Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Ratepayers reject proposed bathing scheme for Newcastle

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 11 January 2010
THE News Letter reported that a largely attended meeting of Newcastle ratepayers had been held on January 15, 1930 to consider the bathing scheme which was then before the council.
The scheme made provisions for the creation of a new swimming pond which would be 150 feet long and 60 feet wide, it was also proposed that work should be carried out on the existing baths in town and "the raising" of the building by a storey to prov
ide municipal offices and a caretaker's apartments.
It was estimated by the council that this could be achieved at an estimated cost, "allowing for a labour grant", of £6,194.
Further particulars about the planned swimming pond were also detailed at the meeting. It was noted that the new swimming pond would be of "suitable dimensions" which would allow swimming galas to be held there.
The chairman of the council, Mr E Beatty, JP, explained that owing to the limited resources available to the town's council it was felt that before any decision was taken to proceed with the scheme that the council had to obtain the views of the ratepayers.
But Mr Beatty explained that that owing to the limited resources available to the town's council it was felt that before any decision was taken to proceed with the scheme that the council had to obtain the views of the ratepayers.
There then followed an interesting discussion on the bathing scheme at which a number of the town's ratepayers expressed their opinions on the project.
Colonel Berry proposed that as the existing bathing facilities in the town were inadequate to purposes that a scheme "in keeping with modern requirements" should be undertaken and carried out as "expeditiously as possible".
Major Head, in seconding, said that if bathing facilities were improved the town itself would become much more attractive to visitors. The resolution was then put to a vote and was defeated by a "substantial majority".
There then followed a resolution which was proposed by Mr J Scott and seconded by Mr H Magee Jnr which called for the council to take no further steps on the matter. The resolution was carried by an overwhelming majority.
Despite the defeat the chairman said that the council felt, "and were still of the opinion", that in promoting the scheme that they were serving the best interests of ratepayers.
He remarked: "Anyone coming in contact with the visitors is left in no doubt that the town is suffering from the absence of a proper bathing facilities. In other places where they catered for the public it was not a question of a few thousand but many thousands of pounds being spent to make resorts attractive."
Mr Beatty then asked the meeting if there was an alternative proposal which those opposed to the scheme would like to put forward.
At this time a Colonel Berry stood to address the meeting and said that it was his view that the matter should be referred back to the urban council as he thought "the situation proposed was not the best".
Colonel Berry said that he was opposed to the raising of the baths or doing anything which would dwarf the town's war memorial. He said he was in favour of a swimming pond at the Blackrock.
At the conclusion of the meeting Mr Beatty said that in view of the decision taken that day by the ratepayers of Newcastle nothing further could be done on the matter and the meeting was called to a close.



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 11 January 2010 8:47 AM
  • Source: n/a
  • Location: Belfast
 
 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.