SE23 Forum

Yes let us proceed here , delay not helping anyone.

From News Shopper:

Mayor of Lewisham Sir Steve Bullock told News Shopper saving the facade was unlikely but would be considered, though there would not be another full consultation.

He said: "I'm disappointed this listing has happened.

"What I don't want to do is reopen the whole thing. I'm not going to go back to the drawing board."


http://tinyurl.com/6mzdfn

"What I don't want to do is reopen the whole thing. I'm not going to go back to the drawing board."

How pig-headed does that sound! 'The whole thing' is not a done deal yet and there are options. Given the change of status of Louise House, new options should be considered. I think this statements says it all about 'our' Mayor.

What does the Mayor not want to re-open? A can of worms?

For Michael and others who have been interested, I have rung English Heritage just now to check on the status of the one storey former laundry block in the rear garden of Louise House.

EH said that this building is also listed because it is mentioned in the Description in the listing and it falls "within the curtilage" of the listed building (i.e. it's in the garden).

Don't worry, there will be no Save the Laundry Campaign and that is a promise!

not over yet the Pools has even started to get off the ground! if people would stop argueing amongst themselves we could move on - we could still be debating the merits of listing/facade/old/new/refurb/housing or what! this time next year the elitists can all sit in their ivory towers while the
rest of the community are without a major facility

Forest Hill is suffering economically its hard enough to keep shops as it is - the elitists will be the first to moan if more shops close down - get in the real world!
The Mayor is being realistic quite simply if LBL is that bad move somewhere else(Southwark has a Pool) its only just down the road!

Why should there ever be another full consultation? To spend another ?50k to restate that public opinion is split?
They'll go through the options, they'll consult with the key stakeholders and they'll pick what looks best. This doesn't stop anybody from lobbying or campaigning for what they think should be done.

NO MORE HOUSING

Not a good idea, the more housing you can provide the more you can spend on the flippin' door handles?

I respect Steve B's attitude that he is responsible and needs to take the executive decision but if he was any good at his job it would not have come to this. It has been a badly conducted 'consultation'... flawed and that is why there is so much confusion and disappointment.

The current proposal is a waste of space and will have future negative impacts on the local environment that is my personal and educated objection.

What were the 3 development options if not a form of consultation?

What we have been presented to date is far from acceptable, cheap and vulgar. There was never any mention of the loss of the park and a dominating block of flats in the 'full consultation' as far as I remember. I think people feel cheated and distrustful. There's little confidence that Forest Hill will get a good pool that will not fall into decline and blight the area as soon as it is built.

As options to incorporate the original building have not been pulled together, how do we know if this is too expensive? What cost to design a modern pool without housing? What other options are available? It all seems so very uncreative and narrow of thought and idea. Does the Mayor just assume that Louise House can be pulled down (at some point, maybe never) regardless of the currently listing? and if so, he then accepts that there may never be a pool in FH. That attitude stinks.

There will always be disagreement when changes need to be made, but the leadership at the top of this sorry mess has been appalling. This we should all acknowledge and campaign together against.

Gingernuts:
No! Not one architect producing multiple designs, but multiple architects producing one (or more) designs each - that would be the competition

Koza:
How do you propose raising the extra ?1-2M needed to provide two pools (based on Capita's costings)? The purpose behind my wording was to give the architects a free hand to stick to the budget (and no housing) or allow them to stretch the budget to provide the facilities.

Papers for Cabinet meeting on 17th September can be found at http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/CouncilAndDem...Item11.htm

I have not read them yet. Happy reading!

A few extracts from the report.

"The retention of Louise House means that none of the three options that were consulted upon are now deliverable. ... The original timetable for the project (planning permission Summer 2009 and completion of the building in early 2011) is now undeliverable." (para 7.5)

"The current forecast is a funding gap [as a result of the listing] of at least ?2m and the project may now be unaffordable" (para 9.5)

It seems to me that, through a combination of initial dithering by the Council and the subsequent defeat of their plans by the recent listing of Louise House, the aim of saving Forest Hill pools will be achieved - but at a cost. I hope I am proved wrong about this, but I fear that the residents of Forest Hill will watch both the Pools and Louise House being left gently to decay.

I envy the victorian residents of Forest Hill - they had a modern building and a place to swim right on their doorstep. We will have neither.

It's not acceptable that the buildings just decay. There is money and we need to see what can be achieved given current circumstances. Is the council saying that they cant even replace or repair the existing pools with the allocated 7.5m? Seems a bit fishy to me to be honest.

WE SHOULD NOT let the Council and the mayor get away with this.

gingernuts, i agree, we do not know how the money is being spent well the whole thing is a bit dodgy

i really hope that they do not get away with how they have mismanaged the project, but i'm afraid i wouldn't know where to start questioning or proving dysfunctional management and complete disregard to local needs. it is a complacent local government that dictates with no fear of accountability.

This is how Southwark council dealt with their victorian pools in Camberwell:

Camberwell Baths development makes a splash
Published on: 20/6/2008
Ref: 5757

Southwark today announced that it has short-listed three potential submissions to work with the council to explore creative and sustainable solutions for investing in the Camberwell Leisure Centre.

In February 2008, the council called for submissions from architects, developers and leisure operators who had good ideas for the leisure centre but also the resources to realise those ideas.

One component of the brief was to retain the pool as a leisure facility while also offering other community or leisure facilities on the site.

The council received more than 90 expressions of interest, which resulted in seven submissions that were short-listed to three bids. The next phase will be to appraise these to explore their potential.

Cllr Lewis Robinson, executive member for culture, leisure and sport at Southwark Council, said: ?The council is committed to investing in and improving leisure facilities across the borough. I am committed to securing a sustainable future for Camberwell Leisure Centre and these submissions present an exciting and challenging opportunity for Camberwell.

?I am pleased we have attracted such high quality submissions and look forward to exploring further some of the great ideas put forward by interested bidders. We will do a careful assessment of the top three bids to see if they are viable and to assess which of them will bring maximum benefit to Camberwell.

?To help us draw up an independent and impartial appraisal we have invited a team of leisure experts from the Freshfield Foundation charitable trust. The Trust has considerable experience in assessing developments with a focus on the benefits they bring to local communities and has expressed a desire to assist with achieving a sustainable future for Camberwell Leisure Centre.?

?In addition to this there will be opportunities for the public and stakeholders to let us know their thoughts on the three bids as well as other internal and external consultations which will lead to a final decision this autumn.?

ENDS

Notes for editors
1. The Freshfield Foundation is a charitable trust with a well-established record of philanthropic work on projects across the country. Its main focus is on sustainable development and projects which support the community, combat the causes of disadvantage and increase community cohesion.
2. Further information about the consultation process will be published shortly.
3. The top three ranking bids are: Fusion, Ash Sakula and Phaze One Ltd, working with the English National Ballet
Further contact details:
Communications Unit
Southwark Council
Town Hall
Peckham Road
London SE5 8UB

Their initial budget for the pools is less than Forest Hill.

The building is similar in age and appearence.

The problems with the pools were similar to Forest Hill or why they closed in the first place.

Read more here:

http://www.camberwellbathscampaign.org/

The report to Mayor says that the feasability study by the council officers will be done by "early 2009". This is one year later than the report that went to mayor and cabinet in February this year. There is an estimated funding gap of ?2m. What are the chances that we will see a new pool in Forest Hill either before or after the Olympics?

Of all the respondents to the survey only 53 were identified as wanting to keep the existing facade. So where were all the responses from the 1,400 people who signed the petition? If they really cared they would have joined the other 600 people who did care enough to respond to the consultation.

In the case the minority clear won out as Louise House will continue to stand on the site, while leisure facilities will be further delayed. The headteachers of both Holy Trinity (grade 2 listed) and Forest Hill Secondary School (newly rebuilt) both favoured demolition and the earliest possible return to swimming in Forest Hill. It was possible previously to argue that Louise House has little merit (either in part -e.g. laundary building, or in total) but English Heritage have concluded otherwise.

They may be a minority, but those wishing to list Louise House did have English Heritage on their side and the report has persuaded the council not to contest the listing:

What we now need is a way to get ?2m. Personally I would favour a ?6 rise in council tax in Lewisham for the next three years. Any objections?

Well that's going to happen anyway!! How about getting rid of the mayor and the mayor's office. I bet that would save a few bob.

I'm still perplexed as to how the council knows there is a 2m shortfall? If I had a pool (even if it was only one pool) and a couple of changing rooms built in the lush stretch of my huge back garden (if only) I think I could get some change from ?7.5m! Of course they'd be no back handers to preferred contractors and it would be a tightly run project too.

In any case doesnt the government always underestimate the cost of projects initially and once the full scoping is done it has increased by several billion? Never stopped projects from going ahead in the past, e.g. Olympic games, ID cards, NHS database etc...

As the project has been put back could not the further sum be allocated out of a future year's budget? Presumably the initial sum allocated was from this year's budget.

I'll now sit back and await a lecture on basic public service accounting!

Although the Council doesn't want to contest the listing maybe they would consider going ahead with one of the original designs and ask for permission to demolish the now listed and yet still desperately unremarkable Louise House.

How can the numbers of people who want to keep the frontage and Louise House be properly assessed through the consultation figures?

There were only three choices given by the Council? Had there been a fourth, and had communication of the consultation been better handled and better timed, it might have reflected more accurately the opinions of local people.

The petition shows substantially greater numbers than those obtained in the consultation. A lot of people who did hear about the consultation, were angered by the lack of choice so refused to comment, but were and are more than willing to sign the petition because this represents their view.

I agree.

If Option 1 was affordable without additional housing then Option 1 should still be affordable now - albeit the footprint would have to slightly smaller (indeed, LH isn't that large compared to the Pools site). The Council would not have to divert any funds to the upkeep of LH if they did not wish to.

Kaza sketched something like this (with 2 pools) back in post 365. However, the pools building doesn't necessarily have to be kept if it is more feasible to new-build over the entire pools site, and I'm sure some flats can be squeezed in there somewhere to generate extra money.

In short, I guess what I'm saying is that the listing of LH should not necessarily affect the cost/funding of the pools (especially if the Council decide not to use LH as part of the pools complex).