From Capita's detailed report of 2005:

No idea if these figures have been updated.
No idea if it is comparing like with like.
Assumes roof can be made safe for ?250,000.

You'll need to take into account inflation, but you can take about ?1m off the final costs, as the council have saved this in keeping the pools closed for 3 years.

A plain repair cost today of ?7m sounds plausible.
with extension: ?9m
with 1 new pool: ?10m
with 2 new pools: ?12m

Take these figures with a large shovelful of salt, but yes the repair non-option looks to be within budget, no land sell off required.

When these options were unveiled on 5th February, the Council asked the "stakeholders" to give their view by tomorrow.

Attached is the response of the Save the Face of Forest Hill Campaign Group, as sent to the Council. Like the Forest Hill Society and the Sydenham Society, we support Option 2.

I'm sorry, but I find the existing frontage of the pools to be extremely dark, oppressive and depressing - whereas I really love the library, which, to me is the real focal point of the piece. My ideal scenario would see a variation of option 2 to replace the existing pools frontage with a lighter more inviting looking front building, which respects and compliments the library, with its own character and architectural merit and perhaps a nice cafeteria in the main foyer that's open to non-pool users as well.

I agree with you John. I have never thought of either building as a gem.
Your suggestion sounds good to me , but I would not be surprised if your suggestion is not taken to task by a number of posters.

I agree that the existing pools frontage building is at best (on a sunny day) undistinguished, at worst bleak and unattractive. The 'Save the Face of Forest Hill' campaign is, in my view, fundamentally misguided. The 'Victorian streetscape' in this part of Forest Hill is (for better or worse) doomed, and it is pointless to try to preserve it in aspic. But I agree that it is important to have a civic and community use presence at this end of the Forest Hill bit of Dartmouth Road. So I go for option 1.

On a rather separate point, if Louise House is being preserved on historic rather than aesthetic grounds, what sense does it make to turn it into housing, which means that the public won't be able to go inside and learn about the history?

I agree Robin. Too be honest cannot see why it is listed. Have walked past it for 60 years without giving it another thought.

The facade of the pool also brings back memories of the 50's when I learnt to swim. It was a dump then.

Let us hope that the Mayor actually makes a decision on Thursday to move towards building a new swimming pool/leisure facility on the existing site on Dartmouth Road. It?s clearly what local people want. Another period of ?consultation? would be disastrous.

What I find simply unacceptable in all of this is the shoddy way that the stakeholders group has been treated. The stakeholders are constantly told that they are there to be consulted. But no consultation actually takes place. Instead, the stakeholders are handed down ultimatums by the officers.

At the M&C meeting on 18 September, according to Michael?s notes, the Mayor promised that LBL would keep the stakeholders group up to date with all aspects of this scheme.

So what actually happened? Officers ignored the stakeholders group until two weeks ago (5 February), when they met to present them with the three options we now have before us, giving them no more than eight days to come back with a response.

Surely officers must have known of the option to move the pool to Willow Way months ago. They could have put this idea in principle to the stakeholders group and other locals at that time. They would then have discovered that this idea was a complete non-starter, and saved themselves a great deal of time and effort.

Decide to build on the existing site now Steve ? it?s what people want! If you need to work on details of the layout of the scheme, take the stakeholders group seriously and consult them ? that?s what they are there for.

I understand that there are groups out there who want to lose the pool frontage and other groups who want to keep it. Both vociferous in their opinions and ready to fight for what they believe.

However, given that we all want a pool shouldn't we be working towards a consensus or compromise rather than fighting over options?

Or am I being unrealistic that the community could all get behind the most popular option and work together to see it delivered..........

Absolutely Satchers!

I don't actually give a toss whether the frontage stays where it is or not, so long as the pools do, but am realistic enough to realise that the only way to avoid another fractious row in the community and hand LLB the chance to 'divide and rule' is to back Option 2.

I would hope that if (and only if) Option 2 is compehensively and irretrievably ruled out, the pro-conservation lobby (having received much support at this point) will have the grace to do me and the rest of Forest Hill the courtesy of returning such realism, and back Option One rather than see the pools move to Willow Way, so that the council is not able to then 'divide and rule' on the basis of a split community.

The response of the Tewkesbury Lodge Estate Residents' Association to the stakeholder presentation is attached. The Association is opposed to Option 3 and would support Option 2 provided facilities are not compromised by retention of the frontage. Option 1 might be acceptable if subsidised with housing on Willow Way - ie without the housing 'on top'.

it would be a real step backwards if it all went into the second option.

the first option by HLM has a very distict consideration for urban development, what is now a more community inclusive proposal a realistic option a positive drive to a better FH, to keep the facade we will continue to see shops closing down becuase there will be no change and this is very important.

there is a misconception that the outside part of the pools is unimportant yet the opposite is true, to improve society for or kids and to make the streets safe for them is heavily bound to the resolution of the external space in more ways than one it is more important then having two pools.

Having two pools - a learner pool and a standard size 25m pool is, I sense, accepted as an essential feature of our new pools, whatever else local people may disagree on. The Council accept that a learner pool is essential to the viability of the pool concept and certainly the second pool at the old Pools was very heavily used by schools for teaching. The outside of any new pool is important too, but let's not lose sight of the fact that what Forest Hill has lost is a swimming facility, and that is what needs to be replaced in Forest Hill. If it can be done in an acceptable manner whilst retaining the old frontage building, that will please almost everyone and the challenge for the council must be to find a way to deliver that objective if at all possible.

Steve Bullock, elected Mayor of Lewisham is quoted in the South London Press, speaking to Lawrence Conway...

They say there are lies, damn lies and statistics.

As the crow flies from the centre of the Pools site to the centre of the Willow Way site is 600 yards. Given that we aren't crows and have to follow the roads, and that the entrance to the new Pools building as illustrated in the stakeholder presentation is most of the way to Kirkdale, the real distance between the two sites is actually almost 700 yards.

Option 1 demolishes all of the old pools, including the frontage block. They are replaced with an ugly and low quality design featuring tall blocks of housing on Dartmouth Road at the front and overlooking Derby Hill Crescent to the rear.

Option 3 moves the pools to the Willow Way former Council depot. This site is in Sydenham, SE26 (NOT Forest Hill) and has constricted road access, poor public transport links and leaves the new pools hidden down a backstreet. Although the pools frontage block would be preserved in theory, the pools site in Dartmouth Road would be turned over for housing development. There would thus be a loss of community facilities in Dartmouth Road and the pools frontage block would almost certainly not survive the years of delay and neglect before the housing market picks up.

Option 2 retains and reuses the pools frontage block as part of a new leisure centre designed by Allies and Morrison (who did the Horniman Museum extension). The design is high quality, attractive and low impact and crucially, retains the pools in Forest Hill. Everybody wins.

In line with the Forest Hill Society, the Sydenham Society, the Tewkesbury Lodge Estate Residents Association and a Forest Hill Ward Councillor the Save the Face of Forest Hill camapign think that Option 2 is the best and the only acceptable option.

The Mayor and Cabinet will decide on 25th February 2009 which of the options to pursue. At the moment the Mayor appears to be wobbling towards Option 3. In the South London Press on Friday 13th February he describes all options as "excellent" but stresses affordability and speed of delivery. He describes Willow Way as "potentially quite exciting" and goes on to state, "My preferred option is to get a pool open as soon as possible. Retaining the frontage block is likely to be the most expensive and difficult option."

If you support Option 2 write to Sir Steve Bullock at the Town Hall or email him at steve.bullock@lewisham.gov.uk

Tim I agree 1 and 3 are not a good idea but expect one of them will get the nod.
I would support 1 ( brand new pool and non retention of any old building if it were just that a brand new pool. What it appears to be is also a lot of housing . As there are very few jobs in the area why more housing.
I will mail Sir Steve but doubt will take any notice.
I know Jim Dowd's seat is possibly in danger with the new boundaries but I would imagine there is no chance of Labour not ruling Lewisham so democracy does not work when no alternative

Here is an email I have just sent to the mayor:

'Dear Sir Steve

In my view the desiderata are, in descending order of importance

1. the best building (architecturally) that can be afforded

2. as soon as possible

3. on the existing site (to safeguard and enhance the civic and community presence in this part of Dartmouth Road)


Best wishes

Robin Orton'

Robin - many thanks for posting your email to the Mayor.

The problem with your list of "desiderata" is that it could be interpreted as supporting any of the three options (and even a few more!) according to interpretation.

The last thing we need at this stage is this woolly lack of clarity. Your email gives no indication whatsoever to the Mayor about a clear direction of travel.

The FH Society, FH councillors, the Sydenham Society, the SFFH Campaign and the overwhelming majority of people who have voted online in this forum have come out in support of Option 2. It's a clear option we can get behind.

Now is the time for the Stakeholder group to be taken seriously and for the officers to work with the group to make this option work. The Stakeholder group contains three architects (all experienced in working on projects of this type). They are bursting with ideas on how LBL can close the funding gap on Option 2.

Let's let them get to grips with this project.

Thanks, Grasshopper. I personally don't feel in a position to judge between the options, particularly the financial aspects. I thought it might be more useful to give my views, as a Forest Hill ward resident and a past and potential pools user, on the criteria which should guide the experts' choice (which in my opinion should not include whether the existing facade is preserved or demolished) and how they should be ranked.

Robin,
Where would you say quality of leisure facilities should fit on your list of desiderata?

P.S. always nice to learn a new word.