Tim, thanks for your answer, unfortunately it reinforces my opinion that your campaign considers swimming and active recreation as an afterthought subservient to conservation and I think that this is a strong bias that prevents from giving appropriate considertion to all aspects of the issue.

For years there's been speculation about the Council wanting to dispose of the site and now that they have come out with a plan to do exactly this they want to use the receipt form the disposal of part of to build a better leisure centre. I can only agree with this.

I much rather prefer the Council making a profit from this schem and using it for the new pool than giving Louis House away for free or next to it to use as luxury flats as you suggest.

If we were discussing the conservation of Forest Hill Pools in its entirety I would very probably be supporting it but as we all agree that the pools are beyond repair then we can just move on, the superintendent house is not handsome, it has historic value but without the pools behind it has a very limited value.

Frankly, I', horrified by the listing of Louise House. It aims at denying the possibility to pursue any other option, I agree that the Council should have communicated better why they chose not to include an option for the retaining of the two historic buildings in their plans but I can nevertheless understand why. It's economy. The 4th option simply doesn't even go close to the other options and it would suck a lot of money out of sport and active recreation that has a very limited budget to start with.
If there were ready funds for conservation to make up the loss that the abandoning of options 2 and 3 or just the increased costs from option 1 then one could think about it, unforunately those millions aren't there so the rational thing is to demolish.

Going into the details of what you propose I think that there are aspects that you haven't thought about, you can't be serious when you say that you'd like to retain the changing rooms of the current pools and build the rest as a multistorey complex behind it.
First consideration is that the changing rooms of Forest Hill Pools are horrible in comparison to any modern changing room, the second is that you can't build on top of pools because of a structural reason. Not just pools ceilings cannot take weight in the first place, they also fight a constant battle with condensation. The practical solution is that of not building on top of them.
My point about wanting to build less than the Victorian did was coming from an economic point of view, the Sydenham Society objection states that their proposal wouldn't be building a "high specs" centre, I take it that they say so becasue they are aware that they would be taking money out of Sport to spend them for conservation.
I supposed that you were aware of this as you campaign for exactly what the Sydenham Society suggested, but, it is possible that as you say you have nothing to do with them and just didn't realise that this proposal would mean reduced provision. The Sydenham Society instead was very aware of this, only that they thought that it was ok for them as long as the facade and Louise House were kept.