The Rushden Echo, 20th March 1964, transcribed by Jim Hollis
Roof for the Swim Pool – Some Have Doubts
Some Rushden Ratepayers are “going off the deep end” over the proposal by the Urban Council to spend £9,000 on a roof for the Station Road swimming bath. Many think the estimated figure, which would be equivalent to an extra three pence on the rates, would be too heavy a burden to bear.
The £9,000 it was pointed out at last month’s council meeting would not include the cost of heating the pool during the winter months, maintenance, or attendants’ wages.
Although, at this stage, the scheme is only tentative and may never become effective, several people feel that this is too much money to spend on keeping the bath open for all-the-year-round swimming.
The council, however, has taken one definite step towards implementing the proposal by including an allowance in next year’s estimates for loan charges to cover the cost of the improvement.
Close Watch
Ratepayers are watching the situation closely – many anxiously. Some have openly opposed the idea.
Those who want Rushden children to have a better chance to learn to swim during the winter – at present the bath is open to the public during the summer only – have welcomed the long-awaited proposal to erect a roof. They think the expense is justified.
Rushden Swimming Club, which uses the bath and has been pressing for a roof to be put on it, is prepared to raise money to help finance it now that there is renewed interest.
Rotary Interest
Treasurer Mrs. Irene Lambert told the “Echo” that they had almost £100 in their roof fund. “It has been raised by the club over a number of years,” she said.
Mr. G. B. Mackness, the Rotary Club president, disclosed that the club would shortly be discussing the possibility of helping out. He commented: “We are definitely interested, but that is all I can say at the moment.”
The newly-elected secretary of the swimming club, Mrs. D. Wills, pointed out that a lot of people who wanted to teach their children how to swim were forced to use the indoor baths at Northampton.
A man in favour of the improvements said the roof was 35 years overdue. He asked: “Do we want our children to swim or not? That is the real crux of the problem.”
From the objectors, Mr. H. V. More said “Rushden is a small town with a small number of ratepayers. We cannot expect to enjoy the amenities of larger towns and cities.”
He agreed that the bath might not be entirely satisfactory, but circumstances did not warrant the large expenditure envisaged.
He claimed that most of the ratepayers he had spoken to in the South Ward were opposed to the council’s scheme and that the doubts expressed by the vice-chairman, Mr. A. Allebone, at the council meeting (he said that Rushden would not be prepared to pay the extra 3d rate) were shared by others.
Too Small
Speaking personally, Mr. F. Wright, secretary of the Ratepayers’ Association, thought the bath was not big enough to spend £9,000 on, and contended that if Rushden swimmers wanted special amenities they should be prepared to pay the appropriate admission fee to offset the cost.
He added: “Of course, everyone should know how to swim, but not at the expense of the ratepayers. In any case, it isn’t right to teach kids to swim in hot water – they don’t have it hot at the seaside.”
The urban council treasurer, Mr. W. D. White, asked where the money for the roof would come from if the council decided to go ahead with the scheme, said it was more likely to come from the capital account than be raised directly on the rate.
|
