How did the meeting go last night? Unfortunately due to work commitments (grrrrrr) I couuldnt make it.

I'm ashamed to say I didn't go to the meeting last night, I look forard to hearing what was discussed.

I have only a few points to make in this increasingly heated discussion:

1) A previous post states that the initial consultation showed people wanted a new swimming pool, not new facilities through re-use of the existing building. I dont think this is quite true, I believe the result of the consultation was pretty 50-50, with the Council then deciding to look into re-using the old building. See Council's statement dated March 2006 on this issue here http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/NewsAndEvents...+Pools.htm

2) Louise House being grade 2 listed does not mean the Council will not be able to knock it down (along with the pools) and use the site as they have proposed to do. They just need additional planning consent to demolish a listed buildings, and these are awarded not infrequently. Grade 2 listing is the lowest of the three listing grades (the others being grade 2* and grade 1), and even grade 1 buildings are (sadly) demolished. So for those wanting a campaign to delist the building because they think the building is now fully protected, should spare their efforts.

Its is not the fault of English Heritage that we for three years have not had a pool, they have responded to a recent planning issue to demolish a pretty derelict historic building, with a grade 2 listing of the building. The Council should have consulted with English Heritage years ago, when they were first looking into what to do with the site. English Heritage is mostly a re-active body (due to lack of staff and funds) and not a pro-active body. They often only officially hear about these buildings when they are about to be knocked down.

The Council has had three years to consider what do do with the site and they chose the easiest option, ie demolish and build from new. A bit more foresight could have resulted in them consulting with some of the many excellent architect firms, who are able to think creatively and create new and wonderful spaces by re-using part of or complete older buildings. It need not be more expensive, but it just needs a more creative architect firm - and they do exist.

I also want our pool back asap, for my and my childrens sake, I just think the Council could have worked this issue a bit smarter years back and saved a lot of time and consultants' (tax payers) money.

Will rush out and get Private Eye now - thanks for the tip!

If anyone has been to Clapham South in the last few years you'd see that the old South London Hopsital - which had a beautiful yet decrepid frontage is now a Tesco and luxury flats - with all the original victorian facade preserved and restored, it's a great example of combining old with new...

I can't see what the problem is with pulling down the badly decaying buildings at the back and building a fantastic new complex while keeping and incorporating the victorian frontage into the new designs - surely that's an architect's dream to have such an unusual project....

DJ

Yes I agree we must compromise here. Bloggers seem to have very strong views in either direction.
It is no good going back over past years we have to look at the facts as they are now.
I think the council should get the go ahead with the option with the least number of new houses. Undoubtably this will mainly be social housing and I would have thought F Hill has more than the national average of social housing at present.
If we have to have housing we need private housing

Rikke, more people did want want new-build than wanted refurb. The council went ahead with refurb because of the strength of feeling from those supporting that course of action.

That's one perspective. I'd be interested in seeing the results again as from what I recall I don't think there was much in it.

From what has since transpired and the minsinformation campaign in the meantime, I am not sure how serious the proposal to refurbish ever was.

Rather, I think it was a cynical ploy to please (or at least appease) everybody, only discarding the refurbishment option when surveys allegedly showed that it would not be possible (this is not actually what they say - I would encourage everyone to read the reports for themselves).

It has also bought Lewisham time (3 years and counting. Steve) and saved them having to spend much money.

I'm not sure detailed results were published but, in the Mayor's own words, the 2006 consultation's results: "didn't show an overwhelming consensus for either the refurbishment or the rebuilding option". He also described the process as: "impressively inclusive and thorough".

The information is . It is interesting to read how well that consultation was conducted.

I walked past the buildings today. I cannot see any real architectural merit in them. and they are seriously delapidated with plants growing out of the mortar.
If someone can design a plan to build what is wanted and preserve the original frontage, ok. But I really think we need to start afresh and design what is wanted or needed.

I am all for the retention of our heritage but I think in this case the matter has got out of hand. Whilst I respect the views of the people who want to retain the buildings I feel unless we agree to the councils best option we will losr the pool. This does not bother me as a bit old for swimming but feel the young persons would appreciate a new pool.
I have lived within 3/4 of a mile of the pool all my 60 years and I do not think they are especially nice buildings.
Attacking each other will not get us anywhere and probably get us no pool.

To me the Mayor in January 2006 decided to investigate further refurb rather than commit himself and was possibly to delay a firm decision till after the May Mayoral election.

A risk assessment was required for a final decision to be made, but from the January 2008 report it would seem due to previous 'effeciencies' staff were not available to carry out the assessment and produce a report for 18 months.

To me it was silly in 2005 to restrict discussion of refurb and new build to the existing footprint of the pools, when officers of the council were looking at all 3 plots. The situation you find yourselves in know should or could have been resolved back in November 2005.

I don't see that the current situation necessarily makes a pool less likely to be built. Aren't we simply back in the position before the Mayor decided to look at the options for redeveloping the whole site including Lousie House - ie a choice between a refurbishment of the existing pools, redevelopment retaining the existing facade, or a rebuild.

There's no excuse for the council not getting a move on with producing proposals based on these options.

Well, exactly. However the message at the time was that Louise House was not to be brought into considerations. I'm not sure why, or what they were planning to do with it.

I think things are beginning to become a little repetitive, fault of the council and the dismal effort put into the design and consultation process by them and the architects, HLM.

I put pen to paper, i want pools. I completely respect the quest to save the existing buildings but like most at yesterdays meeting, i wish to have swimming pools with no more housing thats it and quick. Good creative design is paramount to me it has the power to produce pride and communal respect, bad design has a direct negative impact on our social environment.

I hope this works, attached is a scanned sketch of a very sketchy layout, i did it in 5 mins and it shows i'll make it clearer when i get the time, i just want initial feedback.

Pools
keep the existing front section of the building, apply a grass roof and solar panels as Hornimans. The new pools enclosed in a Eden Project like simple, flexible and well lit structure, no need to switch the lights on. I think it's important to have a learner and a main pool. All the facilities such as changing storage and cafe (a small stall as outside the station but with seating, managed by Provender) on one open plan level. The upper floors of the existing building to serve admin, staff and training.

Louise House
Youth community engagement project, not completely sure what i mean, i would need to speak to some experts in the field of to form a solid idea of how a building can be used to get young people to learn about the value of life and living.

The Park
Keep the existing park as is, with the new pools as i suggested, open so the park can be overlooked and locked at night as a crime deterrent. Propose allowing the park to spread along the front of all buildings, including the library, to form a connected solution, shift the narrow footpath from roadside into this are along the front of the buildings with a buffer between the road and footpath.

Services
Such as serving the pools, deliveries and maintaining the park. Some locations to park vans and disability bays at the back. Coaches along the side of the library somehow, this may not be popular though.

Now, any architects that can work out the cost of a building for the pools like this? i could do the rest. This whole development can be done in two stages, the first being the pools and the park (from existing to the front of the library), then Louise House at a later stage.

Personally I am glad to see Louise House preserved, although listing may present problems which could have been avoided if the council had included it as an option from the start.

The public meeting last night was pretty rowdy, with people from both sides expressing their heartfelt feelings. It appeared to me that the council officers had not considered the possibility of Louise House being listed and were in shock; they were very negative in their outlook. Cllr John Russell said that "the decision on Louise House means that we will not get two pools, we will get less facilities and it will mean an increased delay" while Steve Gough (Director of Programme Management & Property) said that "refurbishment of Louise House will be complicated and expensive. Development of the site will now be very difficult as there will be no housing land". Aileen Buckton (Executive Director Community Services) was the most positive, stating "we will have to go away and do work to outline the implications of listing. Heritage funding is slow and could add years to the project. How long do you want to wait? We have to be careful that we can deliver"

I think it would be fair to say that most people present wanted a well designed, two pool solution with minimal housing and that many wanted the Superintendent's block retained. Indeed, Aileen Buckton stated that the council favoured a two pool solution, but that the finances were not there. Everybody wanted a proper, full consultation this time.

We should see the listing of Louise House is an opportunity, not an obstacle. It could easily be put back into use as a creche/nursery and could also be used to provide the youth, IT or other community facilities envisaged in option 3 at minimal cost. Alternatively, it may be possible to locate the gym facilities on the ground floor. This would leave the pool and parklet area available for development as a wet facility. Service access may still be from Thorpewood Avenue with the frontage onto Dartmouth Road being landscaped to draw the three buildings together. I am sure that an inspired architect could integrate Louise House into any new facility if necessary. I don't want to see Louise House turned into flats, especially when the costings show that there would be no profit to plough into any leisure facilities.

I worked in Louise House right up till the day lewisham closed it
i still have a very good idea of the layout inside that building.
I don't think a gym would be possible without knocking down some walls. but with that said upstairs is much bigger then down.

there already is if memory serves a creche/nursery in the garden area of Louise House thats been there for years does this mean it will reopen and serve community again ?
downstairs would be better as a youth, IT or other community facilities
what i do remember about the inside is its in a pretty shabby state
thats all from memory years ago what state its in now i just don't know and shudder to think.

"I don't see that the current situation necessarily makes a pool less likely to be built. Aren't we simply back in the position before the Mayor decided to look at the options for redeveloping the whole site including Lousie House - ie a choice between a refurbishment of the existing pools, redevelopment retaining the existing facade, or a rebuild."

Not at all! When that consultation was carried the pools were functioning, now they are closed. Surely to put a spanner in the works of the a closed pool has a very different side effect than doing it when a pool is functioning.
And the side effect is felt at both ends, the public doesn't see a solution coming anytime soon, and the Council is not bothered because it doesn't spend money to run the pool.
Really, if the Council wants to derail any refubishment plan and have it their way they only need to sit on their hands.

Just to refresh memories, at the time of the 2005 consultation the Council had just changed its policy from that of foreseeing 4 pools for the borough to that of foreseeing 5. The pool that should have been lost in their plans until then was Forest Hill Pool. It had been declared redundant because in the same catchment area of the Bridge.
In that respect the very long campaign for Forest Hill Pools managed to hang on to it until the change of policy.
It is not a very well kept secret that the Council had had its eyes on that plot of land for a long time, that's why the buildings are so run down. So to have them agreeing to "a" pool in Forest Hill is a great achievement and to have them agreeing to a pool and teaching pool and a gym is marvellous.
To believe that consultations are some sort of referenda is rather disingenuous, I believe that they are mostly there to a) pretend that the Council "listens" and b) give to the Council a pulse reading of the likely opposition to one or the other option. That's what they are mostly for, the decision is of the Mayor, if he takes too many decisions that people disagree too much with then you change the Mayor.
What the Mayor thought when he announced refurbishment is irrelevant, what matters is that now the Council had decided to spend over ?10m on this new pool and to make the rest of the money out of the housing scheme. I believe that it is the housing scheme component that make them commit the extra money, if you take that away then you give them one big reason for not committing a substantial part of these money and this means a financial gap and a very good reason for them sitting on their hands and watch the pool and the listed Louis House slowly crumble.
I understand how important those buildings are to many, and I'd love to be able support their retention but a working local swimming pool makes a hell of a difference to the life of a lot of people and as it was discussed earlier in this thread there isn't really another plot of land that could host a swimming pool nearby.
The Council was ready to work on this at a pace but now it goes all up in the air. I'm sorry, I still think that this was a big mistake.

If Lewisham are really insisting that a new build with housing is the only way they can provide 2 pools then they do have options.

The perfect plot of land is the Forest Hill Central site on Perry Vale.
I think Berkeley Homes would be quite pleased for Lewisham to take it off their hands.

Centrally located.
Opposite a large car park.
Right next to the station.
Site already cleared (apart from the skeleton building).
No restriction on how modern/ugly the leisure centre can look.

SE23 on the East side of the tracks is densely populated, yet does not have so much as a park.
This side is less likely to have access to a car, (let alone a pool in the garden) and is largely composed of the social-economic groups that swimming pools should be targeting. I bet life expectancy is 10yrs lower this side of the tracks.

If there is a new build, big investment, why build it in an affluent lib dem ward? Perry Vale is a lower crime area, and is a Labour ward. We should be rewarded for our blind loyalty.

Perryman I have just moved from the richer side to this side and do appreciate your comments . There is a major difference in average wealth.
I would have thought F H Central would have been ideal but not now as would cost a lot to remove the skeleton and BH would demand major compensation.
There is however another site which would be even better.
When I was at Forest Hill School 60 to 66 they were building an open air pool at the bottom of the playground next to Dartmouth Road. I understand did not last that long but space still there to build a proper pool. It would have the added advantage that school children would be able to use on site.
Am I the first to think of this option . Seems obvious , if not possible maybe Sydenham School for girls would have the space.

Sorry meant to be next to Bampton Road.

Brian, the old FH Boys pool is marked on my 20yr old A-Z!

That is a good idea worth investigating. The school would want pretty exclusive access during the day in term time I imagine.

Perhaps I was trying to kill too many birds with one stone, but if Berkeley are having second thoughts on FH central, that framework would come down fairy easily....