Yes of course I had forgotten about the public not being let in for school groups etc.
I would think the pool should be big enough to allow at least a 1/3rd roped of for the public at all times.
I would however very much complain is they reserve time for all female sessions. There seems no justification at all for this. Despite equality and discrimination laws only seems to act one way , against males.

I'm sure if there is a demand whoever operates the pool will be able to find time for male bonding sessions.

Re roping of a section of the pool from what the council, operaters users have said it seems this is an unsatisfactory arrangement.

At the meeting I attended the people who spoke, for new or refurb, all said 2 pools were required. I think the norm is for learner pools is to have a level floor.

As I suggested before if going for 1 pool, even with the existing buildings, would it not make sense to put in place systems to allow expansion at a later date?

I don't know if anyone agrees but the designs for the new pool seem to take their inspiration from Salcombe House rather than the library?

Hi Forest
Not a good idea we are meant to be one community.

I know in the old pool often pool roped into two to allow maybe a school group and members of the public.
Otherwise this is going to be a major bone of contention in term time.

The architect told me the only thing that could not be added on in stages (option 1 thru to option 3) is the learner pool.
I guess because a pool is so heavy, you need deep & specialist foundations which are impractical to dig out afterwards.

If the area has sufficient learner pools for primary schools and infant swimming classes, then it is only a small step to say the area already has sufficient swimming facilities full stop.
Which of course is the council's original position and indeed the state we are currently in.

Option 1 with a learner pool is the least worst option after options 4 and 5. But none of these are on the unamended questionnaire.

Disappointed about the Lib Dems. This is their ward. The pools are the most important local issue and have been for a while.
It would be nice to see some conviction.

Wonder if the Mayor knows that. The council have paid for an additional swimming pool to be built at Wavelengths Leisure pool, Deptford.

Since I have been obliged to go to The Bridge and Beckenham I have changed my mind about learner pools.

They are for play, kids don't swim in them, I thought that was why they were building a tank pool at Wavelengths Deptford, and they provide income from Birthday Parties don't they? I hope they make money. The supervision level is double, temperatures and hopefully the hygiene standards are high maintenance.

The Bridge has to have roped areas in the main pool even though it also has a trainer pool. Swimming and survival are still taught in deeper water. Do we just expect them to be there like jacqusis and flumes, but will they soon be past their environmental sell-by date. I do feel they remove the prospect of a quiet swim, the trainer pools where I go are very noisy.

But nor do I see that the foundations for a low rise building, housing a trainer pool or a block of 39 flats rising between 5 & 7 stories high would be that different. Building the foundations for a training pool would probably be easier?

The architect from HLM who I spoke to suggested that a movable floor may only cost an extra ?100k for the learner pool so that it can also be used for hydrotherapy. The learner pool is ideal for very young children and with a moveable floor would be suitable for slightly older primary school children.

Option 1 does not have a learner pool, both options 2 and 3 do have a learner pool. Providing local swimming for children of all ages is very important and many pools across the country manage to balance the demands of schools and public with two pools, a main pool and a learner pool.

I can only relay what the architect said - that the learner pool is not something that can be added afterwards, (with these designs).

Whatever the reason, it seems very reasonable that we decide on this now, and this cuts across all the (extended) options.

But Lewisham really should have given us guidance - what are the pros and cons of having a learner pool against roping off the shallow end of a longer pool? Are there sufficient learner pools in the area, and are they fully used? Do primary schools insist on learner pools being available? Are learner pools cost effective? What other uses can be made of learner pools? Who else could benefit?

It is strange that Lewisham do not have a view on this.

I personally agree with Michael (and Brian) that providing a learner pool is very important.
After all, we won the Olympic bid on the strength of all the sporting facilities we will be providing for children.

I agree with Perryman on many points, except. I am not sure that I like learner pools as much as I did. The difference in noise levels at both of the pools I use is incredible when the learner pools are open. For myself I love a quiet swim.

I am a bit older, all my children learnt at Forest Hill Swim School, they had to keep swimming to stay warm and they are strong swimmers, and we all went swimming together, which also encourages them.

I have spoken to others and found that many parents have introduced their offspring to proper swimming by taking them in the shallow end, during warmer weather and when its a bit quieter as I did. The opportunities for parents to be with thier kids in learner pools are limited to non-exsistant.

It is an important question worth discussing. Are learner pools really that good if there is a main pool that is warm, clean and a cheerful environment for kids and plenty of learner pools elsewhere for the Birthday parties? Do schools want them or would a slightly shallower end to the main pool be as good.

Children need a big pool to learn to swim, I have never thought it a problem that the shallow end was roped off, as it often was at Forest Hill, they have to learn somewhere. A learner pool is like a big bath to play in, you can't learn to swim in one, if you don't feel like swimming, you can just stand up.

I don't think they are really a sporting facility and central to the Olympic spirit, we have just got used to having them provided?

I think the provision of a learner pool is essential. They are not only valuable for lessons for non-swimmers - and contrary to Kingfisher's opinion, they are used a lot for these and are only open for play when there are no lessons. However, it's not just children who find these shallow pools useful. The one at Beckenham with the fantastic moveable floor, is also used for adult aquarobics and swimming for the disabled.

I'll be voting none of the above, given that I think that there is still scope for retaining the existing buildings (and that the open space is a resource wasted) but, if pushed, would go for option 2, without the huge housing block at the front.

I must admit I would much prefer a separate learner pool than one pool for all, and as such I voted for option 2 (with the comments that I didn't support the provision for additional housing and retail units).

I can't agree with the view that a main pool is just as good for teaching as a small learner pool. Perhaps for older children, but surely not for under fives? I learnt to swim in the teaching pool at Greenwich, and although I could 'just stand up' it's still perfectly deep enough for a four year old. I've seen parents supervising their children in the learner pools at both Peckham and The Bridge, and been supervised myself at Greenwich, so am a bit confused at the comment that this opportunity is generally limited.

And selfishly, but most importantly to me at the moment, as an adult swimmer dislike sharing the pool with learners. To be honest I prefer a nice cold pool if I'm going to be swimming, and it's a pain to try and swim lengths whilst learners swim widths at the shallow end. And a pain for them too, to have to dodge the adults swimming lengths.

I take my child to The Bridge most Saturdays and they make good use of the Learner pool having 2 lessons going on. I think children of a certain age before about 8 or so are better taught in a learner pool.

They can stand up, they feel safe. The teacher has a confined and easily accessible space within which to teach them with fewer distractions. They slowly achieve confidence through getting their 5m, 10m badges. Once they have got to this level, they are happy enough and confident enough to tackle the big pool.

I do think a learner pool is essential to make the pool part of the community and get primary schools swimmings.

One issue that doesn't seem to have been addressed is how parents are going to take their kids to the pool or how schools are going to take their kids there. The majority hopefully will walk but there will be some who want to drive. There doesn't seem to be adequate provision for parking or a drop off area for coaches. The access road behind the Library on Thorpewood Avenue looks like a traffic nightmare waiting to happen as coaches and cars try to squeeze through a small space opposite a busy school.

The council seems to have dumped this parking and access problem on the local residents who will suffer while using the usual Green excuse of we expect everybody to walk.

There is no less parking than the previous pool which has worked well for generations (since the space in front of the pool was closed to cars). There is provision for disabled parking only in the new development.

Of course residents at the bottom of Thorpewood Avenue and Derby Hill Crescent will object to people parking in their roads, but since the community facilities have been there for longer than their houses (many of which have driveways) I can only have a certain amount of sympathy.

I agree with Michael. We have coped since Edwardian days with the parking situation.
Not sure there needs to be any coaches or cars ( excluding disabled of course ).
If pupils coming from F H School , St Barts etc they can wak for Gods sake . Stop the obesity , sorry I now understand that obesity is a dirty word you must say very fat.
As for adults surely no one in the catchmemnt area lives more than 45 mins walk at most , probably a lot less.
GET OUT OF YOUR CARS AND WALK. IT IS CALLED EXERCISE.

Very noble sentiment but stand outside any school in Forest Hill in the morning and you will see loads of cars even though many of the catchment areas mean that the majority of these people are within reasonable walking distance.

Getting 30 kids to walk from a school 30 mins to the swimming pool is a logistical nightmare which is why Lewisham tends to hire coaches to bus kids to swimming. It also takes a lot more time and detracts from teachers spending time teaching reading and writing rather than walking.

I do not agree that the learner pool is necessery or affordable. We do have them available locally. The important factor when tiny children are gaining confidence in the water is that their parents can be bothered to get in the water with them and they have fun together. Thats how they gain confidence.

The alternatives we are obliged to consider and the planning, never mind the parking nightmare which is coming when the people most affected start objecting to about 57 flats overlooking their homes and gardens, which no one would mind if it happened to them would they?

I think a walk round the nearby estates in Forest Hill could be a reminder of other priorities that the council has to deal with. The people without gardens and cars need a pool and the social space on offer in OPTION 1. We are lucky to be having this money allocated to swimming when they have already stated we have enough pools in the area. To argue for the learner pool and moveable floors and less of this, or more of that, could turn out to be re-arranging the furniture on the Titanic. We don't just have a housing slump on us but we could have a recession coming as well. This kind of offer is rare and we should stop nitpicking and accept Option 1 with good grace. If we lose this opportunity the campaigners are going to be thought a selfish lot and they won't be thanked for arguing and losing an amenity we need for our community and young people.

Borderpaul. 30 mins from Dacres Rd School to baths. You must be joking over the German bridge takes about 10 mins max.

yes, I'd say 10 mins to get there unless there is a distraction along the way and 30 mins on the way back taking into account time for a Chicken snack at the healthy fried chicken shack.

I did mean primary school kids from SE23. The local SE26 schools, Holy Trinity, Elliot Bank and Barts are within a comfortable walk.

Brian,
if the school children did walk to the pools, I am sure you would find something to complain about. Why do you infest almost every thread on this forum with your prejudices and ill-informed views?