The figure of ?200,000 comes from the council's own options report. Given that they seem quite hostile to the idea of a new building behind the old facade, and that the report was written mainly by a firm of achitects who work mainly with new build (Deptford Wavelengths extension), I assume it is reliable.

Just because I value the past does not mean I am an old fogue. And yes, I do have young children too, and swimming is our favourite sport. Whatever happens we will be swimming weekly in Forest Hill Pools. I live in the 21st century too and the best architectural practice is often to work with the (good) old and not just sweep it away. I accept the fact that the old pools leak and that repairing them will not be cost effective in the long run.

What I do not accept is that the old facade is bad Victorian architecture. If you ignore the fact that it is tatty (which could easily be remedied) it is a nice example of the Queen Anne revival style. The detailing on the brickwork is attractive and whole has an interesting rhythm and an imposing quality. I think most people who dismiss it do so because it is so familiar and is currently undermaintained.

The facade should not go: it can easily be worked with. The proposal to demolish Louise House is equally sad. This building is not outstanding in itself, but there is nothing wrong with it and it has some historical and social interest and could easily be incorporated or reused. Its fate is simply to provide a site for an enabling development to fund the pools.

The hope that any new pool will be outstanding is a forlorn one. I do not doubt that a wonderful new pool could not be designed by a leading architect. But we won't get that: look at the new extension at Deptford Wavelengths. It is OK but it is not outstanding by any stretch. The Bridge is an architectural mess.