The Forest Hill Society does not adopt policy except at quorate General Meetings (we are looking to organise one in the next few months). The policy of domolition is that of Lewisham Council and my understanding is that this is supported by local councillors in Forest Hill, Perry Vale, and Sydenham, as well as the mayor who made the decision in cabinet.
It is the duty of the Forest Hill Society to constructively engage with the council on such matters and to represent views of local residents (which does include representing views that I may not personally agree with). When the consultation exercise was undertaken in 2005/2006, when the pool was still open, opinion was split pretty evenly between those who wanted a new pool and those who wanted refurbishment. Many people who did want refurbishment chose this option because it was the only way to retain two pools on the site, something which is vital in a modern pools facility and something that the current building houses. Given that the new proposal does include two pools if the council were to survey local residents and particularly pool users, my expectation would be that there would be a majority in favour of the rebuild option. But this alone does not make it right.
In the next week representatives from Forest Hill Society and Sydenham Society will be meeting with Lewisham councillors and officials regarding possible options. There are a number of issues that need to be addressed to make sure that the best solution is arrived at - whatever that may be. But the Executive of the Forest Hill Society has agreed that if the council's plan is to demolish the existing pools then we will work with them to make sure that Forest Hill gets a good new design that recognises in some way the architecture that may be lost. If it can be proved that Forest Hill can get a better pool with better facilities, in a new building which complements the library, faster than the refurbishment option, and for approximately the same price, then I think it would be foolish for local residents not to at least listen to the proposal from the council.
We will provide you with more information regarding any plans as soon as we know what they are. In the meantime I make no apology for my personal view that the sooner swimming returns to Forest Hill the better it will be, not just for swimmers but for local shops and schools.
This is very ingenious, but accepting Lewisham's demolish it all approach without challenge amounts to a de facto policy of not challenging demolition. I live in Forest Hill and do not want to see the facade and Lousie House go. Are you going to represent my views?
It is perfectly possible to keep the Victorian facade and build excellent new pools behind it. Have the best of both worlds. If you look at Steve Grindlay's plans it is obvious that the frontage building just "bolts on" to a couple of large pool sheds. It will even stand up on its own while you knock down the sheds and build something new behind or at the side. the extra cost for this is only ?200,000 (on the council's own figures).
I'm so glad you picked up on that. It seemed to me that the front block, which contained superintendent's accommodation, offices and the basement (with the laundry equipment and so on) was effectively separate from the pools. However, I hadn't liked to suggest it, having no expertise in this field. As you say, it is clearly a self-contained and self-supporting entity.
I may have said it before, but Holy Trinity Schools, the library, Louise House and the pools form a group of buildings linked by the fact that they were built on glebe land (a field once known as Vicar's Field that extended up both sides of Thorpewood Avenue to Radlet Avenue) on plots made available by the vicar for socially valuable purposes. I am dismayed that there are some who have so little regard for the historical and social significance of this possibly unique group of buildings.
For a random selection of items on local history visit my blog at:
http://sydenhamforesthillhistory.blogspot.com/
I've just received the 'Spring '08/ issue 2' edition of a freebie local news leaflet called 'Sydenham and Forest Hill Life'.
In the short article relating to this issue I note that Steve Bullock is very much referring to this total demolition as a 'done deal'.
What i find particularly disingenuous is that whilst there is a reference made to also losing Louise House, there is no mention whatsoever that any of the space is intended to be used to build new housing as a means to fund the project, whether it's the plot of Louise House OR the green area on the other side of the pools.
It's not very reassuring when an important aspect of the overall plan appears to be 'glossed over' like this. That's politics for you i guess!
Can anyone clarify what the current plans are for the rumoured new housing and when will the public be 'consulted' on the next stage of planning?
This is the most recent reply that I have had from Council officials on the next steps for the Pools:
"In reports seen by Mayor and Cabinet the retention of the facade was an option. However, the option appraisal showed that the main reasons against this, were lack of flexibility for building uses from retaining the existing frontage, higher maintenance costs and less development potential for the site and the net cost of the scheme.
In essence, this would restrict what can be done overall with the site and would restrict the potential of cross subsidy from land receipts from the proposed inclusion of a residual element and have resulted in it not being affordable as a consequence.
Therefore, the option to completely demolish the site (including Louise House) was agreed to provide state of the start modern facilities. It was further agreed that the local community would be engaged in the design process. You can find the reports on the council web site: http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/LeisureAndCul...illPools/. "
I see the intrusive survey report is now available (with pictures). If those cracks in the pools were hairline and insignificant how they become wide and a major problem, without a very survey?
Looking at the photos of vegetation being allowed to grow over the changing rooms shows the council didn't bother with even basic care and maintainence?
I simply cannot imagine that this is what the majority of locals will settle for.
I do think people need to accept that the building is going and that only a newbuild option is on the table. It is too possible to care too much about the past especially when what is there is pretty horrendous.
It is very apparent to me that the Council have spent a lot of time looking at various options including facade retention. I totally agree with the decision that such a proposal would restrict options on the site and compromise the facility and as a local resident, swimmer and tax payer I want to see the best use of the site and value for money, and to see facilities back on site pretty quickly. We have already wasted too much time and money, please can those who want to frustrate the process further stop and think for once about the needs of local people and children, which is for a well designed and managed sports facility on that site as soon as possible. To retain the facade would greatly reduce flexibility that is badly needed to avoid unsatisfactory compromise.
Given that the concept of full/partial retention has been explored to death the starting point needs to be ' how can we best reprovide a pool ' on the site rather than 'how can we retain the facade'. There is a great deal of talk of preserving our heritage which is fine but not at the expense of compromising public services.
The point of the proposed consultation exercise is to involve the public in the design of the new development. There is also the planning process.
I haven't personally seen the Downham Pool but from this picture I cant see what the problem is. Perhaps someone could show the streetscape so that we can see the pool in context, and also hear what local users have to say about their experience. As a local resident I also don't want to see a rubbish development on the new site so will be pressing for good design and fuctionality.
I sincerely hope the Council are minded to continue with their proposals in providing a value for money facility for local people and not be swayed by a vocal middle class minority who, lets face it, can afford other choices.
I simply cannot imagine that this is what the majority of locals will settle for.
An unimaginative box with a functioning swimming pool in it. I rather think 'the majority of locals' would prefer that to further delays caused by misplaced reverence for some crumbling mediocre victorian architecture.
Roz... I'm not middle class (whatever that is these days) but i would much rather at least hear the options (from experts) of a stylish and clever use of 'some' of the existing structure, than the sterile, ugly 'slab' in the picture of Downham.
If the council present plans for a total new build that is indeed contemporary and functional whilst stylish and in keeping with the surroundings then YES that would be a great outcome BUT until we are ASSURED that this will be the case please allow some of us to 'keep the door open' on the alternatives rather than steam towards a cheap, soulless eyesore.
Surely racing towards the easiest and quickest option with a public building that should exist for several generations, so that we ourselves can benefit from its use as soon as possible, is doing a great disservice to future generations of users and local inhabitants.
Someone called Roz who joined the forum on 17 March 2005 wrote the following on the forum 21 August 2006...
Quote:
Is it possible that this time could be used to consider a proper future and integrated strategy for both the pool and Louise House.?
The last consultation was rather hurried and based on an 'either or' scenario and rather limited information.
I think more creativity and transparency ought to be given to the consultation and design feasibility process, involving an architectural design competition and feasibility schemes for both refurb and newbuild presented to the community.
When exactly did the consultation regarding the future and integration of Louise House by demolition it take place?
What information have the council provided other than Louise House is 'less significant'?
Considering the Mayor and Cabinet want construction to begin by Janaury 2009 it leaves no time for public consultation and a design competition?
I understand there is only one feasibilty study being conducted and that is to demolish and construct a new building.
"misplaced reverence for some crumbling, mediocre Victorian architecture"
Err... yes, it's crumbling now, but... if it's part of a refurbishment it won't be crumbling anymore. Get it?
'Mediocre' - It may not be the best thing the Victorians did but if your preference is for a featureless slab of blocks that will soon become scruffy and run down because nobody values it, then good luck.
Well Roz is in fact right about one thing - it is time for the debate to draw to a close.
The consultation has come to its conclusion now and the key point is that we keep the Victorian facade.
Louise House is a separate issue and can be saved or demolished in a separate consultation. No-one seems to care much for the park in its current location, despite no other parks nearby, so part of this land given to developers is the price we are prepared to (additionally) pay for a quality, affordable swimming facility.
The council need to move the process to the next stage, get the plans drawn up and get the work to commence. Right now.
Can't see why a new building has to be bad. SE london developments have twice been voted building of the year recently - Peckham Library and the Laban Dance studio in Deptford.
Re-developing the whole site gives the opportunity to provide a better facility that achieves more than just replace the pools. This could be the opportunity to give Forest Hill the focus it lacks at present.
Having just re-read the information on Lewisham's site, this really does stink.
Text pasted below:
Quote:
Latest
Recommendations to demolish Forest Hill Pools and replace the building with a new leisure facility have been accepted by the Mayor of Lewisham, Sir Steve Bullock.
It was a decision that Steve said was difficult to make: ?I tried very hard to find a way to save the old pools but there is no affordable way to do it. It came as a real blow to find that the work needed to refurbish the pool was much greater than we anticipated.?
Several surveys of the pool were conducted by engineers showed the pools are beyond repair. Attempts to refurbish them would result in spiralling costs. Steve said: ?Faced with that fact, I took the only responsible decision that someone in my position could do ? replace the Victorian building with a modern 21st century building.?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, detailed costs and timelines on refurbishment of Forest Hill Pools are being worked up by council officers in Property Services.
The Council has asked Parkwood Leisure to continue to have a staff presence at the pool, and keep the Victorian pool plant working and the building heated to ensure its structural integrity. A 24 hour security presence is also on site.
The intrusive survey into Forest Hill Pools has concluded that the building has retained its structural integrity, that the defects can be rectified and that refurbishing the pools is a viable option. It has also concluded that the original roof should be replaced with a more cost and energy efficient new structure.
However, all the advice and experience of others, tells us that this kind of renovation work to Victorian buildings is costly and extremely challenging. There are real risks that the need for further work may be unearthed as the refurbishment begins in earnest.
Steve Bullock, Mayor of Lewisham, said 'So far so good, I am pleased that we can now go on to the next stage of the project in the new year'.
The overall costs of the works outlined in the survey could increase by 20% (?781,000) bringing the total figure up to ?5.05m. However, it should be stressed that these figures are early estimates based on the survey findings and will need to be revised as the design and specifications for the project are worked up.
19 December 2006
In fact, all the surveys and engineers' reports that you can download from the site state that the pool can be refurbished.
How do we go from wanting it to refurbish it six months ago (after a year and a half of closure in which to undertake survey work) to Bullock decreeing that he wants to knock it down?
Did anyone ever believe him when he stated he wanted to keep the old pool? It was predicted at by many on this forum at the time that he was saying this purely as a smokescreen to appease local opinion and would later come back to say "sorry folks, but survey works indicate it's going to have to go... I'd have loved to keep it, but..."
And what have we now seen happen? Precisely that.
If any of the Bullock cheerleaders can find parts of the reports that state the pool is beyond economic repair than I'd (genuinely) be interested to see them, but at the moment my impression is that he's just hoping the noise that comes out of his beardy mouth will be accepted at face value if he repeats himself enough.
Can't see why a new building has to be bad. SE london developments have twice been voted building of the year recently - Peckham Library and the Laban Dance studio in Deptford.
Re-developing the whole site gives the opportunity to provide a better facility that achieves more than just replace the pools. This could be the opportunity to give Forest Hill the focus it lacks at present.
I'm not sure anyone is arguing a new building has to be bad. There is however a lack of confidence that something of the calibre of those two buildings is what's on offer.
Can't see why a new building has to be bad. SE london developments have twice been voted building of the year recently - Peckham Library and the Laban Dance studio in Deptford.
Re-developing the whole site gives the opportunity to provide a better facility that achieves more than just replace the pools. This could be the opportunity to give Forest Hill the focus it lacks at present.
I think we should check and clafiry, just for the record, you understand, that the rest of steveb's name isn't 'ullock' He is a local man after all and so would have every right to comment without his mayor's hat on ....
Whilst reading the Sydenham Forum, (sorry Admin to mention a rival site, but we are all on the same side here), someone called Max wrote on March 17th regarding the reported leakages on the pools[/b]:
I have been contacted by a member of the Friends of Forest Hill Pools, the group that saved the pools twice in the past tweve years and he told me that he visited Forest Hill Library and read the full report of the contractors that was used to produce the report to the Mayor.
One surprising thing emerged from the reading, the fact that the alarming rate of leakage happened during the refilling of the pools and then it decreased to the usual rate and stabilized there. This detail was omitted in the report to the Mayor (and the public.)
This person has written to the Council and is now waiting a reply and I am eager to know what the Council will respond". )
I also wonder if anyone has put 2 and 2 together and ascertained whether the water loss is attributable to the arrangement at Forest Hill whereby overspill into the scum channels (the slots you find around the edge of pools) goes directly into the drains rather than being recirculated. I understand this is unusual and would mean that the pool loses much more water than normal.
Could be a red herring but in the face of a tide of ******* ******** these things need looking into.
Search
Help
He is a local man after all and so would have every right to comment without his mayor's hat on ....
