There is a comprehensive version of the proposed options elsewhere on the Lewisham site: http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/CouncilAndDem...sStudy.htm

It's the full report from the architects (HLM) broken down into chapters. Each of the 3 proposed options has a 14 page chapter - rather more information than Lewisham has provided in the 3-images-per-option version that they're encouraging people to base their opinions on.

I would recommend that people look at the full version, rather than Lewisham's 'lite' version.

Steve - the 'keep it because it is old' was a mischievous quote, really, but my point is that the existing building doesn't warrant compromising the new one, and English Heritage agrees.

I agree with other posters, that there are plenty of examples of bad new buildings replacing old ones e.g. the railway station. That's not a reason to keep the old one, it's more about ensuring the new one is a decent design.

I think the new designs in the consultation leaflet are pretty generic looking - even the 'landmark' building. Need to do better.

That's really not so, Les. EH visited the pools on 13 April 2005, and they were closed on 4 Feb 2006. EH published their report in Aug 2006 and Steve Bullock changed his mind and decided to go with demolition 13 Feb 2008. Thus when EH were preparing their report the pools were still open. Can you tell me where, in their report or elsewhere, they suggest that the present building should not be allowed to compromise a new one. As I said above, they are actually rather positive about the building.

On a slightly different tack, when I saw the designs I was surprised to see the north wall of the library, facing Louise House, lookng so good, especially in option 3:


That is certainly not how I recalled it, so I checked it out this morning:


The line of arched windows, quite as attractive as on the Thorpewood Avenue side, does not exist. It is actually the blank, unattractive wall to the right, in stock brick, with no windows and, originally, hidden by a building in the garden of Louise House and certainly not intended to be exposed. If the architect can take such liberties with a building which is there for him to copy, imagine what he can do with one which still, essentially, exists only in his mind.

^^^^Oh Dear, this really stinks. Me thinks there are a few people "in charge" of Lweisham and the designs who are extracting the urine. I wonder if any of them are ex Blair spin doctors?

So much for Victorian architecture, they didn't even finish off the library building properly!

Perhaps the proposal is to paint the 'missing wall' on the library building so that we can pretend it has windows. But the more sensible use would be to have the leisure centre closer to the library, or perhaps they could squeeze some more housing in the gap.

I hope the comment above is an attempt at a joke. The point to be made is that as Steve Grindlay has pointed out the Council's printed material is actually a dishonest representation intended to put the best possible spin on what could possibly be built (if a developer can be found in the current climate to actually take it on). A second thread in this unfolding saga is the so-called 'consultation'. The Council undertook to leaflet all homes in the wards of Forest Hill, Sydenham and Perry Vale. Last night I spoke to people in Lawrie Park Gdns (Sydenham) and Colfe Road (Perry Vale) and neither had yet received their leaflet inviting them to the library. This is appalling given that the consultation ends on August 8. In the same vein, this leaflet is the most lacklustre bit of Council communication ever produced. Why not produce an A4 4-page leaflet in the usual Lewisham house style with the options clearly set out and the possibility of posting back a feedback form? This has been the standard practise for other consultations - eg on Controlled Parking Zones. Alternatively, they could have taken a spread in Lewisham Life (delivered throughout the borough) with a box for feedback. I took this up with one of the project managers outside the station on Friday afternoon and he was very defensive. He went on to say that 'a few focus groups' would also be held. It will be interesting to see how those are recruited...

I have not received a leaflet on London Road.

Nothing on Waldenshaw Road.

We received eight leaflets for six flats some time last week.

Thanks to Blushingsnail for giving us the link to the architects report, which I have just looked at, and also to Steve Grindlay for pointing out just how much of a liberty the architects have taken with the side of the library building. But its what architects do when they want to sell a scheme.

That's my concern really, the general public is not used to looking at development plans (in my job I look at these frequently unfortunately) and if most people who respond to the 'lite' web consultation just see the images on the website, they will not make a decision based on the reality of the three options.

The images in the architects' report are full of architectural liberties - or "artist's impressions", the view of the residential blocks are continiously obscured by big fluffy mature trees, so their real impact is hidden.

Their report is also full of words like 'creating a sense of place' (a term that should be familiar to Steve Grindlay..), 'community' and 'landmark building ' (means tall and architecturally unremarkable building).

It sounds like most people are not being made aware of the consultation anyway, so I agree this is a real stinker...

"A real stinker" is an apt description. I urge everyone concerned at the destruction of the Victorian buildings to sign the petition at this link:
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/save...tures.html

Those windows on the library that don't actually exist, are only shown on option 3 plan. Option 1 and 2 only show a bricked wall (albeit incorrectly striped), so I see this as a further dishonest attempt to push option 3 as the council's preferred option.

To paraphrase the English Heritage report based on an inspection of the building in April 2005 "their architectural interest is limited in comparison to contemporary listed baths... ...it is not of sufficient special architectural or historic interest in a national context to fulfil the criteria for listing".

On this basis I think it is best to get rid, on the proviso that we get something of suitable quality, rather than try to retain a fairly average Victorian building in the new design.

This is becoming rather boring , Les. When I used that quote I did so to make the point that although the building did not meet the criteria for listing, the inspectors still found it an interesting and important local building. Their remit is only to list buildings that are nationally important. The fact that the pools did not meet that criterion does not mean they are not of local importance.

Let?s see what you can do with this quote:

It is the conclusion of a feasibility study, commissioned by the Council and appearing on their website a few days ago, called . As you can see, the principal misgiving is simply that there is not so much profit to be made from conversion, but surely it should have been offered as one of the options.

There is also a somewhat less favourable briefing summary produced by a council officer, which is on the same link.

I agree with stevegrindlay's comments.

As I have said before, the existing pool building is not listed, and has been turned down for listing, is not in a conservation area (not yet) and therefore there is no statutory requirement for their retention. Subject to a building regulations notification for demolition, the pools building could be demolished tomorrow.

If the issue of re-use has been considered by the architects and the Council and proven not to work, then surely a case is being proven.

Maybe the designs aren't to everyone tastes, but I want to swim in my local swimming pool!

I've been reading all the comments and am surprised by how worked up people are getting about the old Victorian building being knocked down. Personally I would like a gym, which if run by the council will hopefully be less expensive than LA Fitness etc, as well as a swimming pool and studios for things like yoga, aerobics etc. I use to live in Peckham and the Peckham gym has been an absolute God send, it really has given so many people places to go because of the diverse mix of programmes on offer. From reading this it just seems that some of you really don't appreciate how lucky you are to have this opportunity.
If the old building is genuinely redundant then it ought to be knocked down as far as I'm concerned. I think option B is the best out of the bunch and is the one I'll be going for (but still buying my coffee from across the road)

Betrel - I agree with you that the Peckham pool is excellent, and well thought out to get a range of people using the facility. I would like to see a climbing wall for one - that would make a landmark!

Know what you mean about the coffee shop - it's odd that the council is proposing a competitor to a local business. Provender should be invited to tender for the coffee shop in the new building.

Steve - we are going to have to disagree about the architectural charms of the existing pools building. I think in the broad its not worth compromising the new building for, and I quoted the English Heritage report which states its of little national value. You say its of local worth - personally, I don't think its that special.

Question is, is it genuinely redundant?

There doesn't seem to have been all that much honesty on this aspect.

It's also a slightly curious approach that some more recent posters are taking. Do any of you live in Victorian houses? Are they redundant too? After all, they're not listed - so hardly of any merit or importance, eh - and then they aren't as well insulated as modern houses, tend not to have built-in garages or en-suites etc etc...

Also, few would argue that what is needed is somewhere to swim, ASAP. However you would have had somewhere to swim all along if the council had looked after the building. How long now is it that the pool has been closed? And what has happened in all that time? A couple of surveys (which, let us not forget, do not fully support Bullock's argument) and that's about it. So I remain to be convinced that the best course of action is to go full steam ahead for a new pool, particularly if if it turns into the same sort of farce as Downham or heaven forbid Clissold. It is already showing signs of that and I won't get much comfort from saying "I told you so".

The lacklustre "public consultation" continues. Following a number of reports of non-delivery of leaflets throughout the SE23/26 area - those that were delivered were folded in half with the text inside, and not a very eye-catching text when read.

The public exhibition last Friday and Saturday was tucked away, almost apologetically, in the far corner of Forest Hill station forecourt. This exhibition is due to be followed by an exhibition in Forest Hill Library from 21 July to 8 August.

There is no exhibition. The display in the Library is very limited with a notice announcing: "The public exhibition ... has been delayed due to supplier failure. A reduced exhibition is on display."

Local residents are being short changed by Lewisham in this so called public consultation exercise on a matter which could change the face of Forest Hill for the worse, either by the loss of Victorian heritage buildings or by the development of an overpowering building dominating the local streetscape.

Les and Betrel ? I too want a modern swimming pool and I want it built as fast as possible. A modern pool (with a gym, studio etc) could be built behind or to the side of the frontage block of the existing pools. The frontage block and Louise House could be converted into the most wonderful Victorian flats ? which would not destroy the character of Dartmouth Road/Forest Hill and would have a chance of selling (local estate agents tell me that good conversions are in demand, while 1- and 2-bed newbuilds - of which there is currently a glut in Forest Hill -are not shifting). Planning a new pools complex and financing it by means such a development is a high-risk strategy ? especially when prices are predicted to fall by 10-15% in the next three years. Most important though is that retention of the buildings retains the streetscape and history of Forest Hill - a 'landmark' building, of which the Council seems to be currently enamoured - will rapidly show its age and will soon be a blot on the landscape!