No one needs authority or a mandate to oppose the listing- any one can do it, even a minority of one. It appeared to be ' one' person who proposed it in the first place
In this case there appears to be respectable number of individuals who would like to consider pursuing the matter. thumbsup:
Sincere apologies to any members of the Polish or paediatrician community, or any deceased persons, who I may have inadvertantly offended by my last posting. The gentleman in question was clearly a character with an amazing professional history however having read the report some of the so called positive historical links supposedly meriting listing seem a little nebulous.
The appeal process starts with a request for a review of the case, so I guess that this will be the place to begin. No High Court judges need be disturbed at the moment.
You would be better off considering a 'certificate immunity from listing' for the Pools Building of you want to see most of what is on site at the moment demolished. Although it may only be the building owner who can do this?
Those worried about Louise House should look at the size of its footprint in relation to the rest of the site and realise that it is a tiny proportion of the site area.
Wouldn't finding an alternative non residential use that will self-fund the restoration of this building (rather than take from the pools budget) be a more positive use of time?
Having read the EH report it actually states that the Pools were considered for listing but rejected, so I guess that its not an issue after all.
Its a good idea about an alternative use and alternative funding stream for Louise House and I would hope that those who campaigned for its listing would already be getting the ball rolling on this , perhaps a local museum on childrens rights, etc, children in the 20th century, ragged school sort of thing, as would be in line with the assessment and value placed on it by EH. There is a lot of potential but also a need for a sound business case and revenue funding if something is going to work.
Roz
Not against a museum but not sure who would fund and they might say F Hill already has more than its share of money on Museums.
I am not so happy about your word ( rights ) without using the word ( responsibilities ) . I know this is all TB fault but we seem to also have prisoners and murderers with human rights, what reponsibilities did they show.
"I am not so happy about your word ( rights ) without using the word ( responsibilities ) . I know this is all TB fault but we seem to also have prisoners and murderers with human rights, what reponsibilities did they show"
and the connection with Louise House is..........?
you can always rely on our Brian to make a completely irrelevant comment, just to reinforce his dodgy views!
Actually, talking of rights and responsibilities, I think the mantra should be ' no conservation without responsibility' or ' no conservation without a financially viable capital and revenue funding strategy'.
Having thought about it all a bit more today, I have been wondering exactly what is being celebrated about the history of Louise House, as it surely was not the best time to be a working class or simply poor child. Whatever the spin on links with eminent academics, it appears to be very simply a monument to child abuse and child slavery. It cannot have provided the best experience for its residents. It would be interesting to hear from anyone who has personal or second hand experience of it.
Brian, when you say 'TB', I assume you mean Tony Blair and not tuberculosis.....
Yes Roz you are correct in your assumption. I apologise for complicating matters but I have a pet hate of the human rights act ( or how it is used ) . I should have appreciated you were talking about children where of course different criteria apply.
I agree with you the building can come down. I have lived in the area all my life passed the building hundreds of times using pool and library and never thought it was remotely interesting. To conserve is going to cost money in these difficult times.
I wonder how many of the conservers used the Pool in the 50's when the changing shacks were alongside each pool. Your clothes ended up soaking wet.It was a pretty dreary place then and not very inviting.
Tim Walder wrote an open letter to the mayor at the end of August. The mayor has written an open response which I have attached (having removed the address of Tim Walder from the letter).
I managed to extract some of the text using character recognition software, but it is a time consuming process. Although I do not agree with everything the mayor says, I would like the mayor's views to be in the public domain. Below is the extract, but please read the full letter if you have have a moment.
Sir Steve wrote:
Let me be clear that I consider the decision by English Heritage to list this building to be misguided. I cannot comment on the way in which they reached the decision, as they did not have to courtesy to speak to me about it at any point. I intend to instruct council officers to move as quickly as possible to work up ways of delivering the leisure facilities on the rest of the site within the financial resources already earmarked for the project.
The consequences of the listing of Louise House all appear negative. It may undermine the financial viability of any scheme completely or at best limit the facilities that can be provided. The council has no use for the building and it is unlikely that it can be incorporated economically into the development even if the problems caused by the listing could be overcome. There is a very high risk that any development will be delayed and also that the ability to put tip an attractive modem building will be compromised by the continuing presence of Louise House.
No amount of wishing, hoping or tilting at windmills will change the facts and l do not intend to be responsible for further delays in giving local people the leisure facilities they want at a price they can afford. I have complete confidence in the councillors and officers who are dealing with this matter. The Stakeholder Group, chaired by Cllr Chris Best, will continue to meet to discuss the arrangements for the leisure facilities on the site. I cannot see how involving myself in a meeting with just one interested party will assist in meeting that objective and I therefore must decline your request for a meeting. Neither am I prepared to give the specific undertakings you request not least because they would tend to pre-empt the proper process of decision making which I have to undertake. Neither will I rule out a scheme that retains some or all of the frontage providing it is practical and affordable and architecturally appropriate.
Just an observation. How did Sir Steve not know about English heritage. Surely they must have spoken to someone at the council. Who let them into the building otherwise, clearly they had seen inside. Surely someone at the council must have known which poses the question: Communication?
Aside from this, look at how Southwark council have gone about Camberwell baths (another old 'claped out' building, but a more open minded council who let the architects come up with the ideas for development without expensive flawed initial consultation):
It's an interesting poll. Would people be so against rebuilds if the quality of new buildings were as appealling as the existing architecture. It's about quality of environment as well as facilities.
I think we should knock down Louise House and the pool:
Then great nice Appartments, Shops and Restaurants somewhere for eyeryone to hang out and have fun I personaly dont see the point in still thinking the Council will keep the old building lets just let them build a nice new lesure center that we can all use. (They are going to do it anyway so lets stop holding them up now!)
Louise House was built for the training of orphaned and impoverished girls to improve their chances of earning a respectable living as independent individuals. It is an historic example of political enlightenment.
Sincere socialists and feminists, among whom are presumably Lewisham's Labour councillors, should be celebrating and honouring the championship of working women as exemplified by Louise House rather than vilifying its retention by the well-informed employees of English Heritage.
Sniffer, I would appreciate it if you could list your sources .
My understanding is and has been that the premises may have had altruistic and philanthropic intentions as had the concept of workhouses, ( and also to an extent debtors prisons) but the reality was I believe somewhat different for the many women and girls who passed through the doors.
Have a look at the film, the Magdalene Sisters, the next time its on on Film 4, or better still, order it from your local video shop. Magdalene Laundries were also for many years portrayed in Ireland as saviours of fallen women.
Search
Help
