Option 3 is not acceptable. It puts the pool right up by the junction with Kirkdale. For someone coming from Honor Oak (me!), it's probably about the same as going to the Bridge. And what a mess they've made of the existing site - the modern housing does not sit at all well with the retained Victorian frontage. Ugh!!!

Assuming that the retention of the front is a given, the only acceptable option is option 2, which is automatically ruled out by reason of cost.

I feel that their scoring matrix is unfairly skewed. And as for planning issues, why is it acceptable to build modern housing on the leisure centre site, but not on the old depot site? Why not offer to "swap" employment site designation with the existing pools site. Employment is a hot issue at the moment, so that's probably going to swing the deal. It used to be housing, but that's not the gravy train it used to be, so you'll find them racking up the density as they go along.

I could rant on for ages .... Basically the whole thing stinks!