

I believe Temple Cowley Pool stands on city-owned recreational ground. If that is the case, it can not be sold unless the purchaser can guarantee to keep it open to the public for recreational use.

I understand, however, that the local plan does not indicate that this area is reserved for recreational use. If I am correct, where would the city council find the extra finance to fund the new pool?

VIM RODRIGO Rivermead Road Rose Hill Oxford