The trouble with 'whatever' is it might just be housing ... at some point, when the market "picks up" ... and this is clearly dreamt of with the coming of "rail improvements".

I think it is right to be concerned about the pool and facilities. If, as Kingfisher implies, there is a 'silent majority' of 31,000 people in SE23 itching to use a new pool, then that would be a sufficient market to make building decent facilities worthwhile. Of course I don't really think that was being suggested. The 31,000 were recruited to counter the less than tiny, but vociferous, minority as, I guess, a 'silent majority'. Isn't it interesting how the silent majority always support one's own position.

It will be interesting to see what the outcome of the 'consultation' is (who's counting these?). Will non-participants be taken as agreeing with the LBL favoured plan?

The closing date for the consultation is currently 8th August, just a week away. If you have not completed a form, or do not have one, you can complete the consultation at http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/CouncilAndDem...HillPools/

Hopefully everybody in the area should have an opinion and it is worth expressing your opinion to the council not just on this site.

If the majority are silent, how can anyone claim to know what they are thinking?

The majority of respondents to the initial consulation voted for newbuild.

Yes let us wait and see the result. If people could not be bothered to reply then they should not be bothered if they are not counted. The council could not do anyore to make everyone aware of the situation. Rather like the people who never vote then complain. Tough.

Thanks Michael. I have completed the form taking care not to tick any of the 3 options given and have stated my reasons for not doing so on the form.

I'd also like to point out that if it wasn't for this site, I would not know of the "consultation" or plans for the pools as I did not receive any leaflets or canvessing (in Kirkdale).

The Save the Face of Forest Hill Campaign is now motoring along quite nicely.

We have contacted over 1,000 potential supporters with a copy of our leaflet and a poster: so look in those front windows in SE23 and SE26. We will be holding a Supporters' Meeting shortly and are in the process of printing 4,000 leaflets and distributing them locally in the coming days. Look out for articles in the local press.

If you agree with us, sign the online petition at http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/save...-hill.html

You can find out more and how to help us at http://sites.google.com/site/savetheface...thill/Home

Sorry Brian but that is very harsh.

The silent majority know nothing of the proposals.
If it was not for this site, I wouldn't know anything about it either.

No questionnaire has been delivered our way. (Yes I have reported this.)
I don't think this is untypical.

Other local news media are limited:
The SE23 magazine only has a very small distribution - we do not get that.
Even The Mercury comes but once a year our way.

In any case, the display in the FH library is, by their own admission, incomplete and not prominent.

You would have to have known about the presentation hidden in the station car park to have visited it - why couldn't they have left the display boards in the station 'building' for a few weeks?

The web site is hard to navigate to get the full details, and delivering them in massive files is deliberately restricting the ability to download.
These pdf files were designed to be printed out and were hard to read on the screen, again only the most determined will jump all hurdles.

This consultation has been as badly and cynically managed by this administration as the rest of the FH pools refurbishment process. And surely this alone is reason enough to say to them:

STOP! WE DON'T TRUST YOU!

Just stick to the original mandate and quickly repair the pools and when our trust is regained, we can all revisit all longer term proposals.

Hi Perryman
I apologise if everyone concened was not advised as you say.
I can only speak for myself as I received the brochure from LBC plus saw the display at the Station. I was not using the station but crossing the road hard to miss.
Not sure why not delivered to all households , perhaps the organisers should be asked this question.
Trouble is both sides of the argument seem to think they speak for the majority. There has got to be a middle way.
I am not sure if my returned brochure will be counted because as usual I refused to fill in their ethnic origin questions. Cannot understand the relevance to the argument as to whether for instance you are of Turkish origic or Bangladeshi. Does anyone else share my anoyance at the questions ?

Brian, I think the idea is that from that information the council know whether they're reaching certain ethnic groups in the way they approach things. If, overall, their responses don't reflect the ethnic make-up of Lewisham, then that could indicate that the council isn't reaching those people and may indicated a different approach is needed.

I wouldn't get too het up about it.

I appreciate your comments Nevermodern but just think it is a waste of money.
Also how do they know that all Turkish origin Britons think the same for example. People are individuals are hopefully do not vote or make decisions based on ethnic origin.
Let us all be citizens/subjects of The UK living in SE 23.

It's not about thinking the same, it's about making sure different groups of people are involved in the process. Anyway, another argument... back to the pools.

Brian is onto something here.
The ethnic choice and postcode information was on the outside of the return form.
So they do not have to even open the form if it is from a well represented area/ethnic majority/class. (Or Brian!) It will be discarded.

If this was not a stitch-up in the first place, this consultation is not necessarily even going to end in a straight count.

Incidentally, what do the Forest Hill ward councillors make of all this?
It seems the Lib Dems were swept in (X3) on the back of the uncertainty of the future of the FH pools under Labour, but I could not tell you if saving the pools (architecturally as well as functionally) is still their position. Anyone know?

I am not reading anything like that into my comments ( however you could be right ).
This questionaire appears on all LBC publications.

Sorry Brian, but I still think I agree with you!

It seems likely to me that the results will be statistically manipulated to reflect the ethnic make-up of Lewisham (although they might alter the count by area, class etc to show any result they could possibly imagine.)

I agree that the options as presented (or the extended options) seem individual choices, and I cannot see how ethnicity should come into it.
But any ethnic statistical anomaly on such a small sample could be magnified should that prove useful to them.

I disagree that this is about checking that all sectors have been engaged as they have made little effort even to ensure the questionnaires have been distributed. The council tax reminders find their way OK. (If only it was the other way round.)

How exactly do you think Lewisham council could manipulate those figures on race to justify going ahead with option one, two, or three, Perryman?

Not sure if we are agreement Perryman , though it is a nice change for someone to even suggest they are in agreement with me.

I am not objecting on the basis that LBC would manipulate the figures , as you suggest , but that I believe it should not be relevant as to which ethnic background one is from.

What you seem to be saying if for instance people of Turkish Origin make of 5% of the population and only 1% of replies are from people of that origin , they increase their vote by 500%. If that is the case, which I doubt but knowing LBC not im possible , that would be outrageous, as what right have they to save that all people of Turkish origin would vote the same way.

Fifty-nine of sixty of the parents I spoke to at a local school, said they didn't want to lose the buildings and only three knew about the redevelopment meeting.

I think that Brian is right, there needs to be a middle way.

I have just completed the council questionnaire, but have not ticked the boxes as Gaz suggested, but left my comments at the bottom.

Apparantly if you dont fill out the form, this would be treated as assention to the plans.

Perryman the latest Lib Dem mailshot suggests they have painful bum blisters, so squarely (and spinelessly?) are they sitting on the fence on this issue.

I am voting for option 1. The old pools were an unpleasant place to swim for many reasons. One was the austere and unwelcoming institutional feel of the building. Compare East Dulwich Pools with Peckham Pulse and I think one gets a fairly broad impression of how the two experiences might contrast were retaining the existing facade to be resurrected as an option. The superior feel at Peckam is inestimable.

If there is only one pool won't that mean a large part of the time it won't be open to the public. Schools, groups and clubs will be using the pool.

From a swimming perspective was it not said a main and learner pool was a better option?

I understand people's frustration at a lack of pool but at least one year was caused by 'efficency' savings introduced by the Mayor. Lack of staff meant no one available to carry out feasibility studies. So in saving ?40,000 the council have already spent something like an additional ?300,000.

According to the original 15 options demolition of the pools did not seem cheap and now there is the possible added cost of knocking down Louise House.

Lewisham has a habit of doing is saying anything will be better than what we've got and ending up with 'anything'. Many times I've seen a facility described as good because it is new, then 5 to 10 years later people accept it doesn't live up to expectations.

Whatever is decided let's hope the council get it right, otherwise we could end up for 2-3 years looking forward to something new only to spend the next 30-50 years regretting what has been done.