I AM surprised at Peter Wilkinson’s comments (Letters – Better way to deliver new swimming pool, March 7).

Not only does he misunderstand the role of a judicial review, its limits and a very low prospect of productive outcome, he misunderstands from where Oxford City Council’s policy for swimming provision evolved.

It evolved from a series of reviews, including from 2004 to 2010 when Oxford City Council was under no overall control.

The policy for swimming provision within Oxford was well defined by the time of my election in May 2010 and the time when Labour gained a majority of councillors.

On accepting responsibility for Leisure Services and Leisure Strategy in May 2011, I reviewed how policies had been arrived at.

I remain of the opinion that councillors of different political parties and administrations acted proportionately, reasonably, legally and fairly in forming the policy that arrived at the decision to build a new pool within Blackbird Leys.

There is nothing within the claim for judicial review that causes me to come to a new decision – just as there was nothing within the Town Green application that caused me to change my mind.

Remedies of judicial review are limited and are of last resort. Many claims for judicial review merely delay the implementation of a decision and add to its expense.

Most claims for judicial review are without any prospect of a favourable outcome for the applicant.

In addition, even a successful claim for judicial review does not guarantee the claimant a changed outcome.

As a realist, I feel it best that I speak out for the taxpayer and that I speak against those who repeatedly ‘cry wolf’ at the taxpayer’s expense.

Councillor VAN COULTER, Labour and Co-operative Councillor, Barton and Sandhills Oxford City Council, Dunstan Road, Oxford