I WRITE to protest at the way in which Test Valley Borough Council has handled the redevelopment of the Andover leisure centre.

In checking the sequence of events leading up to the public planning meeting, where the public were given precisely three minutes to protest — on planning grounds only — to a conclusion which is widely unpopular throughout the town, I find it was only the culmination to a series of events beginning with the decision by TVBC, which few would disagree with, that the town needed a new leisure centre; but was thenceforth handled in a way in which the people of Andover had no opportunity to express their opinion as to the optimal solution.

TVBC handled the matter from beginning to end so as to avoid public involvement only revealing the new centre in an exhibition — after a contract had already been decided, for its construction.

As to the new centre itself, it is, on a generous interpretation, perhaps marginally smaller in some respects than the existing centre , but to state this is to miss the point.

Andover is a vastly larger, and to a degree, wealthier town than it was over 20 years ago.

More over the population of the town, younger and greatly more health and sport conscious than it was, would if asked, look for a leisure centre that would meet the needs of the town not only for today but for the next 20 years.

Clearly a much more ambitious, flagship project should have been contemplated which would act as a major attraction to the town and to the fostering of a healthy lifestyle, instead of the existing scheme whose principal attraction to TVBC is evidently that it will generate a nice rental income!

The basis for an alternative scheme existed, perhaps still exists, in the development of a larger and much more comprehensive leisure centre on land the TVBC already owns.

For example, in Bere Hill — which has long been scheduled for development — the value of which could be realised either by sale or in a codevelopment scheme.

This would leave the existing site available until the new site was completed following which it could itself be re-developed for mixed housing and retail use to the further enhancement of the town centre.

In a word the profit potential could be shared between the expansion of facilities whilst improving revenue to TVBC.

It would seem that TVBC has handled this project in a way which fails to meet the needs and aspirations of the town whilst at the same time failing to optimise the assets it owns.

In short a disaster from every point of view — public service, economic and democratic. In reviewing this sorry state of affairs, ultimately the responsibility of the councillors of TVBC, the words of Cromwell to the Long Parliament come to mind: “You have sat there too long for any good that you are doing — Go I say. In the name of God go!”

Robert Hickman CBE, Micheldever Road, Andover