SE23.com - The Official Forum for Forest Hill & Honor Oak, London SE23
Online since 2002  -  10,000+ members

Home | SE23 Topics | Businesses & Services | Wider Topics | Offered/Wanted/Lost/Found | Site Feedback | Advertising | Contact
Steve Shaw Computer Services  Armstrong & Co Solicitors


Topic Closed  Post Topic 
Pages (8): « First < Previous 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next > Last »
Forest Hill Pool
Author Message
ForestGump


Posts: 202
Joined: Jan 2008
Post: #41
07-02-2008 08:08 PM

According to the report the result of intrusive survey was delivered to the council in November 2006 and in February 2007 the Mayor agreed ?5.6m should be provided for refurbishment, 6 months before the feasibility study. Is the reason it went quiet regarding the pools because for 6-12 months nothing was being done?

Find all posts by this user
Perryman


Posts: 809
Joined: Dec 2006
Post: #42
08-02-2008 02:45 AM

nevermodern Wrote:
Just a note - if my memory is correct, the result of the consultation proces was most people indicated that they wanted new-build and NOT to retain the existing structures. Personally, I was in favour or retaining them, but if we're going for new-build, please let's not go for some Victorian pastiche that 'compliments' the exisiting library. Let's go for something that's new and forward looking.


Refurbishment was strongly supported - possibly because many did not trust the council not to have a rethink on the land's use after clearing the site.
http://foresthill.org.uk/forest_hill_poo...ation.html

And here is that link to the private eye article on the pools again:
http://sinope.redjupiter.com/images/lond...npools.jpg

That the council cannot even honestly report the result of the consultation speaks volumes.

Forest Hill pools is historically significant for london. Louise House is historically significant for forest hill and I feel just as sad that the girls industrial home could also be lost.
It could have provided computer facilities/periodical resources/reading rooms as well as community facilities - leaving the library to concentrate on books.

The narrow park was provided to compensate for a park lost nearby. Where will the nearest park be if this too is built over?

One can only hope that in compensation for these losses, there will only be a token entry fee for the new facility, (should it ever be built.)

Find all posts by this user
ForestGump


Posts: 202
Joined: Jan 2008
Post: #43
08-02-2008 09:30 AM

The link to the Private Eye article does not work for me.

Is this the article? Click on the image to read the article.

http://www.londonpoolscampaign.com/2006/04/19

Find all posts by this user
Londondrz


Posts: 1,538
Joined: Apr 2006
Post: #44
08-02-2008 09:37 AM

I wonder if Councilor Best would like to add anything further now that some of us have made our thoughts known?

Find all posts by this user
ForestGump


Posts: 202
Joined: Jan 2008
Post: #45
08-02-2008 09:00 PM

Was it said how many flats might be built on the site, also would the housing be an intergrated part of the new pool or seperate? Originally it was said the new build would only have one pool but in the latest report it also refers to a learner pool.

Find all posts by this user
roz


Posts: 1,795
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #46
08-02-2008 11:23 PM

The building is going.

We can either;

a) focus on the Councils failings in order to make political capital, or b) encourage them to get on with the job.

I favour the latter.

This thread needs to explore what sort of pool development best serves the community, marry that with commonsense and commercial nuance, and propose a way in which we can have meaningful dialogue and influence over the design and facilities, and management.

Find all posts by this user
robwinton


Posts: 335
Joined: Jun 2006
Post: #47
09-02-2008 12:04 AM

How about a "Forest Hill Pools Board of Governors", akin to what happens in schools. It is still run by the outsourced company and owned by the COuncil, but instead of leaving it to the dull instrument of local politics and elections to influence the decisions on the pool, we have a specifically elected (or nominated) board of governors?

It could be made up of a Forest Hill Society and Sydenham Society representative as well as others being directly elected, plus some from the Council

I vote for Roz

Find all posts by this user
robwinton


Posts: 335
Joined: Jun 2006
Post: #48
09-02-2008 11:37 PM

Made the news today

See here

Find all posts by this user
Red67


Posts: 141
Joined: Nov 2007
Post: #49
10-02-2008 11:35 AM

nevermodern Wrote:
Just a note - if my memory is correct, the result of the consultation proces was most people indicated that they wanted new-build and NOT to retain the existing structures. Personally, I was in favour or retaining them, but if we're going for new-build, please let's not go for some Victorian pastiche that 'compliments' the exisiting library. Let's go for something that's new and forward looking.


Would be great to have something as architecturally exciting as the Laban in Deptford (ok, the pools are not going to be on the same scale, but Laban was built on a shoestring budget and is now a landmark building) - totally agree that some awful, pseudo-Victorian pile will be an opportunity missed.....

Find all posts by this user
nevermodern


Posts: 653
Joined: Feb 2007
Post: #50
10-02-2008 11:44 AM

I agree totally with you, Red67. Good architecture doesn't necessarily have to be expensive. For me, a design competition would be the best way forward with a brief to be bold. The right kind of building there could do wonders for FH.

Find all posts by this user
Sherwood


Posts: 1,358
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #51
10-02-2008 09:38 PM

Sir Steve is to announce at a Mayor and Cabinet Meeting on Wednesday (Feb 13) his decision to demolish it and build a new swimming pool on the site.

Find all posts by this user
ForestGump


Posts: 202
Joined: Jan 2008
Post: #52
10-02-2008 11:58 PM

nevermodern Wrote:
I agree totally with you, Red67. Good architecture doesn't necessarily have to be expensive. For me, a design competition would be the best way forward with a brief to be bold. The right kind of building there could do wonders for FH.


I don't know if it's cast in stone but according to the message by Cllr. Best the style has been decided?

Quote:
This new building will be complementary in architectural style to the library.


As the parkland is to be sold off for development would it now be possible to retain the frontage of the old pools as the cost is almost the same as a complete demolition?

Find all posts by this user
Renzon


Posts: 30
Joined: Jun 2007
Post: #53
11-02-2008 01:02 AM

As an architect involved in conservation work, I would also advocate retaining the existing Victorian facade (if it is structurally safe) and building a new but sensitive designed swimming pool behind.

Find all posts by this user
baggydave


Posts: 384
Joined: May 2004
Post: #54
11-02-2008 01:22 AM

Renzon - thought that was a pretty common thing - eg the attachment to Bush House, and most other refurbs of older property in central London. We may have to live with the loss of the interior, but this would be the best of both worlds?

Find all posts by this user
ForestGump


Posts: 202
Joined: Jan 2008
Post: #55
11-02-2008 11:16 AM

In the report before the Mayor it states the Council's Programme Managenent Team because of lack of resources and prior commitments they were unable to commence the detailed feasibility study and risk assessment for 18 months.

I was looking through next year's budget which goes before the Mayor on Wednesday and found this proposed saving...

Quote:
5.18 CUS 24 ? PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
Saving Proposal ?40k (Corporate Priority J)

5.18.1 The Performance Management Group is responsible for providing
strategic and practical support to service areas across Customer
Services and the Customer Services Management Team. The deletion
of Performance Officer post at PO1 will realise a saving of ?40k.

Find all posts by this user
gingernuts


Posts: 505
Joined: Nov 2007
Post: #56
11-02-2008 11:54 AM

ForestGump Wrote:
I was looking through next year's budget which goes before the Mayor on Wednesday and found this proposed saving...

Quote:
5.18 CUS 24 ? PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
Saving Proposal ?40k (Corporate Priority J)

5.18.1 The Performance Management Group is responsible for providing
strategic and practical support to service areas across Customer
Services and the Customer Services Management Team. The deletion
of Performance Officer post at PO1 will realise a saving of ?40k.



Yeh, but what does any of that mean? I'm sure there are lots of posts that could be scrapped becasue they dont fulfil a meaningful role.

On the point of the facade - if we could keep it - that would be fantastic!

Find all posts by this user
gingernuts


Posts: 505
Joined: Nov 2007
Post: #57
11-02-2008 11:56 AM

nevermodern Wrote:
I agree totally with you, Red67. Good architecture doesn't necessarily have to be expensive. For me, a design competition would be the best way forward with a brief to be bold. The right kind of building there could do wonders for FH.



Unfortunatelty if cheap materials are used the building will soon look scruffy and run down. You can bet repainting will not be a prioirty for council. Even Sainsbury's is starting to look a bit tired where the wooden frontage (falts above) need a revarnish.

Find all posts by this user
PSJarrett


Posts: 5
Joined: Feb 2008
Post: #58
11-02-2008 02:23 PM

As a long time user of Forest Hill Pools (as a Sydenham School pupil we had lessons there), I attended the consultation meetings held in October 2005. Capita Consulting produced a document looking at 6 different options, but the discussion was limited to refurbishment (keep two pools) or rebuild (one 25m pool and a fitness suite). The results of the written surveys returned to the Council were 726 for refurbish, 1079 for rebuild. However, owing to the strength of feeling expressed by those at the meetings and in focus groups (actually the minority of respondents, but vocal) which was emphatically in favour of refurbish, the Mayor decided in favour of this in March 2006. In May 2006, an application to English Heritage to have the building listed was not granted.

In March 2006, the pools were closed owing to concerns about decay in the roof trusses. Pinnacle ESP consulting carried out an intrusive survey, which reported in November 2006 that extensive repair and replacement of most of the plant and fittings would be required to bring it up to modern standards, but they felt the building fabric retained its structural integrity, so refurbishment was still an option. At the Area Forum in February 2007 it was clear the Council still planned to proceed with this. They did not actually do so, as they say they were getting the Downham and Wavelengths (Deptford) pool projects to fruition (both now open I believe).

It now seems the intrusive survey was not intrusive enough, as a detailed feasibility assessment, available on the website location given by Cllr Chris Best, states that the two pool tanks are subject to severe cracking across their entire width in three places, and are leaking water at 3627m3 per annum. Apparently, trial pits show that the pool slabs are not entirely resting on clay as they should be, but there is a void underneath. This obviously makes refurbishment considerably more difficult and expensive, with higher risk of costs spiralling ever higher. The report considers 4 options: 1) refurbish 2) new build (25m pool, learner pool and fitness suite) behind existing frontage 3) Demolish whole complex and complete new build (25m pool, learner pool and fitness suite) and 4) Demolish whole complex and provide dry leisure and adult learning. From Chris Best's posting, they would actually seem to favour option 3 with additionally demolishing Louise House, and and provide dry leisure and adult learning, and build on the pocket park.

Everyone seems to agree that we want Pools on the site a.s.a.p. New build is undoubtedly the surest way of getting this. As a sentimental old thing, I would mourn the loss of some of the most historic and noteworthy building in Forest Hill. It is part of our heritage, and I think I am not alone in feeling this. However, it seems to me that this can be mitigated. The Sydenham Society have suggested requiring the any new build should be required to actually incorporate stonework from the frontage of the old buildings e.g. lettering, decorative work, foundation stones. I would further suggest a proper architectural survey and recording of what is there, with plans and photographs, of both Louise House and the Pools. I don't know if local libraries or Horniman's would be able to house any of the laundry artefacts from the basement. Perhaps someone (Steve Grindley??) could be commissioned to write a history of the site?

The Council meeting is on 13th February.

Find all posts by this user
gingernuts


Posts: 505
Joined: Nov 2007
Post: #59
11-02-2008 02:30 PM

Well said!

Find all posts by this user
ForestGump


Posts: 202
Joined: Jan 2008
Post: #60
12-02-2008 10:26 AM

gingernuts Wrote:
Yeh, but what does any of that mean? I'm sure there are lots of posts that could be scrapped becasue they dont fulfil a meaningful role.

On the point of the facade - if we could keep it - that would be fantastic!


I think the Performance Management Team monitor projects the report before the Mayors implies a lack of staff caused delays; so reducing the staff further may not be in the best interests of delivering Forest Hill Pools sooner rather than later?

Para 5.13b of the report actually describes the programme management resource as already "scarce".

Meanwhile back at the pool...

Find all posts by this user
Pages (8): « First < Previous 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 Next > Last »

Friends of Blythe Hill Fields


Possibly Related Topics ...
Topic: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Gym at Forest Hill Pool mrwandle 6 3,918 29-07-2015 06:52 AM
Last Post: Andrew1976
  Vending machine - Forest Hill swimming pool crazyhorse 8 4,674 14-03-2014 04:43 PM
Last Post: AnnieandAlex
  Pool Poll: Which pool option do you prefer? michael 20 12,876 25-02-2009 03:05 PM
Last Post: brian