Dear Editor,
Stroud District Council started writing their legacy on 12th March 2026. It doesn’t look good.
There is, rightly, much concern and discussion around the future of the Lido in Stratford Park, and I have certainly learned a lot from the interactions over the past days across meetings, posts and social media. This is far from an isolated case; it’s a series of somewhat unconnected similarities. Underlying this is the surfacing of a more concerning problem – does Stroud District Council leadership have the ability to listen, learn, adapt, or any appetite to be better? Events suggest not, which will leave a difficult legacy for the public if they continue with what looks like blind stubbornness.
Thursday 19th March saw democracy in action at the District Council’s Community Services and Licensing Committee. The news of the possibility of planned closure was released at 6am on Thursday 12th March, and the deadline for questions from the public (for the Committee where it would be discussed) was just a matter of hours later – noted as insufficient. However, the most pivotal “facts” were not released then, they came in the introduction to the topic at the Committee Meeting – giving the public and Councillors alike no opportunity to prepare for the revelations. You do not have to be a staunch conspiracy theorist to wonder if this could be an attempt to circumvent due procedure.
The Responsible Officer stated that the Health and Safety risks are so high that it would be impossible to open, and it became apparent to the onlookers that the timing would likely ensure closure for much (if not all) of the upcoming season. Yet, a driving force behind this (a Risk Assessment) was conducted on 3rd February 2026 and was no-where to be found in the Meeting Pack for the meeting. Democracy was indeed in action, as Councillors questioned the basis of a must-not-use directive, when they have no supporting evidence in front of them. Furthermore, and somewhat bizarrely, Councillors were being presented options with one (quite obvious) omission.
The options were to close it, or to choose one of three upgrades. To carry out essential repairs to expediently open it? No-where to be seen, yet predictably the preferred initial option of the public. So confident this could not be chosen, there had been no preparation for a breakdown of work and costs to simply repair, maintain and reopen. Nothing. Not even an accurate estimate of how much it may cost to get that quote. It was guessed to be £6,000 to obtain a survey and quote for works.
The questions and debates were good ones, and an amendment tabled and approved to get costings for essential repairs and maintenance, without non-essential upgrades. Be clear on this – a properly formed Committee, of legally elected representatives, voted to get costings for repair and reinstatement. So, for the Leader of the Council to issue a statement the very next afternoon that says “This is no longer about repairs.” accompanied by a video that accurately depicts how bad the base of the pool has been allowed to degrade, should ring alarm bells.
This is not an insurmountable problem, and specialists within our community (not just social media speculators) are well aware of that. A democratically elected body stated they want facts to make an informed decision – that is not a big ask; they were not furnished with the entire picture and the Risk Assessment (released post-meeting) is open to some interpretation and has much uncertainty.
The Leader is (without costings yet obtained for items outside of desirable upgrades) declaring the work needed is “not something the council can afford”. So, this statement from the Leader of Friday 20thMarch acknowledges the public are speaking, but pretty much reverts to the pre-meeting mantra of what Stroud District Council cannot do – without that being ratified by a vote nor accurately quantified, yet. Does that sound wrong? It should do. This is a publicly owned facility they wish to offload to community ownership.
There are distractions – claims that SDC cannot afford it, yet evidence of diligence so far may reasonably bring into question how hard they actually tried. You may have a view on how able the leadership is to “think outside of the box”. District Councils have many ways to raise money, if they choose. All options have not been exhausted, and it is easy to establish that not all have been voted upon or even put to Councillors.
At the Committee Meeting, Councillors shown on live-stream got the mood in the room, and got the mood of those who value this public asset that has been allowed to fall into such a state of disrepair – though how much of the damage is cosmetic is still to be assessed. It was heartening to hear that some Councillors have the understanding that our District Council needs to not repeat the numerous mistakes of the past; even naming the situations that surrounded the Sub Rooms transfer, and how the public saved the Stratford Park Leisure Centre sauna that was otherwise seemingly condemned. Does the leadership listen, though? Let’s look at the repeated rejection of the failed Local Plan and the experts that rejected it – not just once. What can reasonably be interpreted as blind stubbornness, dragged that entire process out, with what can be seen as a “we know best, we will not be swayed” approach, that has gambled with our planning resilience – and they lost. At great cost. They were repeatedly warned and advised, but it appears did not listen. We are now in a worsened position because, presumably, the leadership just will not listen – they too often manifest as knowing more than experts, knowing more than specialists, knowing more than the community, and there is no valuable advice if it doesn’t fit the plan already formed. Let us not forget so quickly the debacle that is Brimscombe Port. Not only the massive costs accumulated to date, but the loss of rental income from businesses forced off site, and the economic impact to those in that chain. The signs of failure on this project have played out publicly, clear red-flags with the approach of architects and designers, and we have slabs of concrete to celebrate and who knows what plan ahead. This is not case of being an expert in hindsight; there were signs, many signs. Both the loss of facilities at Brimscombe Port and the loss of the Lido (for however long) are a blow to our young people – our voters of tomorrow.
So, what will be the legacy of the District Council and its leadership? A steadfast, unwavering commitment to steer the ship forward, with no interest in the icebergs and debris in front of them? That would be predictable, you may think. If Stroud District Council continues true-to-form, Local Government Reorganisation isn’t the thing we need to worry about right now, nor is the Government financial settlement; it’s the path they will drag the District through up to the point the District Council ceases to exist. They have the chance, a final chance, to make theirs a positive legacy.
Yours faithfully,
Name and address supplied
