LAST Wednesday, March 8, you published an article headed ‘Temple Cowley Pools will be bulldozed as new homes plan agreed’. This article contained numerous inaccuracies, including the comment “Temple Cowley Pools looks set to be bulldozed”.

The Temple Cowley Pools (TCP) complex has already been demolished, in a spiteful act of anti-democratic corporate vandalism in which Oxford City Council colluded. Although planning permission had not, at that stage, been granted, demolition began last August, despite protests from local residents and users of TCP from further afield, and continued until January this year.

Wednesday’s article quotes Catalyst Housing’s representative as saying “we have gone to great lengths to get [this application] right”.

No they haven’t. They had one consultation with local residents, some 20 months ago. Their contract for sale required a ‘programme of community engagement’. One consultation does not constitute a programme. Over 200 people objected, on sound planning grounds, to this application; there was one letter of support. Most planning applications attract barely 10 letters of comment.

Wednesday’s Oxford Mail published an article about Oxford City Council giving £500,000 to refurbish Bullingdon Community Centre. Suddenly, councillors are offering to support a surprising range of community initiatives. Is this a cynical attempt to manipulate public perception and garner support for the city council’s bid for unitary status? Residents – do not be fooled! Ask the tower block leaseholders!

This city council – whose elected members are meant to represent the community which they serve – is not fit for purpose. 

The allocation of the TCP site for housing, its subsequent lease, demolition, and planning support, have been undemocratic and malicious acts. The city council listens when it suits them, but is otherwise deaf to residents’ concerns on significant matters.
We know that there is unmet housing need within Oxford, but this cannot override all other considerations. 

We need infrastructure – such as health centres, schools, and yes, leisure facilities – to offer to all these additional residents. 

People objected because the proposal breaches a number of planning policies, uses very outdated population statistics for its foundation argument, and does not respect or complement the adjoining Temple Cowley Conservation Area. 

We have lost our much-loved TCP leisure facilities, for which no satisfactory alternative has been provided, and we wish to retain a swimming pool and other community facilities on this site for all to enjoy.

JUDITH HARLEY
Old Temple Cowley Residents’ Association