We shouldn't need to beg the government to pay for something the council should be able to afford.
I agree, totally. But since 2010 central government has progressively slashed local authority grants, and now there are councils in this country struggling to even provide the services they have to legally provide. Local councils are not awash with money.
I've said it before, even a temporary solution of a stainless steel liner would have kept costs down as a temporary measure and provided a income.
its been so long I've had to go back and refresh my memory on why the pool closed. Two reasons were given. 1) pool fabric. 2) filtration.
A liner may help with 1, but not 2. But how much would a liner cost? Yes it would bring in an income, but would it make a profit? What was Marple's finances like before it closed? Marple was hardly the busiest leisure centre in the borough. It was a pool with a tiny gym. The gym never seemed heavily used.
How much income has been lost? How many users were people like me, members, who have simply ended up using other facilities. Some users will have been lost completely. Some will have started using New Mills instead, taking their cash somewhere else. But others will be going to Hazel Grove, to Romiley, or to Grand Central. It's quite possible that the amount of income lost by closure is lower than the costs of having Marple open in a holding state. I'm sure someone will have done the finances.
(Lest anyone be in any doubt, I definitely want a new pool in Marple. I go swimming four times a week and it's tedious going all over the borough to do it, driving past a completely empty facility in order to do so.)