I admit being a bit baffled by some comments on this thread.
There is a community pool where I lived that used to have weekly SEN sessions.
However, following feedback they increased this to two sessions. This was because a significant number of children could not take advantage of the session because of noise intolerance/sensitivity issues. As such there is now both a quiet and noisy SEN session.
Speaking to one of the parents I found it's very common for children with noise sensitivity to be unable to access even supposedly SEN friendly activities.
That's very sad indeed and it seems that quite a lot of people tend to subscribe to a very stereotypical view of how some SN's (especially autism) manifest.
In this case I don't particularly care for the tone of the managers response, but I don't think the "quiet" policy is discriminatory.
As pp's have commented this resort may well be perfect for some children with sensory issues and it's policy is actually in a minority (in that most quiet resorts tend to be adult only).
In that sense it's actually providing access to an experience for SN children with noise sensitivity that's fundamentally quite rare.
Those who wish to argue that this policy is discriminatory could I think justifiably be challenged to ask why they are advocating for the removal of a "rare" service that benefits a number of people with SN in favour of "all" SN who wrt to noise have a much broader choice than those who are noise sensitive?