Roz does not speak for the Forest Hill Society.

The FH Society didn't adopt a 'pro-demolition stance'. Rather, the FHS isn't as strongly anti-demolition as Syd Soc or Save the Face of Forest Hill.

So when and how did they consult their members?

They didn't. In the same way that Syd Soc doesn't consult its members every time it takes a position on a topic.

Tim, thanks for your explanation of the listing process/criteria.

Perhaps some of the problem is that listing appears to be used reactively rather than proactively. If a building is that important why do people wait until it is threatened with demolition before applying for it to be listed?

There are no Labour councillors in Forest Hill. Now there is a preservation order on these buildings Mayor Bullock can spend the money in an area where he does have supporting councillors.

I'd like to thank Tim Walder, Steve Grindlay and the Sydenham Society for their hard work and expertise. It really is appreciated. The Louise Hse listing is a significant victory in its own right.

But how could the council not have been aware of the risk of Louise Hse being listed?
It seems clear from the posts here that the council in fact knew all about the risk, (this "privileged knowledge"), but ploughed ahead regardless with their grand scheme in the hope that English Heritage would not find out until too late. And they would have got away with it too, if they had demolished Louise Hse early as they had intended.

What a terrible picture this paints for the organisation that governs local planning matters. It is attempted planning permission evasion. What a rotten borough.

On the Forest Hill Society Vs Sydenham Society war, I think it a great shame and wasted energy. We need to move on, as the main battle starts now: with the council, to get them to honour their commitment to provide swimming facilities in the area.

Changing the subject somewhat but remaining with the pool I was pleased to recieve a pamphlet from the council outlining the public meeting on the 21st August. Unfortunatly I recieved it on the 22nd August.

Did anyone else recieve theirs late?

I am not aware of any "war" between the Forest Hill Society and Sydenham Society. I don't think a difference of opinion/emphasis constitutes war and I certainly hope nobody perpetuates this myth.

I am not sure our Mayor should only be spending money on areas that support New Labour.
Also Sydenham ward a few yards away and Perry Vale about 5 mins , both NL strongholds

Brian,

I agree. But that is how it actually works. Political parties reward their supporters.

Tim, thanks for your answer, unfortunately it reinforces my opinion that your campaign considers swimming and active recreation as an afterthought subservient to conservation and I think that this is a strong bias that prevents from giving appropriate considertion to all aspects of the issue.

For years there's been speculation about the Council wanting to dispose of the site and now that they have come out with a plan to do exactly this they want to use the receipt form the disposal of part of to build a better leisure centre. I can only agree with this.

I much rather prefer the Council making a profit from this schem and using it for the new pool than giving Louis House away for free or next to it to use as luxury flats as you suggest.

If we were discussing the conservation of Forest Hill Pools in its entirety I would very probably be supporting it but as we all agree that the pools are beyond repair then we can just move on, the superintendent house is not handsome, it has historic value but without the pools behind it has a very limited value.

Frankly, I', horrified by the listing of Louise House. It aims at denying the possibility to pursue any other option, I agree that the Council should have communicated better why they chose not to include an option for the retaining of the two historic buildings in their plans but I can nevertheless understand why. It's economy. The 4th option simply doesn't even go close to the other options and it would suck a lot of money out of sport and active recreation that has a very limited budget to start with.
If there were ready funds for conservation to make up the loss that the abandoning of options 2 and 3 or just the increased costs from option 1 then one could think about it, unforunately those millions aren't there so the rational thing is to demolish.

Going into the details of what you propose I think that there are aspects that you haven't thought about, you can't be serious when you say that you'd like to retain the changing rooms of the current pools and build the rest as a multistorey complex behind it.
First consideration is that the changing rooms of Forest Hill Pools are horrible in comparison to any modern changing room, the second is that you can't build on top of pools because of a structural reason. Not just pools ceilings cannot take weight in the first place, they also fight a constant battle with condensation. The practical solution is that of not building on top of them.
My point about wanting to build less than the Victorian did was coming from an economic point of view, the Sydenham Society objection states that their proposal wouldn't be building a "high specs" centre, I take it that they say so becasue they are aware that they would be taking money out of Sport to spend them for conservation.
I supposed that you were aware of this as you campaign for exactly what the Sydenham Society suggested, but, it is possible that as you say you have nothing to do with them and just didn't realise that this proposal would mean reduced provision. The Sydenham Society instead was very aware of this, only that they thought that it was ok for them as long as the facade and Louise House were kept.

Sherwood
I hope you are not correct otherwise the LBC will get big cut in revenue when Mr Cameron takes over.

Well said!

Brian,

We got lots of extra money from Tony Blair. ?197 million for Building Schools for the Future (BSF) is just one example. Don't worry David Cameron won't take the buildings away!

Ask any political expert about this. Additional funding is always diverted to certain parts of the country. Even Ken Livingstone said something similar and fought to retain money for London.

The fear is that Mayor Boris will divert money to outer suburbs that voted for him.

We can surely retain our money by voting Tory next time.

Suburbs of London are still London. Given the high profile nature of Boris's role and with Ken popping in every five minutes I think Boris would find it difficult to favour one part of London over another.

Sounds very reasonable, but various administrations have managed to favour certain parts of London in the past.

Whilst FH residents may feel that the Catford Big Top appears to focus on Deptford, Lewisham town centre, New Cross etc to the exclusion of the southwest of the borough, there is also a good argument that Lewisham as a whole gets a bit of a bum deal from central government when parts are every bit as in need of support as Tower Hamlets, Newham, Sotuhwark etc.

Well. The reality is that FH is getting nothing at the moment, with very little likelihood of new swimming pools.
I cannot see any point in preserving the the current pools. They are the worst I have ever seen. We often went to Ladywell because even the old pool was better.

The London 2012 Olympics are only 4 years away. How about helping some of our local residents take part? We need a new pool now.

We are in the news:

http://www.southlondonpress.co.uk/tn/news.cfm?id=14547

We will not get the new pool/pools until after the 2012 Olympics.

But at least we have yet another (empty and derelict) listed building in Forest Hill to gaze upon for the next few years.....