and once the original pools building has been destroyed, there's no turning back!

I'm curious,
If they investigated converting both FH pools and Louise Hse into flats to raise money for the new centre, where exactly was this new centre going to be located?

For me, this site is a very bad location for a leisure centre - there is little parking available around here - the main reason Dartmouth Rd is little used and struggling. And sorry, people want to drive to these facilities - the car park for 'the bridge' is large and always pretty full.

So option 5:
Louise Hse to be converted as an extension to the library, with reading room with periodicals, loads of computers and work areas.
FH pools frontage to be converted to flats as per proposal.
Tank site to be converted to 2/3 storey building: some flats, some family units.
Park to remain as is.
Alternative site for the pools found, nearer to the station.
How about the port-a-cabin site near to the underpass?
Close to the hub of FH and fairly near the Perry Vale car park.

Excuse me what port a cabin site near underpass. That is now becoming Forest Hill Central or is there another one. Would need to be large area for pool.
Could be the Car Park where Sorting Office is. Should be large enough and although do not think car park essential would be enough space for a car park as well.
I think we are to late to want a complete change but good luck , you never know.?

Period property is worth more than new builds and has risen by 60% since 2002. Victorian flats and houses are the most popular type of housing in the UK. The facades of these buildings would make wonderful apartments that people would actually want rather than yet more faceless new builds which people don't.

I went into various Estate agents in Forest Hill and Sydenham and they said developers never ask them what people want. They ALL said the same things; people want period 2 bed below stamp duty threshold if possible, but period dwellings are always worth more. The new builds aren't selling.

According to the report mentioned above (its very long) the uncoverted buildings according to the council are worth: Pools Building ?238,000 and the value of Louise House is around ?169,000.

This is the conclusion of the architects who conducted the study:

5.01 CONCLUSION
Both the Frontage Building and Louise House are attractive and characterful buildings which are capable of conversion into high quality homes. If designed and built with suitable care these should be very attractive to prospective buyers.
The conversion proposals appear to be commercially viable. However, the high cost of conversion means that development profits may be quite low and the potential land receipt to the Council, available to cross-subsidise the new leisure complex, appears to be relatively modest. Of course, a lot depends on future movement in the currently very unstable housing market.
We recommend that the Council looks carefully at its different procurement options, should it choose to pursue conversion of one or both buildings, since this has the potential to effect the commercial viability. In the current market it may even be worth considering a shared ownership solution, especially if this can attract grant.
We understand that HLM are separately looking at the scope to integrate one or both existing buildings into the overall development, and whether to do so would unacceptably compromise the new leisure complex. We therefore have no comment on this point.

Total cost of converting Louise House into 6 self contained flats was estimated at ?973,000.

Total cost of converting the pools building into 6 self contained flats was estimated at ?1,470,000.

There was a report by EPTa Architects at the Consultation on the feasibility of converting Louise House and the Superintendants' building . It was on the table (next to the biscuits) and showed a very poor return from the conversions (tens of thousands nett profit), so there would be no cross subsidy available.

Are those defending the frontage saying that they would rather keep it and have fewer facilities? From those numbers it would be impossible to have two pools and keep the frontage.

Taking Perryman's idea one stage further, you could build the new pools on Perry Vale car park and have them at the heart of a transport interchange. It would be a great boost to Perry vale as well However I don't think that will happen; is either spot big enough?

(Brian - he meant the Portacabin storage site just under the railway bridge, opposite Waldram Place)

That is correct. Its conclusions have been quoted at least twice in this thread, and I included a to the online version of the study.

The group (actually Pollard Thomas Edwards architects) was simply asked to look at the feasibility of converting the two buildings to flats. They were not asked, nor did they consider, the effect of any other housing that might be included in the development.

Does anyone else feel the look of the new pools and flats has more in common with Salcombe House rather than the existing buildings on the site and the library?

I'm unclear how the design of the proposed building fits in with the library. Is this the scheme the developer would have to work to or is it merely an example of what could be done with the site?

If the new pools are dependent on there being flats won't commercial developers wish to maximise their profits and go for option 3 rather than option 2?

Although a much bigger project the developers of the leisure centre at Loampit Vale have said no flats, no pools. Although the council say a planning application is due about now, my understanding is it won't be made for another six months.

Should the council lay down in any contract a timetable, with fines if it is not kept?

--------------------

At Wavelengths a new full sized pool has been attached to an existing pool could not the council do the same at Forest Hill?

Build the large pool first with council funding and when funds become available in 2-3 years build the learner pool, without the need for flats. Or build the learner pool with funding from development?

I'm interested to see that the council thinks Louise House is only worth ?169,000.

In that case, I'd be very happy to buy it from them any time they like for ?170,000 and will convert it to a befitting residence for my good self.

I would also suggest they approach private leisure operators with a price tag of ?238,000 as even with the necessary repairs the operators will be able to turn a tidy profit.

In fact, we have just found the solution.

- Sell the old properties for conversion and onward sale to people who will appreciate them, thus preserving the streetscape.

- Construct a new purpose built pool (x2 please) and leisure centre on the grievously underused / waste of good space car park on Perry Vale. It's massive so there should be room for some parking left too.

STOP being so sensible!!

Aye, this would be my preferred option. There is also space behind the buildings to add more housing if the council wishes to cross-subsidize the pools further.

Furthermore, any new-build pool and leisure centre could also have shops/flats attached to further fund it.

It does seem like the perfect solution. Only problem is...who owns the car park? Originally it was railway sidings.

The only danger of selling the old buildings to be redeveloped, is that the developer could knock them down and build flats. Unless they are listed we could lose out entirely!

I think the council could control that through the planning process, though. It could also sell only to parties who undertook to preserve parts or all of the existing buildings.

As far as I know the car park belongs to the council too. At present it generates little revenue.

Development of this site for majpor community use could prove to be a catalyst for major regeneration of the area of Perry Vale around the railway station, being built in tandem with the Berkeley scheme. It could be linked in with the railway platform to provide level access both for the pool and the wider area.

Unless the council were to extend the conservation area to cover the buildings in question. Nothing to stop them doing this if their own plans were not to be thwarted by doing so. And some precedent with the Greyhound/Cobbs Corner decision perhaps?

This idea can also save money as there will be no need to spend money demolishing the pool and Louise House, and it will be easier to build on the car park, which is a "cleaner" site with more space and easier access.

It also means the architects have plenty of freedom to design something that does exactly what is required (TBC - 2 pools? Community hall? Gym? Sure Start centre?) and is efficiently laid out, rather than shoe-horning it onto the existing site.

Money comes in from selling the buildings and old site, and the car park gets put to good use.

And both the conservationists and the new pool fans are happy.

sounds good, there are a lot of positive reasoning behind the ideas and i am sure the councils proposal can be rejected and driven by the community on the grounds that the whole consultation process was flawed.

but the council have condemned the buildings as unsound how will they get out of this? and how would this fit into the UDP?

I could sell my house and buy both buildings. Then lovingly restore them over the next million years. I might even let you use my pool eventually.....

Stuff the UDP (or whatever it's called now - believe they've changed the terminology). What's that given us? The last thing I saw was the rejection of change of use to a restaurant because that caused the loss of a shop - like we don't have enough shop units in Forest Hill, quite a few of them empty.

The centre needs refocussing around the station / London-Dartmouth roads junction, not stringing out all the way along one side of the road, half-way to Sydenham. That way it preserves some vitality and is accessible to as many people as possible.

Let's keep the buildings a lot of people seem to like and lose a useless car park that does nothing for Forest Hill the way it is at present.

As for the building's condition, they're not totally knackered. A developer would look at the whole site and see what they could build on it and what it would cost to convert the existing bits. Some of the more degraded and less worthwhile parts could potentially be demolished. They're certainly not beyond repair though, only "unsound" due to total neglect by Lewisham that has lead to them deteriorating.

The site measures about 18x97m (allowing for access to Forest Hill Industrial estate). Not sure if that is quite wide enough for a 25x13m pool + surround, so you would need to take some of the gardens behind Perrystreete.

Maybe they'd be happy with that.