Michael, I think I assumed that 'quality of facilities', certainly as regards the swimming pools themselves + changing rooms etc (the most important 'facility', I take it) would automatically be a desideratum (glad you like the word) under any of the options. In that case it wouldn't be a key criterion for choosing between them. But perhaps I haven't studied the different options carefully enough?

Robin
No one, at least amongst the stakeholder group or wider local community, has had the opportunity to study any of the Options in detail. We've got very small scale plans of ground floors with no indication what facilities would be provided on upper floors at all. At this stage, we have to say that any Option we back would have to be dependant on getting the excellent leisure facilities that we all want and it must be asssumed that the architects would deliver this. The Options are, after all, only outline proposals and must be capable of being revised considerably as the design process moves on. We need to be clear as to which Option we want to back.

We must all be aware that there have been deep divisions in the past as to what should be delivered. Finally, with Option 2, we seem to have an option that has the backing of virtually the whole community. Both Options 1 and 3 have some attractions to some people but if they can also back option 2, then this can be seen as the one Option that can be delivered by the Council without the certainty that they will have massive local opposition to its delivery. Of course there are obstacles to overcome, but if the will is there, they cannot be insuperable. We've come a huge distance since the Council's original plan to simply do away with swimming in Forest Hill. Now that an acceptable plan is on the table, let's all get behind it and we might actually get new Pools in Forest Hill within a few years.

The report to mayor and cabinet is now available on the council website, item 5 on the agenda:
http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/councilanddem...202009.htm

The summary:

Personally I am quite angry that the council officers cannot figure out a way to deliver options 1 or 2 before 2015. Both options (moving to Willow Way or waiting another 6 years for a pool) will kill part of Forest Hill town centre and I do not think that will be reversible. I also do not think that if we wait another three years for a decision that there is any chance of swimming returning to Forest Hill.

Yes I agree.
The council are saying you can vote for any option but only option 3 will be considered.

My concern is not the pool ( I would imagine the WW pool, would be as good as the other options , and distance not huge despite some comments ). My concern is whatn will happen to the site if the pool goes to WW. If they can give a guarantee no housing on site I would vote for WW.
They could retain LH ( although nothing special as far as I can see ) and turn the rest into gardens.

Is there a reason why the previous presentation slides show Option 2 being cross subsidised by housing on Willow Way but the report does not.

Am I right in thinking if Option 2 was cross subsidised by housing the funding gap would be ?800,000?

Brian,
The Willow Way proposal is funded by 60 flats on the current pools site. Some in the existing buildings and some in new blocks across the site. If you want a guarantee about no housing on site, a vote for WW is not the answer - completely the reverse.

ForestGump,
The problem is that the council officers tell us that housing cannot be built on Willow Way (parhaps they should have told A&M before they designed the housing).

The best solution is for the council to find a way to put housing on Willow Way or find another way to close the ?5m shortfall for option 2.

If the council had got their act together to redevelop the pools, rather than waste years, they would have realised millions of pounds more of capital receipts according to their own report.
Similarily, forcing through an option (3) to sell off cheaply most of the public and civic heart of Forest Hill during the worst financial crisis of the last sixty years would seem like a reckless, imprudent and short sighted sacrifice of a valuable asset.
Why have they included the top of the market figure in their report when it is unrealisable? The lower figure of 3.4 million pounds is the only relevant figure and this should probably be lowered if Louise House supposedly cannot be sold for residential development because the receipts would be too low (according to the council).
Therefore, they propose to sell off the entire site for about 25% of the build cost of the pool; why not review this figure given the collapse of the construction industry? Why not build what you can afford (9.5 million pounds, supposedly) rather than set some arbitrary figure in order to reject an option out of hand?
Why is the Willow Way site valued as worthless "for the purposes of this report"? Even as an employment use it must have value. Why not plan lots of live/work units to get around the employment requirement; you would then be able to tick your employment and housing provsion bxes and generate capital receipts and ongoing revenue from rates. If its value is really zero, I'll buy it.
Why does the whole report read like an exercise in justifying a decision that has already been taken?
My suggestion is a letter to Allies and Morrison saying we like your proposal, make some changes so that it can be done for ?9.5 million and you've got the job. My guess is they won't say no.

When this began the budget was around ?4.7 for a new pool or refurb.

Now it appears the council have a budget of ?9.5m but are proposing a pool costing ?11m - ?13m, why?

I suppose the Mayor could dramatically pull another wodge of notes out of his back pocket or as Monika suggests Allies and Morrison could be asked what can be provided for ?9.5m.

Has anyone checked?

Thanks Michael.
On basis of your comments will not vote for WW.
How could they consider more housing in Dartmouth Rd.

It's quite touching how many people seem to think Lewisham really is going to make provision for swimming in Forest Hill.

Face it. You've been sold down the river.

The pool closed several years ago, after a period of deliberate neglect. The council did not want to provide a pool then. Nothing has happened since. It doesn't want to provide a pool now. It's just going through the motions - the lowest cost and least controversial option to appease public opinion. To this end all the debate about listing, the consultation, the endless optioneering, the conjecture about land values and build costs and spiralling sums being talked about are grist to its mill.

If it was determined to provide a pool - that's right, something open, that you can swim in (let's not forget what this is fundamentally about) - it would have maintained the old building while it thought about the above and planned for the future. Even at the point it turned out to be knackered after finally succumbing to the years of neglect there was the opportunity to go a long way to putting it right and providing something fit for another 10 or even 15 years for a fraction of the costs now being discussed.

If it was determined to provide a modern facility then there has been more than ample time to demolish (all or part) and rebuild the pool that satisfied most people in most respects.

But they've already got away with no pool for over 3 years and will get away with no pool for at least another couple before it becomes sustaining the pretence becomes too difficult.

As a recap, (as the facts tend to get buried under the propaganda) I'll leave you with the words of His Steveness back then:

"The report indicates that we can renovate Forest Hill for around ?1.5m. This would make the building safe and give it at least 10 years more life. Alternatively we could flatten and build a new facility on the site for about ?2.5m which would clearly have much more modern facilities".

I'm surprised he's not dizzy from all the U-turns:

Council officers aim to please the Mayor and councillors, who continue to believe that, as members of the Labour Party, they not only represent the will of the people, but also the will of the silent majority. Neither officers nor councillors provide any evidence that the silent majority favours the Willow Way option. They are relying instead on misguided faith in their bureaucratic and political righteousness.

If LC believe in the silent majority they should not be in power.

I have not got exact figures but would think over 50% did not vote in last council election.

Exact figures are readily available from Lewisham's website:
Mayoral election results

Turnout for Sir Steve's second term was a rather underwhelming 33.8%. Of those that did bother, 41.7% made him their first or second choice. Hence he was voted for by 14.1% of the electorate.

Great system.

Yes I agree.
To make an election valed I think that.

The total voting should be over 50%. Surely this is not much to ask.

In the event that total less than 50% then we can do without a Mayor for the 4 year term. What a saving on the rates.

How can someone who got only 14% of votes available dictate to us and enjoy all the luxuries of being Mayor.

Do we know what he is paid , or if just expenses what figure claimed.

Decisions are made by those who show up. Elevating the opinions of those who didn't over the opinions of those who did is a route to anarchy.

You can get a more detailed look at the proposals by following this link:

http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/LeisureAndCul...HillPools/

There is quite a lot of background on the rationale behind each scheme and more detailed plans.

Forest Hill had a far bigger pool 200 years ago, in the form of the Croydon Canal Company reservoir in the Sydenham Park area. See attachment.

Maybe, except the reservoir was in Sydenham.

The Willow Way pools proposed in option 3 would be little more than 10 yards from the reservoir bank, so I suppose that would bring swimming in the area to where it was 200 years ago.

Tomorrow evening is the big day for the mayor's next decision. You can watch the discussion at the town hall in Catford from 6pm.

A representative from the Forest Hill Society will be speaking in favour of option 2 with an implementation time earlier than 2015. This is the option favoured by the Forest Hill Society, the Sydenham Society, Save the Face of Forest Hill Pools, the vast majority of people on this site who responded, and many local residents who have joined the facebook group and written to the mayor.

We will also be asking for consideration for Louise House to be turned into an arts centre and we have a number of local residents ready to form an action group to see if this can be achieved.

And, for the record, the representatives of the 700 members of the Tewkesbury Lodge Estate Residents' Association are also backing Option 2.