Sorry Jon for confusion.
I am just concerned that nothing will now be built and they will use as an excuse that Forest Hill Citizens were divided and some more interested in a building a zero appeal.

I think that that rant expresses some hard truth actually, it's not right to generalize but the effect of the rejection of a modern pool has a serious consequence on investment for sport and leisure.
I too, as the anonymous writer of that letter, think that many that signed the petition do not understand this point.

The Council was ready to spend ?13.5m and that buys just about a basic decent pool and leisure centre, now thanks to the listing of Louise House there's ?7.5m to share between a swimming pool and leisure centre and the refurbishment of the frontage of the old pool.

The irony is that this is supposedly done to celebrate the Victorian enthusiasm for health and education reform.

That letter points at the misguided listing of Louise House, debating the letter instead of the subject matter reminds of the story of the fool that looks at the finger that points at the moon.

My point was that the letter has little substance - which it doesn't. In your opinion:

Lousie House is an eyesore
Its listing is misguided
The people who signed the petition didn't know what they were doing The people who want to preserve the buildings are blinkered and are only thinking of themselves
Lewisham Labour Party should not be blamed for this 'travesty'
Forest Hill 'needs' people very much
Forest Hill isn't that pretty
Dartmouth Road is the least attractive road in Forest Hill

Actually, your reply above was far better than the letter. You must accept that some people like to preserve history, even if it means we can't have a pool sooner than we might. They're quite entitled to that opinion and don't really need to be told that they're blinkered and selfish. They could say the same about you. Where does that get us?

Max - if you are the anonymous letter-writer as you claim (and frankly I don't think you are!) can you explain to us why you regard Forest Hill and Dartmouth Road as being ugly - one of the earlier sentences in this interesting communication. Could this have anything to do with the ugly 1960s blocks that the Labour Party built to replace the original Victorian buildings I wonder?

You also accuse the Forest Hill Society of being behind the listing (wrong!). If you are the letter-writer why should we listen to someone who runs down their community and doesn't have a handle on what's going on?

The people signing the petition are very clear about what they are signing - they want to protect Louise House and the frontage of the swimming pool whilst building a new leisure complex either behind or to the side (the exact position is for the architects to decide). Why are people so scared of this proposition that they want to exclude it from any consultation?

C'mon grasshopper, Max has already told you - he's scared of your rampant hatred for anything new .

Well since you ask, let me answer you point by point:

Point 1: "Lousie House is an eyesore "

- Louise House is unremarkable. I read through the English Heritage paper and I found it to be a list of features rather than an appraisal of merits, evidently even EH considers that there's nothing exciting about it, only that it ticks the right boxes for listing.

Point 2: "Its listing is misguided"

- The listing is completely misguided indeed for the reason stated above.

Point 3: "The people who signed the petition didn't know what they were doing"

- I'm sure that many that signed the petition don't know the full implications of what they agree to. Some even think that they are fighting to keep a pool when in fact the result is that they're keeping a pool closed.

On this point let me quote what Jenny Jones AM wrote on the online petition:

"Just as we are winning Olympic gold medals for swimming seems an odd time to be knocking down a public swimming pool. We should be guaranteeing more medals in 2012 by encouraging our young to swim. Plus, environmentally it's almost always better to mend or adapt a building than scrap it and start again. Let's hope that the Council Leader sees social and environmental sense."
She surely didn't understand it and she is an elected member of the London Assembly.

Point 4: "The people who want to preserve the buildings are blinkered and are only thinking of themselves"

- No, I wouldn't say that, I am all in favour of conservation of good architecture and historic buildings of special interest but there are situations, like this one, when demolition may have greater merits than conservation.

Point 5: "Lewisham Labour Party should not be blamed for this 'travesty'"

- No, not for this specific one.

Point 6: "Forest Hill 'needs' people very much"

- Increase in housing density may be unwelcome to many but the two options of the Council for housing on the site are not high density, option 2 wants only 30 flats. Peanuts in today's standards.

Point 7: "Forest Hill isn't that pretty"

- Forest Hill is very pretty in parts. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

Point 8: "Dartmouth Road is the least attractive road in Forest Hill"

- Not at all, in fact it has some Victorian charm. Only that it also used to have a swimming pool and there was a way to have one again, you may prefer to have some charming delapidated buildings to a modern swimming pool, I think that a pool is a big asset for sport and public health and that on balance it would have been better of not having listed Louise House and try instead to get the best out of the Council's proposal by working on the design for the modern building.

----

Grasshopper, why do you think that I write anonymous letters of rants when I am perfectly capable to write fully referenced articulated letters that I have no problem to sign?

I think you weren't quite articulate enough in the sentence above - you made it sound like you wrote it...!

Yep, it's ambiguous, I meant to say "I too, LIKE the anonimous..."

Although the "too" should make understand the intended meaning.

Max, can you expand on the above point about not knowing what was signed? I thought the petition was in favour of keeping the frontage of the buildings (at the least) and building a new pool and sporting facility either within the existing structures or behind the facade of the existing pools building.

I don't think I've yet to see anything to show why a new facility (including new flats) could still not be built incorporating LH and the frontage of the pools building?

Ta

Gaz

Because the petition wants to retain only the frontage and demolish the pools anyway and as this is a departure from the Council's plan it means delays in reproviding a working pool and as it compromises the financing scheme it means huge delays, even forever.

If Jenny Jones AM really wanted people to be able to swim within a short period she would have been best advised of not signing.

Now I know why the only shop I can find that sells mothballs is in Dartmouth Road!

the delays if any are minimal, the level of scheme that hlm have produced so far is simple I really don't think they had put too much time into it anyway

To produce a revised scheme would not take much more than a week or two, the ground work has been done, the bit that may take a Little extra time is the planning process, but this don't mean years it's more months but as we are all aware the council likes to put the fear into us, it gives us something to talk about.

I hope you're right but in truth I think you're underestimating how hard it is to find a few million pounds.
Worringly there are other historic pools in London that cannot reopen because of a funding gap and the only way to re-open them is to have a mix use scheme that can support financially.
One such example is Haggerstone pool, always on the brink of re-opening but never quite making it because there just aren't enough money. Scheme after scheme is attempted but the deal is never closed. There they are begging for somebody to get on board and help with some money. In another completely different socio-economic situation Marshall Street Pool in Soho is another example of a pool stuck for years in a limbo because of lack of funds. And just about any other pool that has been re-opened has done so because of cross-finance with housing.

MAX WROTE: "Because the petition wants to retain only the frontage and demolish the pools anyway and as this is a departure from the Council's plan it means delays in reproviding a working pool and as it compromises the financing scheme it means huge delays, even forever.

If Jenny Jones AM really wanted people to be able to swim within a short period she would have been best advised of not signing. "

The petition (I think you mean the campaign) didn't 'want to demolish the pools'. It has been clear all along that the people behind the save the face of forest hill believe there is space behind the pools to build a comprehensive pools facility, save the facades AND retain the pools. Experts agree. The save the face of Forest Hills campaign has never said it didn't want any pools. I think in that regard you are being a tad unfair and missleading Max.

To clarify the position:

Clearly on the poolingtogether.blogspot.com site it states:

Our current position is as follows:

The SFFH Campaign Group:

1) Welcomes and applauds the Council?s ongoing commitment to provide swimming pools on the Dartmouth Road site as soon as possible and
2) Continues to support the retention of the pools frontage block as part of any new designs and
3) Seeks to work constructively with the Council in achieving designs for a new pools complex which retain this cherished, attractive and historic structure.

In practice, the working constructively will consist of two things: getting the ear of the Council and putting together an informal group of people with ideas, experience and expertise to make coherent suggestions about how a new design including the pools frontage block can be worked up. Our current position is as follows:

One more point, flats in period buildings and worth more and are more desirable than modern flats. Modern flats down kirkdale in new buildings were't selling when there was a housing boom. Look at Forest Hill Central now. Imagine losing the pools buildings, having unsold flats and no new pools buildings.

AS you said yourself, it's very difficult coming up with a few million quid.

On the subject of pools buildings, Kentish Town pools are being refurbished. The marshal street pools you refer to are apparently re-opening next year, 2009 after development with housing (52 to be exact). I used to swim with my mate in there when I worked around the coroner in the early 90's. They were stunning inside, really beautiful. You can read about it here:

http://www.marshallstreet-w1.co.uk/publi...august.asp

How have I been misleading? The SFFH doesn't campaign for the retention for the pools, only the frontage. It wants new pools behind it and wants Louise House retained. This means that the Council can't sell any land and there's a financial shortfall.

As for the slump in housing market that's true but the Council owns the land and can borrow against its value, it's not a section 106 from a developer.

You want the Council to sell Louise House for flats instead and to cover the shortfall with that? I don't think it's realistic.
How many flats can you fit in Louise House? Not that many. And now it's listed it means that refurbishment costs are bigger and there are limits to what you can do with it. The Council's evaluation of about ?170k as to what it can bring in may be too tight but probably not too far off.

As for Marshall Street I do hope it re-opens next year, that's what I've always been told... year after year. And as you say, it is indeed sustained by flats. I was there three years ago, when together with the London Pools Campaign we organised the Golden Goggles Award there because it is such a symbol of pools stuck because of lack of funding. An officer from Westminster Council explained me the deal. Basically Westminster Council owns the land next door and gave it for a thousand years at a peppercorn rent to a developer that built those flats in exchange for refurbishing and maintaining the pool in perpetuity. Highly valuable land just given by the Council but I think no cash from the Council.

Kentish Town is another thing, Camden Council is spending a fortune on it, ?25m, and it's a listed building because it's a gorgeous building! And the economy of Camden is not the economy of Lewisham. And there aren't other pools around there so it would have been a really big political (ir)responsibility to close it because they would not have had a pool for most the schools of Camden.

Converting Louise House to housing would be counter to the reasons given for listing the building. Architecturally it is of limited value, most value comes from the social history of the building, remembering a transition between workhouses and other slightly less evil forms of child care (but nothing that would be acceptable in this century). Converting the building to housing takes it out of public ownership and use and preserves nothing of the true character of the institution. I would also suggest that in the current housing market there is just as little demand for period conversions as new build, actually the government announcement this week may be preferential to new build over existing properties with the support of the developers.

Max's point about only ?170k coming from the conversion of Louise House to housing is based on the estimate before listing. With the listing any conversion costs would be higher and it is possible that it would make a net loss, in which case the council would be perfectly correct (financial speaking) to leave the building empty as they have done for so long.

Housing would not be available until 2012 at the earliest and it would be reasonable to assume that by then the housing market will have recovered, at least in Forest Hill. Imagine the opportunity to buy a new flat above a new pool in part of Olympic London that has only just joined the tube network - people will be jumping/diving at the chance!

Any plans for the development would see the pool built before or concurrently with any flats. No developer would want to try to sell flats next to a building site where a pool is being erected and the council want to see a pool as soon as possible. This means that any risk related to the housing funding of the pool would be taken by the council, not by swimmers of Forest Hill.

In the rather flawed consultation by Lewisham council over 60% of people accepted the need for housing on the site to fund a two pools facility. 27% backed the proposal for a single pool with no housing, and 11% did not express a preference for any of the options. I hope that these figures will at least be taken into account as reflecting local opinion (although everybody is entitled to their own view point).

The sad truth is that by listing Louise House (however important a building), it will put more pressure on the pools frontage to be demolished if there is to be two pools, dry leisure, and housing on the site. It may be possible to put dry leisure and community facilities in Louise House, it will not be cheap to turn a disused and rather neglected Victorian building into a decent gym that people wish to go to, but it is probably the only way to safeguard swimming on the site. But I still cannot see where the extra money is going to come from, let's hope that the planning department or Save the Face of the Forest Hill Pools campaign can provide a solution to all of these competing demands on land, money and heritage.

Nice try Michael, but any conclusion drawn from a 'rather flawed' consultation, are worthless.

If the no-housing (option 1) had shown 2 pools, I think that would have got the vote.
If refurbishment of the current pools had been an option, then that may well have won.
If they had fully distributed the questionnaire and made a better attempt to display the limited options, who knows?

I think it fair to say "none of the above" seemed a remarkably popular choice even tho it wasnt presented as an option, so the people are trying to communicate something....

Due to incompetence, none of the options were valid anyway, so it was a complete waste of time and money. Why on earth did they waste even more money on processing the forms?

And Brian, if you know that the pools are now empty then I'm happy to take your word for it. Do you know this as a fact?

Perryman
I do not know if the pools are empty or full or inbetween , just assumed they would be empty.
I know assumptions are always very dangerous

A question for Max. I use a couple of the leisure centres located in refurbished pools, namely Dulwich and occasionally Merton. In both cases, they have kept a single pool and used the other for weight training dance aerobics and so on. A similar approach was taken in a couple of the new build centres I have used - namely the Spa in Beckenham and occasionally Latchmere (in both cases three Victorian / early 20th c. pools replaced with a main pool and a training pool).

Do you happen to know from your experience with the pools campaign how many centres have retained more than one main pool? Also, does this give any guidance on the likely viability or useage levels of the facilities?