You're making a great case for demolition of something ~120 years old, and that whilst now in serious need of attention of whatever sort (due to scandalous neglect on the part of Lewisham, let's not forget), has lasted pretty well... if the pool does get demolished and a replacement built, it's going to have taken them over 5 years to get to that point. So in a mere 20 years time the cycle starts afresh and we need to start looking at this all over again?!

We've seen all Bullock weaselly manoeuvring on and manipulation of the whole subject of repair vs part retention vs replacement, but this to me makes the case look even stronger for a proper look at the costs over the lifetime of the pool, as well as just the upfront costs of the construction work. In other words, what would we get for ?5m worth of repairs and major improvements (such as an extension) to the existing building, and what would we get for ?5m of new building? If the first lasts another 50 years and the second only 25, for example, then if you just look at the upfront cost you are not comparing like-for-like. You also need to think about it in Net Present Value terms (for the financially-minded amongst you) over its lifetime.