Isn't that 3 questions or are you giving people a choice of which 2 questions they answer?

While out on patrol I found this by someone who was at the meeting.

BD - I feel strongly about this, and used the approved feedback/consultation channels to help the mayor come to his senses.
However midweek meetings at 7 are not easy for many of us.

I too have a question - for the FH society:
do you think your views are representative of Forest Hill on this issue in any way?
(ie green-lighting practically anything the council proposes?)

The council after all are legally obliged to consult with the public on this, but now can just write 'as approved by FH Soc' on all their proposals.

FH Soc members are entitled to their opinions, but for me Sydenham Soc are in align with public opinion on this issue, and it is they who should be fully consulted by the council.

I do not accept the picture you paint of the Forest Hill Society 'green-lighting practically anything the council proposes'. We back the idea of consulting local people on the issue and want to see the best possible leisure facility for Forest Hill.

In speaking to people around Forest Hill and on this forum there are clearly two strands of thought on the issue.
1) Preserve the existing buildings at any cost
2) Demolish the existing buildings as proposed by the council
There are additionally shades of opinion between these two views. It has surprised me how vocal one side of the debate is, and how many people on the other side of the debate remain quiet, probably in fear of being branded council stooges / Philistines / in a minority of one - you can see this at it's best on the forums.

Both opinions are legitimate views of people in Forest Hill and should be heard and the Forest Hill Society and Sydenham Society should make sure they are presenting the full range of views in the local community (not an easy task to get the balance right).

The Sydenham Society have put forward a proposal for consideration by the council and I hope that by next week others are allowed to see this proposal and comment upon it. Having seen it myself I do not think it would gain the support of the majority of people in Forest Hill. However I still welcome this proposal as adding to the debate and providing the council with alternative options.

What the Forest Hill Society has tried to do is to make sure the local community is aware of the council plans, through articles in our newsletters, on our website, on this forum, and by bringing council officials in front of local residents. I note that by doing so we have reinvigorated the discussion by local people and I am pleased that we have done this.

Once the plans for the site are published by the council (before demolition) the Forest Hill Society may well take a view on the best proposal, or certainly on completely unsuitable proposals - it would be nice to think that the council are able to produce one option that would be acceptable to the majority of residents.

Of course the Sydenham Society are being consulted as well as the Forest Hill Society so in your final point you are either not aware of this or suggesting that the Forest Hill Society should be excluded from the consultation process. I wonder how people in Forest Hill would feel about their local civic society being excluded from this issue?

Michael - that is a reassuring post and there is not much I could argue with.
Perhaps it is sensible that FH Soc's public statements should not be too unsupportive of the council, as long as it is still actively representing all the views of SE23. If this is the case, I stand corrected.

Private pressure from FH Soc along with more public pressure from Sydenham Soc may yet prove a winning combination to help the council start listening.

But I will take issue with why one side of the debate has gone quiet - they consider the matter closed and are merely waiting for the bulldozers to move in.

Penelope Jarrett of the FH Society has sent us the notes of the second meeting of the Forest Hill Pools Stakeholder Group for publication.

Just one note that date of the meeting mentioned at the end of the report is not a public meeting, but it is useful to know that they will be meeting again next week.

Oh and another note, it seems that summer 2010 will now be taking place in March 2011. Let's hope it does not slip any further.

The site is currently due to be totally demolished around July this year. It is clearly wrong that the council has such a rapid plan for demolition of all of Forest Hill Pools and Louise House. Because:

1) No consideration is being given of any draft plans or possibilities for retaining or resuing any part of the historic buildings.

2) Demolition is taking place before alternative plans or designs are published. We know what we are losing but not what we are getting.

3) There are no plans for a proper architectural competition to choose a good design for the new building (whether it reuses parts of the historic structures or not).

There should be No Demolition Without Designs.

I invite users of the forum to sing the petition to encourage the council to rethink its plans at

http://www.gopetition.com/online/19745.html

It seems a real shame to put a metal shed in the middle of Forest Hill [ as that is probably what we'll get as they race to demolish without any clear plans for a better alternative] when it would be possible to keep the facade and build behind like they did on a much bigger scale at St.Pancras. That would also go better with the excellent refurbed library next door.

I have signed the petition and hope that others do as well.

My understanding is that the council do plan to show designs during June prior to demolition in August, but I do not believe that at this stage they have produced enough details and costings to be able to justify demolition. I hope that they are able to produce this level of detail in the next month, but if not demolition should be delayed until we have all seen what will be put in the place.

Meanwhile Ladywell Pool has been temporarily closed due to health fears (see http://www.saveladywellpool.com/). Lewisham Council Leisure Services are not currently inspiring a great deal of confidence.

Please as many people sign as possible. I have!

Me too. If everyone on se23.com signs, then there should be at least 1252 signatures. Could I suggest that the word be spread to our neighbour forums in Sydenham and ED?

This is just typical!

We will end up with a 10 year building site until the council give in to the housing planners and agree to more flats instead of a pool. So we'll have loads of people living in Forest Hill getting fat with no leisure facilities. In addition we will all be unable to get into work on time, because of over crowding on the trains. I despair!

I've also signed the petition.

This always looked like a foregone conclusion.

I'm still taken aback by their shamelessness.

As a quick recap:
1. Neglect the building; then
2. Close it when it becomes so dilapidated it is unsafe; but
3. Don't bother looking seriously at minimum cost options to keep the building open, such as repairing the roof and adding an extension for changing rooms; instead
4. Claim it needs replacing - i.e. we have to pay for something new essentially because you haven't looked after your old one; but
3. Pretend you'd like to retain the pools, although of course that depends on what you find...so
4. Commission reports; but
5. Ignore them; and
6. Declare that the building has to be demolished- although we know that was always what you meant at point 3, really; and
7. Get it knocked down before developing any detailed plans to replace it; and
8. Make sure that any replacement if it does ever get built is of the greatest architectural mediocrity by not bothering with a competition.

Somewhere in there fits the exclusion of Louise House from consideration as part of the overall solution for the site when it didn't suit them, but then bringing it back into the frame for demolition when it did.

You utter, utter toads.

I just signed because I think that it is very sensible to ask for detailed plans and believable costings before demolition.

This really looks like they just want to knock down the building to close the discussion but the result will be that following demolition they will just relax and take their time to come up with solutions.

The way they dealt with the Legionella Bacteria at Ladywell show me that they are not to be trusted with our interests and to allow them to proceed with demolition before they show that they can deliver the goods is very naive.

I really wish that a new management is brought in to replace the top level of the Community department at Lewisham Council before they can do more damage.

Well said Hilltopgeneral! This whole situation makes me really angry. It's not just FH pools, but Ladywell too. What else can we do, other than the petition?

Coo! Support from an eminent professor of architecture, no less!!

Dear All

Thank you for the early signers.

A campaign is now up and running. There should be a stall at the Forest Hill Day in Horniman Gardens on this coming Sunday, where you can sign a paper petition, get the leaflet and contact other interested people.

We are trying to get the council to listen.

The status of the petition would be enhanced if local councillors would sign. So Susan Wise, John Paschoud and Alan Till where are you, for starters? And any others?

Perhaps supportive people could ask their friends and neighbours in Forest Hill also to sign.

41 signatures so far and counting.

A reminder of the link:

http://www.gopetition.com/online/19745.html

I have been away so have only just seen the petition. I am the 48th to sign. Come on everyone.
I am really upset about this - I think more people will come to regret this than anyone anticipates, but by then it will be too late.

I strolled down to the pools the other day with a friend from outside the area and he commented on how historic and pleasant the architecture is round there and that it had a nice 'feel' to the area.
A shame to lose something that makes Forest Hill so unique and gives it character. Do people realise the enormity of what we're going to lose, something that can never be replaced?

I truly believe we could have a functional and pleasant pool that retains the facade at least.