I WAS mystified to read in the article Oaklands pool rubber-stamped (The Press, January 10) that the committee chairperson, Madeleine Kirk, said the council received no complaints from the public about the consultation.

My letter, published in The Press on December 18, was highly critical of the Council's consultation regarding the way forward for York's swimming pools - and there was a response printed on the same day from a City of York Council spokeswoman.

Many letters to The Press, those of Philip Sunley on December 27 and Timothy Wynn on January 1, to name but two, also objected strongly to the method of consultation.

Furthermore, at the council meeting, reported in The Press on December 23, Coun David Evans said: "All the residents I have spoken to have indicated they are not in favour of these proposals and feel like they have not been properly consulted."

This was said at a council meeting. So how can Coun Kirk claim that the council has received no objections to the consultation?

The Press report of the scrutiny committee's meeting provided further indication that the intention to build York's new pool at Oaklands had been decided well in advance of the so-called consultation. I consider that the consultation was flawed, and was heavily biased towards Oaklands.

Regrettably, if this is allowed to go forward as planned, it will result in the waste of the best part of £5 million on a pool that is too narrow, and lacks a viewing gallery suitable for galas and competitive events Tony Gregory, Millgates, York.


A City of York Council spokeswoman said: "Mr Gregory's letter raises an important point. Though readers are able to comment on council policy via the letters page of The Press, their letters are not automatically forwarded on to the council as official complaints.

"Formal comments or complaints regarding the authority must be sent to the relevant service."