I bet he doesn't. There's been a pretty transparent manoeuvre to appease all parties through the pretence of pursuing the "preservation" option.

Blaming the council for their gross negligence may not get us a new pool but that doesn't mean you should all just roll over and accept what is being imposed.

They must be held to account. The continuing incompetence is plain to see when 3 years on (excuse me repeating myself) nothing has happened.

3 years would have been sufficient to have designed and built a new pool, or refurbsihed the old one.

But you have to ask yourself why we got to this position in the first place and there was never a 5 or 10 year plan to ensure swimming provision.

It's because they had no intention of providing swimming facilities in Forest Hill and given the chance they'd rather not.

In that case, fighting over the pool and Louise House is just playing into their hands, isn't it?

You could well be right.

So let's get on with the newbuild and not give them any more excuses.

On the condition that we are assured that any replacement will be of an architectural quality at least as good as the existing buildings (whether or not it incorporates them or parts of them) and that funding and a building contract are in place before they are allowed to start knocking anything down, I quite agree.

On past form there are however little grounds for trusting Lewisham and Bullock on this.

I don't quite understand. You're convinced they have no intention of bringing swimming facilties back to forest hill and are looking for any pretence to abandon the plans, yet you're placing preconditions on their plans for a new build that will mean they have more reason to abandon the plans they have already?

Apologies for interrupting this little argument with a link to the BBC London news report on the pools http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7574029.stm

I don't think the video is available yet.

Nevermodern: sorry I haven't made myself clear. Whilst preconditions may give them more reasons to abandon any plans, I just don't trust them. I think without any safeguards, the best case is we get some half-*****, third-rate facility that never makes sufficient contribution to the streetscape to justify loss of the old buildings, and looks awful in ten years. There's also the question of when it opens and at what final cost. The worst case is that they demolish the old buildings and then find some other reason not to proceed or we see no further progress for another 3 years.

To me this worst case is actually worse than the "do nothing" option which leaves as we currently are, and it makes me really angry that we should even be in this position through their negligence and that they seem to have largely escaped the stern censure they so richly deserve and instead divided the community.

Well said Hilltopgeneral, I coundnt have put it better myself.

I haven't been in this argument for a while but I think all that considered the safest way to have a usable pool in Forest Hill within a reasonable time is to build it new from scratch and to do so you'd have to make best use of the land so that as much money as possible is derived from it.
It's a sad state of affairs but the deal is that if the people of Forest Hill allows flats to be built there then the Council will provide the pool. If you don't then they might reconsider.
I understand the opposition to bland modern builds but the listing of Louise House won't improve architectural standards, only crystallize a stretch of road and make any plans for a quality modern building even more awkward to achieve as they will have to work around it.
It would have been great if the Council had looked after Forest Hill Pools but what there is now is a crumbling ghost of a pool that would take a lot of money to bring up to a good standard and frankly, in terms of usability cannot compete with a modern facility, even if it is architecturally bland.
Forest Hill Pools is a period building of historic value but it isn't particularly pretty like some other period pools in London and if you weigh its value against that of the improvement in quality of life that a working pool can bring then you may think that the risk of delaying for who knows how many years the return of a pool to Forest Hill is not worth the potential gain.
I'm not saying this lightly because I'm all in favour of retaining and maintaining existing facilities, it comes out cheaper than let things rot to then demolish and rebuild but looking at this specific situation I think that listing Louise House to use it as a "pawn" as Rob rightly said, is not in the interest of swimming.
I'm also in favour of conservation of historic buildings but this is a straightforward case of competing priorities and I think that swimming and active recreation is being damaged for what is mostly an esthetic reason that as such is quite subjective.
I think that the letter that the swimming club wrote clearly explains what the modern needs for a quality structure are:
http://foresthillsociety.blogspot.com/20...rites.html
I don't think that that can be achieved by retaining the facade and Louise House, just becasue there wouldn't be a political will to do so.
If they can't build on Louise House's site they'll let it crumble, there's no duty on them to do anything about it. Same as they did for Forest Hill Pools.
The Council has proposed a bargain, they get to build houses and the people of Forest Hill gets a new pool.
I had signed the petition for a design before demolition but I didn't sign and I won't sign that for the retention of the facade and I'm really concerned about the new listed status of Louise House.
With apologies to those on the conservation side of the argument I have to say that if Roz starts a petition to delist it I'll be among the first to sign it.

I couldn't have put THAT better myself. Exactly right.

Will the last swimmer to leave the building please turn off the light!

The new petition is the old petition with a new name. All the e-mail addresses and contact details from the last campaign have been used to sign up on line or in person. You don't have to live in the borough or even London. If you can be contacted by text or e-mail they can get your support for anything they want even if you are on holiday.

We are allowing a very small group of about 10 experienced campaigners who are influential and well organised to take charge and for some reason, we are letting them get away with it! We should wake up to the fact that they are not interested in anything except saving old buildings.

It is a travesty that we are now supposed to pay from public funds to look after two ugly old buildings, when what we wanted was a swimming pool, that paid its way.

In the advisors report from English Heritage, I quote the scrupulously polite Ms Gee on page 4 "insufficiently special" means UGLY.

This evenings public meeting is minuted, we should turn off our computers and go and show our support for swimming in Forest Hill.

I believe there are more than 10 people who wish to retain at least the facarde of the two buildings.

I can't see why Loise House isn't sold off to developers and the proceeds used toward rebuilding the rear of the swimming pool and keeping the frontage.

I know its trendy to like modern buildings with their purposeful architecture, but I doubt we'd end up with something inspiring and will simpily become another identitown with bland design.

And for those who reckon we would have had a pool sooner if we agreed to demolition, I think you are kidding yourselves.

Kingfisher, it's not got much to do with the campaigners for preservation that the old pool fell to bits and that nothing has happened since.

Indeed had it not been for all the campaigning last time round (before the last ill-fated management contract) then the pool would have been closed and would by now be long gone, along with memories of swimming in Forest Hill and any prospect of being able to do so again. That some form of pool might some day be available is largely down to them so you perhaps ought not to be so dismissive.

I'm also shocked at your and others willingness to forgive or at least overlook Lewisham's disgraceful behaviour in this whole affair.

Finally, words fail me on your alternative interpretation and spin on English Heritage's report, which you have corrupted to fit your own perception.

Please let all of us - both sides of the arguments - and those who strive for the middle way - calm down.

English Heritage listing of Louise House has thrown a new (not unwelcome for some, but highly unwelcome for others) situation for all of us - in favour, against, councillors, officers, Cabinet, Mayor - into a highly charged situation.

The discussion of the Options, which many had reservations about,
and which were the reason for the meeting tonight are, probably, no longer on the table.

The council, as well as residents, have had little time to draw breath since yesterday's news of the English Heritage decision to list Louise House.

Maybe we all need to take stock of the situation, accept that there is a need for a clean sheet of paper and ask that the public consultation, which many have considered has been considerably less than we should have expected, is started again.

Tonight's meeting is not going to be easy to chair - the original agenda has gone out of the window. Local residents will not achieve anything by shouting each other down.

There is just the possibility that local democracy, given the opportunity to express its desires to the council at the outset of the next phase of consultation could yet provide an outcome, both for heritage and from leisure.

There is after all a lot of space available on the site which could be utilised with imagination to provide the heritage and leisure facilities which could easily draw together both sides of the argument.

Please come to listen and let's all think before we speak

Just a thought, but those who wish to retain Louise house as part of the scheme might now wish to looking at Heritage Lottery funding to provide extra funds, given its new listed status.

Unlike Kingfisher who has hidden behind a pseudonym, including when writing to the local papers, I have always sought to fight this campaign openly.

There are a number of serious inaccuracies in Kingfisher's claims above. The new petition is not the old petition with a new name. What people were asked to sign was substantially different in content. Some people who were happy to sign No Demolition Without Designs would not sign Save the Face of Forest Hill: Michael Abrahams, the Chairperson of the Forest Hill Society being an example of someone who followed us part of the way but not all. Everyone signing the SFFH petition has done so by making a positive choice to agree a second time. We have used email addresses to contact people (oh, the shame of it) but there is no question of automatic signing or any such thing.

The current petition is available both online and on paper. The online petition currently has something in the region of 300 signatures. It is in the nature of a petition published on the web that not all of the signatures will be from locals. However, if Kingfisher looks closely he/she will see that the vast majority of signatures are from local people. The remaining 500 or so names we currently have have been collected by standing on the streets and getting local people to sign by direct approaches. I have not made a list but I am confident that by far the vast majority of our signatures are from people in the SE23 and SE26 postcodes.

It is also untrue to suggest that the SFFH group consists of 10 experienced campaigners. I for one have never run such a campaign before. Some of us have, others have not. There is a core group of about 40 people who have been involved closely in various ways and another several hundred whom we have contacted.

It is quite wrong to call either of these buildings ugly. Our opponents have always been gleeful in pointing out that English Heritage would not list the Pools (wrongly in my view). So I will quote from the report on Louise House:

"Louise House is designated at Grade II for the following prinicpal reasons: special historic interest...special architectural interest..group value with the neighbouring buildings...in this striking row of Victorian welfare buildings."

So you don't have to take my word for it!

How briiliant would it be to have modern pools integrated with the Victorian buildings. Something similar to the Hornimans and Dulwich Picture Gallery. Everyone wins. Is it really only about funding.

The BBC News video:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7575064.stm

As well as the BBC London coverage, there is also an article in the current edition of Private Eye magazine.