Thanks Perryman. Amazing on the A to Z.
I agree the schools would want to use in term time between say
9 and 12 and 1.30 and 3pm but that was the case with the old pool in Dartmouth Road.
Would only need exclusive use say 25 hours a week about 38 weeks a year. Still a lot of time for the Public.
This would mean the old buildings which seem so loved by many could be retained , but not sure what as.

Unfortunately I'd say that that location is too close to the Bridge and the Council could argue that there's too much overlapping catchment area to justify spending on a pool there.

Ultimately, the action taken to have Louise House listed by the 19th Century Society has its roots in vexation not pragmatism. It was a very sad day indeed.
This matter has clearly become a ' class war' between the time-rich chattering classes and the rest of us who want the quickest and best value solution and facilities . You, and you know who you are, have just piled months onto the programme and pounds onto the budget. I suggest that you remember that this is not Wandsworth , nor Richmond, but a borough with high social and economic deprivation indices and a lower income per capita than many others.

To HTG; I do not consider myself 100% behind all things Labour, Lewisham and Steve Bullock. I am sure that my local party members, my MP, ex Cllr Whiting, and even Mr Bullock himself would be a little surprised at your assertion as I have frankly been a vocal and outspoken critic of many things about their administration. I do share your view that the pool has not been managed well however see no merit in covering this ground when we all need to move on. What I do not like is constant carping on about the past frailities and mistakes of a Labour Council which so clearly originates from a general and essentially personal dislike of all things Labour and Steve. As you are clearly so outraged by their performance I assume that you are working behind the scenes with another political party in order to remove Steve and to put in place a more competent administration. I therefore look forward to witnessing your own personal performance at the hustings in the run up to the next elections as surely you must now have the urge to get in there personally and get on with running the council as you see fit.

Re St Pancras. This is a different kettle of fish. Its worth preserving. A load of old tat isn't.

I was not able to attend the meeting last week but trust that minutes will be circulated publicly along with the proposed next step to be taken by the Council, along with a revised programme which takes into account the recent disruption by certain elements of the community. I also take heart remembering that the much beleagured East London line extension eventually proceeded despite the attempts of the chattering classes and certain high profile architects to get Holborn Viaduct listed. However its almost certain that the budget for the pool will be significantly reduced resulting in fewer facilities and doubtless an even more plainer streetscape. An ' own goal,' I think.

It?s a shame that the subject of the pools has been turned into a political issue. Decisions such as this should be based on financial analysis and the needs of current and future residents, not emotion or politics. I am certainly not a fan of labour nor am I one of the so called time rich chattering classes. The politicians must be laughing, rather than there being any focus on the issue in hand the residents of Forest Hill are now fighting amongst themselves, see fit to name call, bitch and attempt to polarise opinion.

When I was at primary school I was taken too the pools every Wednesday in a battered coach, spent an hour avoiding flaking paint and other things floating in the pool and thourghly enjoyed it. The building has been a mess for years, we can blame successive councils but what is the point, all that matters is now and the future. Learn from history but don?t let it dictate the future.

Forest Hill is rapidly deteriorating what we need is something too be proud of, something to attract businesses and something that benefits the local population, A dilapidated set of buildings does not achieve any of these.

I agree, I just read the Sydenham Society's objection and honestly I think that there is one major flaw that comes from a well meaning but nevertheless very strong bias towards conservation.
The flaw is that they propose to settle for a reduced provision of sport and leisure in order to retain "a distinct group of buildings which reflect the Victorian's enthusiasm for education and health reform".

In their ow words:
"The Sydenham Society believes that a fourth option should be put on the table ? one that retains the current streetscape and is not dependent on high-density housing for funding. The facilities may not be as ?highspec? as those on offer in options 2 and 3 but they would allow for the retention of the streetscape and not lead to the domination of Dartmouth Road by a leisure complex and housing shoehorned into an inappropriate space"

I really cannot subscribe to this. To think that we should have about half of what the Victorian built to serve a much increased population is wrong. To do it to celebrate Victorian's enthusiasm for education and health reforms is wrong and illogical.

Those buildings have some historic merit but not so much as to bar the erection of modern buildings to serve the same purpose they were designed for in the first place.

I don't think that the Council's proposals were so horrible, at least option 2 with the pool on the road side and the houses behind. The pool is not a particularly high rise so I don't think that the objection to it as dominating the streetscape really stands either.

A few post above Koza outlined how a leisure centre would sit with the old buildings retained and it's a very nice vision, and he asks how much would that cost. The answer is that it would cost much more than the new building, so much that it would be unaffordable and to make it affordable it would have to be greatly reduced as the Sydenham Society proposes.

The difference in cost would be ?2.5m in loss from receipts from housing plus all that would be spent in restoration, that's difficult to say but would be a serious amount. On top of this there is the issue that the Council is more inclined to invest if they can match fund somehow, so to make money go further, in this case it would be from housing, so take away the housing and you risk to have the Council being much less inclined to put so much money in.

If the retention of those buildings would go ahead and a pool is provided there it would be a very basic one, there surely wouldn't be a teaching pool that allows much more flexibility as it allows general swimming whilst lessons to groups of children (schools and normal lessons) take place. A teaching pool is also normally kept at a warmer temperature so to serve people with mobility issues on top of small children.

I think that the Council should go ahead with either option 2 or 3 and brave the listing status of Louise House, all those that want to have a good swimming pool and leisure centre built there rather than a reduced one should support it by writing to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport as Roz suggested a few posts ago.

Max although a great supporter of retaining our heritage I cannot help but agree with you that on this occasion the buildings are not that great and the young people need a pool.
I am a member of The Sydenham and Foredt Hill Societies and I am not sure they speak for all their members in this matter.
I still think my earlier suggestion od a pool on the site of the old lido at F Hill School , Bampton Rd , could be a great compromise. Green fieldish site.
Max I do however disagree that we need anymore housing in SE 23, the area is at bursting point.

A side issue perhaps but I see it as quite unfortunate that the Syd Soc and its member seems to have so much influence over Forest Hill matters, particularly now that Forest Hill has an amenity society of its very own, which has had considerable divergences of opinion with Syd Soc including in respect of the approach to the pools discussion. I've been pilloried before for having this view however given that most such organisations are not necessarily representative of their local community nor are they democratically elected, any that are consulted surely ought to be at least geographically relevant.
I do clearly recall trying to join Syd Soc many years ago but being told that although I was welcome to pay the fee, I could not participate in meetings as I did not live in the right area! ( Perry Vale). Despite this, Syd Soc were at that time playing a vocal role in FH town centre development, my local town centre. They claim to do so now as their' boundary' extends to Round Hill which is in SE26. As you can probably tell, this issue has irked me for some time! The unfortunate thing is that most beneficiaries of Syd Soc policies and activity already have a nice pool close to them- the Bridge- hence its unlikely that they will feel the need to travel to Forest Hill.

There therefore needs to be careful consideration as to whose voice gets listened to in this and in any debate concerning Forest Hill regeneration including the pools and consultation and whose voice gets priority.

Brian, I'm not saying that you need more housing, I'm saying that those houses are a necessity to access that extra fundings that would allow a substantial centre to be built.
I'd also say that that is not a particularly large block, it has high value because it's near the station and amenities, in other locations that amount of housing wouldn't provide anywhere near that amount of money for community assets.

Roz, councillors who sit on planning committees are democratically elected, but they may have been elected in wards that are some distance from the area on which they are making decisions.

I much prefer to deal with facts, and roz has finally come up with one:

Unfortunately, it is wrong. The Victorian Society (I assume that is what she means) had no part in the application. It was submitted by a private individual and I'm proud that I was able to provide background historical information to support the application.

I'm not sure whether it has been made clear on this thread that Louise House was not listed primarily for its architectural merit but for its historical significance as one of the very few surviving, and perhaps the best preserved, purpose built industrial homes in the country. Although English Heritage is cautious, it is certainly possible that Louise House is a unique survivor from this period.

The plaque on Louise House will give something to read to those waiting for the bus to go and have a swim somewhere else. No doubt they will reflect on "the Victorian enthusiasm for education and health reform".

Here are some facts!

Some influential senior/committee members of a local amenity society, who are and have been actively being consulted by the Council on the best way forward on the Pools as part of the due process appear to have been proactive in disrupting the process by using effectively privileged knowledge and information gained from meetings to wilfully pre empt the process, to pre empt Council action and to inform third parties of such information with a view to disrupting the same.

Is that a fact or is that not a fact? Please note I'll happily stand up and say I'm completely wrong if I am!

Under the circumstances would you not say that their continued position in respect of the Council consultation is now somewhat untenable?

Speaking purely as a local long standing resident, and tax payer, I would expect my local council to define and involve stakeholders in accordance with their relevance to the local area and issue in hand, and likelihood of being even slightly representative of local people, not just by association. Hence I become very frustrated when I see non elected and not always directly relevant organisations disrupting the democratic process.

Smiler,yes, Councillors may represent people outside of their ward, but at least they are democratically elected , and are responsible for budgetary control and meeting performance targets of that authority.

Personally, I see very little merit in the existing buildings. They are already run down and dilapidated. Any more delay will just make this worse. Meanwhile our town centre looks derelict.

If we want a pool or pools, we should allow the modern facilities to be built. I don't agree with combining housing on the site. The Council should provide the funding - possibly obtaining grants as well. I am not aware of any other facilities provided by the Council in FH. But I bet they get more revenue from us than from other parts of the borough.

Roz
I have been a member of The Syd Society for many years and member of the new FH Society. I have never encountered an anti FH attitude to me althought always living in SE 23.
You say this is purely a FH matter. Surely this is not correct the baths are very close to the frontier, only a few metres I think.

If it is a fact, I'm sure you can provide evidence. As far as I'm concerned, I have no idea what you are talking about. I'm certainly not aware of anyone being given "priviledged knowledge", let alone using it in the way you suggest. Indeed this might be considered, by some, as rather offensive. Most of the information I have come across has been taken, sometimes with difficulty, from the Council's own website (I do recommend Google's site specific search).

Your earlier comment that there: "... needs to be careful consideration as to whose voice gets listened to..." is curious. I live perhaps 50 yards from the pools (Thorpewood Avenue, if you want to know). As it happens to be in SE26 and I am a member of the Sydenham Society are you suggesting that this should preclude me from expressing a view? And what about those who live in parts of SE23 that are much closer to the The Bridge than to FH Pools, should they also keep quiet?

Incidentally, I am also a member of the FH Society.

Consider this. The economy now has zero growth. It may be that if the Council does not commit to this project soon, it may not be able to provide the funding required.

I wish someone from the Save the Face of Forest Hill would say something to justify asking for less than the Victorian built?

The tone of some of the postings in this thread has become a bit vitriolic, so I am not inclined to respond in the same manner.

There seems to be a degree of misunderstanding about the listing process. The body responsible for listing buildings is English Heritage, which is a national government organisation under the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Among other things it is in charge of deciding which older buildings should be protected (although not preserved in aspic, they take a positive line about conversion and reuse because these things increase a building's chance of survival). They undertake routine surveys of different areas and list buildings. They will also sometimes "spotlist" buildings which are about to be demolished.

Any person or group of people can apply to have a building spotlisted at any time. In their application they send some photos and as much historical information as they can. An inspector then visits and conducts further historical research into the building. The inspector then decides on whether to list based on 4 criteria: architectural interest, historic interest, association with an important person and group value. A building can be listed on the basis of a single criterion. For example a totally dull house could be listed if it was an important person's birthplace. Their decision is then counter-signed by two other inspectors (who have to agree) and signed off by the DCMS.

Louise House was listed under ALL FOUR criteria (please see the earlier attached documents).

The process of listing is independent of any future plans for the site and once the initial application is in, is not able to be influenced (either way) by the building owner or the applicant. In essence, English Heritage takes a "pure view" of the building's national importance. Neither the SFFH nor Lewisham were able to influence the outcome at all.

The Save the Face of Forest Hill campaign group is independent of any political party. It is independent of the Forest Hill and Sydenham Societies. Some of the group are members of either society, both or none. Although the Sydenham Society aligned itself with our policy, this was a separate decision taken by different people, and that alignment could be only temporary if the policies of the two groups diverged. The Sydneham Society decided to fall behind our general approach at a well attended AGM earlier this year, where the show of (about 100) hands was nearly unanimous.

As for being unrepresentative, SFFH has stood in the streets for weeks in the rain asking people to sign its petition and over 1,000 people have done so. I am not aware of how many members the Forest Hill Society (for whom I assume Roz speaks) has, nor am I aware of any consultation it has taken of its members it has undertaken in its pro-demolition stance.

We live in the Perry Vale area of SE23. My partner is a member of the Forest Hill Society. In February 2008 I found the FHS to be very pro-demolition and the Sydenham Society to be more sympathetic to conservation. So I joined the Sydenham Society, but I don't speak for them or know anything about their workings.

Roz's accusations about privileged access to and influence of the Council are quite funny. The SFFH group had great difficulty in being allowed to approach Council Officers with alternative plans for rebuilding the pools behind the existing frontage block. Those alternative plans were then summarily dismissed. Privileged access, I should be so lucky!

In terms of why we "should have less than the Victorians" there is no problem. The current facade block has two pools, changing areas and all the other things a swimming pool needs already behind it. Particularly if the land which forms a small park to the north is also used, there is no reason why excellent modern pools cannot be built in the space available. Has any consideration been given to a two storey pools, with community facilities upstairs? The old facade is quite tall and could screen such a development.

With regard to the other accusations: I live in Forest Hill and so do the majority of our supporters. I am a teacher and, for what business it is of Roz's, a lifelong Labour voter.

Tim Walder
Save the Face of Forest Hill

Tim
Thanks for the long explantion of your position. I also believe the views seem to be getting personal.
I think we are being overtaken by events. The recession will mean less revenue for the council . ( I assume more people unable to pay council tax and also expect HMG to review grants.)
Best we can hope for is the cheapest council approved option if we are lucky to get that.

Tim Walder wrote "... there is no reason why excellent modern pools cannot be built in the space available... "

Unfortunately, I suspect that if the Council has to divert resources to preserve mediocre buildings just because they are Victorian built, the funding will not be available to build the swimming pools desired.