Michael - can you just clarify your position please. You appear to be arguing that the pools frontage block should be pulled down.

Is this now official FH Society policy? Up to know, the FHS had a position which acknowledged there were differences of opinion on demolition and that these positions should be tested in a democratic fashion. Has this now changed? Surely a majority of FH Society members support a free and open consultation which tests these two views whatever their consequences for facilities on site? This is a fair and democratic option. Why aren't you supporting this view? You have already acknowledged that there is a difference of views within the FHS - so why are you opting for the demolition view without testing this within the FHS or in the wider community?

Can I also challenge your assumption that the pools frontage needs to be pulled down because there isn't enough room behind it for two pools. The SFFH group do NOT want to refurbish the existing pools "shed". We wish to retain the frontage and construct a new building behind the frontage and to its side in the "pocket park." There were already two pools in the old shed. With the addition of the pocket park there is surely enough room for pools, plus changing rooms plus gym/meeting rooms behind and to the side? Or perhaps the dry facilities could be sited in Louise House as you suggest. I see no reason why not - then there really would be room for two pools behind the frontage.

Opinion is divided in the area. "Demolition without Democracy" simply isn't an option. The only solution is to put the two viewpoints to the public (this time in a properly run consultation) and for the side who is defeated to live with the consequences. That's democracy - and surely we all believe in it.

Barry Milton

Nasaroc,
I said "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."
I do not see how you read this as me being actively in favour of the demolition of the pools frontage - I would still like to see if there is a way this can be done and which Lewisham is willing to commit the finance to achieve. But we have to be reailistic about what the options are if we want swimming on the site.

You could well be right that there is room for two pools and leisure behind the facade and on to the pocket park, but I do not believe this will leave much room for housing. This would create a financial gap which will make it harder to get the leisure facilities required. Whatever happens I suspect that more money will need to be found to deliver the leisure facilities and I am not sure where this money will come from.

What we need now are some sensible costed plans for what can be built on the site with all options up for consideration.

Thanks for this clarification

So will you support a consultation putting both sides of the question?

There is no point consulting until we actually know what the options are and I do not think it is simply a case of demolish or retain, either one has to be done in a meaningful context.

If the pools are empty they will probably crack.

But listing without democracy was.

I think that listing was the final outcome of "Demolition without Democracy". I fully believe (no, I know) that listing would not have taken place if the retention of Louise House and the pools frontage had been an option in the consultation. In any situation, where there are differences of opinion, people take extreme measures when their views are not represented.

Look, I want us to ackowledge our differences and settle them in a democratic manner. What could be simpler and fairer than that?

It really is the only way out of this impasse. If those who wish to demolish are so sure of their position, why not put it to a vote? You'll win hands-down surely?

Whether any of us support or oppose demolition of an unlisted building outside of a conservation area is largely irrelevant. LBL could raze the pools tomorrow if it saw fit.

We're nowhere near being able to vote on demolition as there isn't even agreement as to whether an affordable and sustainable leisure facility can be provided on what remains of the potential development site (with or without elements of the existing pools buildings).

Agree entirely - we need to see what can be built with or without the pools frontage. As Michael puts it we need to see "the context" of each position.

But given that each position has a "context" attached to it (facilities with one option and facilities with the other option) are you and Michael for open democracy or not?

Please see below a precis of notes taken by Sydenham Society representatives at the Stakeholders meeting held on 27 August

Results of Public Consultation

It was explained that results on preferred options, reasons why and comments on designs were obtained from varying sources, such as the exhibition at Peoples Day at Mountsfield Park, exhibition at FH Station, and Library and from meetings with ?Focus Groups? (not specified who these are). These came in the form of responses to the on-line questionnaire and returned hardcopy questionnaire.

Publicity for the consultation was through local press, local newsletters, mail drop and posters.

There had been 691 responses ? approx 50/50 on-line and by hardcopy. 93% were from the ?FH area?, 57% female, 46% between ages 35 ? 54, 5% disabled and 15% BME.

33.4% had shown a preference for Option 2, 29% for Option 3 and 27.1% for Option 1. 10.5% did not vote for any of the Options. There had also been a number of letters received in addition to the above.


Comments about the Consultation

Agreed by local representatives present that consultation had been very poor, extremely rushed and held at wrong time of the year. Leaflets had been very late being delivered ? reports from around the table that they had not been received in Derby Hill Crescent nor in Bampton Road. Other late deliveries to local residents had been pointed out to officers and Cllr Best during the leafleting period.

It was agreed that there had been a severe lack of information about the council?s intentions and that local residents were still confused ? many thinking the pools were still to be refurbished.

The results are to be collated and included in the officers? report to Mayor and Cabinet. Request from around the table that the paucity of the consultation be referred to in the report to the Mayor and Cabinet on 17 September. The report will be available on Lewisham?s website about a week before the meeting


Implications of Listing of Louise House

Still to be considered by Lewisham. Current proposals/Options are no longer viable.

Question asked about possibility of de-listing. Considered unlikely given the reasons why EH had decided the building should be listed. EH comments about the importance of the ?Victorian welfare buildings? buildings as part of the group could provide extra protection for the pools building, but there is an apparent reluctance by Lewisham to consider this.

There was a request that a scoping exercise be carried out to ascertain the capacity of the site.

Request that the refurbishment of the existing pools should also be considered as a possible future Option for the site. This was turned down by Cllrs Best and Russell and officers ? the Mayor had taken decision to demolish last February and a rebuild with pool and learner pool is what is still planned. Cost implications cited amongst others as reasons for this. Site visits to Louise House to be offered to Stakeholders but no site visits to the Pools on Health &Safety grounds.

Cllrs and officers appeared not to be aware of the FH Town Centre Conservation Area review currently being carried out. Understood that this will recommend that the CA be extended to include Dartmouth Road up to and including the Library.

Can't speak for Michael but I'll answer for myself.

I am open to democracy and as such vote in all levels of elections in which I am entitled to cast an opinion. In my mind the democratic process that is relevant here is the plurality bloc vote and supplementary vote systems under which LBL's councillors and mayor were elected. I do not expect to have a vote on exactly how each penny of LBL's budget is spent nor do expect to have a vote on every single activity undertaken by LBL.

Consultation is important and I think we all agree that LBL haven't handled this one very well, but, at the end of the day, it is consultation, not a referendum, not a democratic vote. Good consultation should result in informed decision making so yes, if LBL can quickly define what we're trying to consult on, produce detailed but understandable literature, distribute this to all LBL residents and (very important to me) receive a high reposnse, I'd be happy for a clear majority opinion to be used in helping to inform their plans.

This is interesting. It seems that Lewisham are running quite a risk by rejecting a consideration of a refurb out of hand. I would have thought that the Mayor's decision last February to demolish the whole site may not be the same decision as today seeing as LH is now listed (and therefore he cannot demolish the whole site).

By LH being listed I would have thought that this increases the risk of the pools also now receiving listed status as part of the 'group' of important buildings - something that would seriously hinder any redevelopment plans.

Is the cost of a refurb really that expensive? I fail to see how keeping the shell, or even just retaining the facade and building a new-build behind this, would be vastly more expensive than total demolition?

Have I read correctly from Pat Trembath's post that consideration is being given to turning the whole of Dartmouth Road into a conservation area?

The following text is taken from Forest Hill Society's June 08 newsletter:-

Forest Hill Conservation Area
Lewisham Council is conducting a review of the Forest Hill Conservation Area. The Council has been reviewing two conservation areas each year. This year it's our turn and the conservation area could be extended.
Forest Hill has a large conservation area covering the centre of Forest Hill and it includes both residential and commercial areas. See the map for the boundaries.
The review will include a boundary review, proposals for buildings to be 'locally listed', management proposals to preserve and enhance the area, and a character appraisal document. This document will summarise the area's history and describe the characteristics that make the area special. It will also contain examples of things that detract from the area's character and which could be improved.
The Council will use the document when assessing development proposals in the conservation area, to ensure that new developments are suitable. We look forward to seeing the character appraisal, as Lewisham's style of document consists of a large colour booklet containing historical maps and pictures, along with photos of interesting local features, such as traditional housing-style, old shop-fronts and decorative brickwork.
The chairman of our Development Sub-Committee, Jeff Lowe, met the consultant working on the review to discuss the conservation area on behalf of the Forest Hill Society. The consultant indicated that he would recommend the conservation area be extended up Dartmouth Road to the Library on one side and to the end of the shopping parade on the other side. He will also recommend that the boundary be extended onto Perry Vale to encompass the small parade of shops (from Finches ski shop downwards).
A report will be issued in September and public consultation will be organised for the autumn. The Mayor of Lewisham will then consider the proposals by March 2009.

That is the case David. The proposal to make Dartmouth Road into a conservation area was reported in the last issue of the FH Society Newsletter. The plan is well developed and has been shown to a number of locals.

I'm afraid we have the farcical situation where one group of LBL officers are desperately trying to knock down the pools frontage whilst another group of LBL officers are desperately trying to preserve the pools frontage as the "jewel" of a new conservation area!

Nasaroc,
I think it is a real shame that time and again you accuse me of holding views that bear no relation to my postings and comments, and then demand answers from me and others when you are clearly not prepared to read what we have written or listen to our opinions. Instead you try to smear anybody who even shows the vaguest sign of differing from your position.

You should be aware that I have called on the council to consult in a variety of ways and I expect to continue to do so once we have further information. I believe I played an important part in getting the consultation that we did get and the public meeting that was organised on the day after the listing, as well as a previous meeting in May between council officers and the public which you attended.

I hope that you will recognise that I do have a high regard for democracy, consultation, and the views of local people. My actions have taken account of this. That does not mean that everybody will agree with everything I say, nor do I expect them to, that is a vital part of democracy. During the period of the consultation I did not try to impose my views on anybody or influence how people would respond to the consultation, I even refused when invited to publicly comment on the Sydenham Society plans for housing on the site despite my serious reservations about the plans. What I did do was encourage other people to respond to the consultation having made up their own minds.

The listing was not a democratic process as you have accepted, and you have little evidence that this is what the people of Forest Hill or Sydenham actually want. Both of the consultations in 2006 and 2008 have suggested that the public would accept a new building replacing the existing pools (particularly the consultation in 2006 where the majority were rightly ignored because a one pool option was not good enough). HOWEVER, there are still good reasons for preservation that cannot always be overruled by democracy - that is why English Heritage does not ask local residents to vote on the listing of buildings and the only democratic representative involved is the Secretary of State. Rather than debating what the majority think, it would be best to work for a solution that gives the local community what is needed and all options should be considered by the council and by local residents, societies, and campaign groups.

Your argument about "no demolition without democracy" suggests that if there is another vote for demolition of the pools, and possibly a vote for demolition of Louise House, that you would support the democratic decision to demolish a listed building. Under such circumstances would you and STFFH accept demolition of both properties?

Of course this takes us away from the real discussion that we should be having about how we get swimming on the site at the earliest possible opportunity. I would still like to see an outcome that can be accepted and see swimming on the site in time for the London Olympics and I hope that everybody involved will try to make this happen.

Michael, Nasaroc, everyone:

Any chance of focusing on next steps we can agree the Council should be doing to get some kind of pools + configuration of leisure services, rather than have a go at each other? The more we disagree among each other on forums such as this, the easier it will be for any one in the Council who wants to shelve the whole project.

Tim , Michael and others
I agree , there are two totally diverse views held and seems to be to meeting in the middle. I would imagine the council will use this as an excuse to do nothing.
Forget the past , what LBC should or should not have done , we must work from where we are now.
Surely a compromise could be possible, or is that asking to much.

At last its nice to know who is reponsible for listing Louise House and possibly delaying the project. I would also like to add:
1. Why has it taken a week for Tim Walder to admit he is responsible for the listing.
2. How previous posts on this website blamed the Mayor for the delay between the original public consultation and his decision to rebuild, but no blame has been apportioned to the SFFH campaign for what could add months or longer to the project.
3. How Tim Walder did not consult with the local community regarding the listing of Louise House and blame has been put onto the Mayor and the Council for lack of consultation especially by the SFFH campaign and local civic societies.
4. Maybe Mr Walder can confirm or deny whether he (or maybe someone else) has applied to have the front of the pools listed. I believe listing the pools has been turned down twice by English Heritage but what about the frontage.
5. As Louise House has now been listed surely any alterations to the inside would be diificult if not impossible.
6. Has all 1355 signatures been fully explained to as to the purpose of the petition because I have my suspicions that many were not told the full facts.

do the people of Forest Hill want a swimming pool or not???? at this rate we will never get one (refurbished or otherwise) in the meantime disadvantaged kids are not able to swim locally, elders can't swim and the rest of our community are without a very important leisure facility
the Pool has an important economic impact on the Town Centre its getting a bit like the "Life of Brian" what have the Romans ever done for us sketch!

lets all shut up and go for the option "Lets get a Pool up and Running"
can we do it by 2010?? why not??