It’s been described as “tired and old”, but on this night, a brave face was put on the Kangaroo Flat Community Leisure Centre.

The debutantes walk from the stage to the old basketball court below, decorations placed to make the hall look fit for the occasion.

Tables surround the dance floor as video cameras and phones record the moment sons and daughters dance in formation in the hall.

They record what will likely be the last debutante ball held at the leisure centre.

But even with demolition “seemingly imminent”, one group are taking the fight against the centre’s demise right to the end – and they say they have the backing of the majority of the Kangaroo Flat community.

Led by former councillor Don McKinnon, they have maintained that the odds were stacked against them from the start.

In March 2013, the City of Greater Bendigo released plans for the $30 million aquatic centre, to replace the leisure centre.

Mr McKinnon said it took everyone by surprise.

“The Bendigo Advertiser duly ran an article informing the community that the leisure centre was to be demolished, thus ambushing and surprising members of the Kangaroo Flat Advisory Committee,” he said.

“Importantly, they had not been informed.”

A challenge was lodged in the state’s planning tribunal against the plans, but they soon withdrew the challenge in the belief that council did not require a planning permit.

In the meantime, the group devised its own plan to save the leisure centre, by rotating the proposed aquatic centre 45 degrees to allow for both buildings.

They say their plan is viable, and allows for room to keep existing car parking, in addition to proposed car parks.

Despite being slightly further back on the site, Mr McKinnon said the entrance to the aquatic centre would not be compromised.

“There is room for both, it just depends what your priorities are,” he said.

“Our architect maintains that the design is superior to council’s because of the northern aspect.”

The group also proposes for the facade of the leisure centre to be improved to match the aquatic centre. They say the leisure centre has been allowed to decay in recent years, a fact disputed by council officers.

Twenty-eight groups continued use of the hall – largely for annual events.

At this month’s first council meeting, a petition with 3000 signatures will be considered urging council to keep the leisure centre. It could be the last time the matter comes before council.

They will also discuss a meeting with leisure centre supporters on September 9.

Mr McKinnon hopes for a better reception at the council meeting, but with questions to be asked in a separate room due to last month’s events, it seems unlikely.

“They just weren’t responsive. It’s what we’ve become used to,” he said.

“It seems they’ve adopted a policy of ‘if we just ignore them, they’ll go away and that’s that’.”

For the 30 years leading up to the construction of the Kangaroo Flat Community Leisure Centre in the late 1970s, the southern suburbs of Bendigo did not have a community hall to call their own.

Some 30 years later, the area faces a similar situation.

But this time, as City of Greater Bendigo director of city futures Stan Liacos believes, the options for halls in 2015 Bendigo is far more varied.

“The leisure centre once played an important role in the area, but now it’s unsightly, it isn’t used very often and there are many other options in the area and in wider Bendigo,” he said.

“There’s no demand for another hall, but there’s certainly demand for an aquatic centre.”

Mr Liacos said the council had considered leisure centre’s supporters assertion that the centre could remain on the site with the aquatic centre, however their claims had not held water.

“Their plan is overly simplistic. It’s not showing how the necessary number of car parks could fit,” he said.

“When you account for the need for 200 more car parks, their plans just don’t show how that could fit.”

Leisure centre supporters say their plan would not impact existing car parks, nor would it get in the way of aquatic centre car parks.

Their legal advice – outlined in VCAT – also stated the council did not need a planning permit, and so reconsidering the plans would not hold the project up.

But the council believes a planning permit would be needed for additional car parking and environmental overlays.

Mr Liacos said council had not stood in the way of leisure centre supporters’, despite claims they had been obstructed.

“They have been given access to everything they have asked for,” he said. “We have given out hundreds of pages of information.”

The mistrust from leisure centre supporters has remained throughout, however.

Don McKinnon said the process had been deeply disappointing for those who worked to build the centre in the 1970s, as well as for its current day supporters.

“The council should listen to the overall community and not destroy the trust and respect between them and the people they represent,” he said.