(a)

the response received from James Coulton, Assistant Director for Culture, Sport and Leisure had not made reference to consulting with the residents of Plymstock on the location of a swimming pool;

(b)

the petition was online which precluded those people without access to the internet from being able to sign it and requested that a public meeting was held in order to consult with the residents of Plymstock;

(c)

the proposal to provide a swimming pool in Plymstock had been discussed for a considerable number of years;

(d)

requested that the original Broadway site was reconsidered as this was a central location in Plymstock and was easily accessible;

(e)

the proposal for the provision of a swimming pool was part of the Sherford development but no date had been given as to when the facility would be provided.

(f)

the potential for Section 106 monies from the development of Sherford and other developments in the area would contribute towards the building of a swimming pool (approximately £1m); without this funding the Council would be unable to fund such a facility;

(g)

it would not be financially viable to operate two swimming pools in such close proximity to each other, one being in Plymstock and the other in  Sherford;

(h)

the Council had published relevant strategies, clearly outlining its position on the this matter; extensive research had been undertaken to draft both the Plymouth Swimming Facilities Strategy and Plymouth Sport Facilities Strategy; the Swimming Facilities Strategy had identified the need to provide facilities in the north and east of the city, as well as the Plymouth Life Centre (the leisure development at Marjons had met this need in the north of the city); the provision of a pool in the east of the city was a priority;

(i)

consultation with external organisations had taken place and a strategic analysis of the data had been undertaken by Sport England; there had also been extensive consultation via the relevant area action plan.

(j)

discussions would be held with the Plymstock and District Swimming Pool Association nearer to the delivery date for the pool, to ascertain if the Association would be willing to contribute towards the facility;

(k)

due to the current economic situation, a date could not be provided as to when works would commence on the swimming pool; although the facility would be delivered in the first phase of the Sherford development;

(l)

due to lack of funding, it was not an option, at this stage to seek a contribution from Sport England towards the pool;

(m)

the need had been identified for swimming facilities in the east of the city; the most feasible option of providing these facilities was to use the Section 106 funding from Sherford and other developments in the area.

(m)

no date had been given for the provision of the swimming pool which formed part of the Sherford development;

(n)

a public meeting was needed to fully discuss the potential sites within Plymstock for the swimming pool; the original Broadway site which had previously been refused needed to be relooked at;

(o)

swimming facilities would improve the health of Plymstock residents.

(p)

whether the letter to Mr Sharpe should have evidenced that consultation had taken place;

(q)

whether a special localities/neighbourhood meeting should take place in order to consult with the residents of Plymstock on a site for the pool;