AT Wednesday night’s ordinary Southern Grampians Shire Council (SGSC) meeting, the Glenthompson Memorial Swimming Pool was again high on the agenda with Glenthompson War Memorial Swimming Pool Committee members again in attendance to put questions to council.

Pool Committee secretary, Jenny Rankin said that previous questions remained unanswered and she requested to ask them again.

“Since we haven’t yet had answers to the questions we asked at that (May 2024) briefing, I want to put them again,” she said.

“Will Council agree to a minimum six month stay on works at the pool?”

She also requested on behalf of the community that the committee believed some items had been removed from the pool precinct.

“While some items have already been removed, we would like to know nothing else will be taken before discussions are held about what belongs to the township,” Ms Rankin asked.

She also asked if council was willing to participate in independent mediation with the community over retention of the pool?

“Is council willing to work with the community to find workable alternative ways to keep the pool open?” Ms Rankin asked.

Ms Rankin said at the previous briefing in Glenthompson, SGSC chief executive, Tony Doyle said retention of the pool would need the support of the whole community.

“That backing was clearly demonstrated at both engagement sessions held in Glenthompson late last year about the pool,” she said.

“Yet despite that overwhelming endorsement, councillors voted to ruin it.

“On the other hand, with no evidence of such support council has allocated money in the recently accepted budget for the acquisition and renovation of the school.

“We welcome investment in our district as a return on the financial contributions we make to council and the school may in time prove to be a very worthwhile project.

“At this time, it’s not council owned, its price has not been disclosed, it has no sale date, and no feasibility or business plans and will cost a bomb to repair or renovate.

“On the other hand, the pool is an existing asset that’s ready to use.

“So, this decision seems to be a capricious one based on a false dichotomy.

“It’s capricious in the sense that an existing and well-supported facility in which the community has heavily invested, is to be sacrificed.”

Again, Ms Rankin reiterated that investment in the old Glenthompson school should not be at the expense of the Memorial Swimming Pool.

“We need the option of both,” she said.

“My question is would one of the four councillors who voted to defund and destroy our pool, please explain why they’re prepared to sacrifice this valuable and well-supported existing facility while allocating council finance to a project for which the community’s support has not been demonstrated, and a project that may not eventuate?”

SGSC wellbeing, planning and regulation director, Rory Neeson initially responded to the operational questions from Ms Rankin.

He said council officers had not removed any pumps or permanent fixtures from the pool.

“We have no plans to decommission the pool equipment at this time,” Mr Neeson said.

“If we have equipment malfunctions at other pools, and we can reuse equipment in the Glenthompson Swimming Pool, rather than buy new, we will do that.

“But at this stage that has not occurred, and we don’t have any expectations of that.

“Staff have reported, however, that they’ve been questioned by members of the community when they (were) at the site, (and removed) a portable manual vacuum that is used across all outdoor pools and is not a permanent fixture at any pool.”

In relation to the Ms Rankin’s question regarding mediation between SGSC and the Glenthompson Swimming Pool Committee, Mr Neeson said given that Council had already made the lawful decision to close the pool, it would serve no purpose.

“It is hard to see what role mediation could play,” he said.

“If you have a proposal, please send it to us for consideration.

“In your last deputation to council, you indicated that the community group would put together a proposal to council regarding the future management of the pool, which council indicated it would welcome.

“We will continue to engage with the Glenthompson community on their future aspirations.”

Mayor, David Robertson said he had external discussions regarding the pool with a Glenthompson community member.

“We’re certainly not going to fill it in and destroy the pool if there is another option or a way of keeping it open,” he said.

“We’re certainly open to that.

“But at $65,000 a year to open the gates … plus the refurbishment and upgrading of the pool, it is beyond council means.

“I don’t think there’s anywhere else in Australia where a community has the opportunity … with two pools within 15 minutes, and another pool about 30 minutes away. So, it’s a luxury that you’ve had.”

In response to Ms Rankin’s question why SGSC was investing money into purchasing the old school building, he said that it was a far better investment.

“The maintenance costs would be lower, and it would be able to used by everybody,” he said.

“It would be open 365 days a year … that’s much better than the 43 or 53 days the pool is open.”