I can understand why many people do like the pools as they are. It has been there for over 120 years and it is a landmark building where many of us learnt to swim. But I do not agree with the idea that they fit perfectly with the library. The library is a lovely building with brick, sandstone, leaded windows, a turret, and grade 2* listed status.

Louise House and the Pools may have some architectural merits but they do not fit with the library, in fact I find them to be all the worst aspects of Victorian architecture, with grand frontages that seem designed to be more intimidating than welcoming. The pool is built with an entrance that is not disabled accessible but is so vital to the building that not using it as the main entrance will only highlight its inadequacy as a building.

Looking inside there are many more reasons why this building, in its existing format, is not suitable for the 21st century. Having to walk along the poolside the get the changing rooms means that swimmers get muddy feet and there is always the risk that somebody will fall/be pushed in fully clothed. The roof has had to be replaced every 10 years, the pool walls leak, the water circulation is not ideal (going from one pool to the other), the changing facilities, shower facilities and toilet facilities are all not what is expected from a modern swimming pool. Many of us stopped going to the Forest Hill pools many years ago as it was never a particularly pleasant experience.

This is a chance to have a leisure centre that more people use, with modern pools that will not need to be closed down again in 10 years time. the refurbishment option was never going to be a ultimate solution and many people backed it only as a way to make sure we had two pools until the council took account of Louise House and gave us the swimming facilities that we need on the site.

Both building would need considerable work to bring them up a reasonable standard and the project with the pool carries significant risk including complete collapse of the pools (especially if we ask the team that 'renovated' the house in Westbourne Drive - the one that collapsed). We can either taker a gamble on the existing building which includes waiting 18 months for the foundations to dry out before any structural work can begin, or we can put our efforts in a well designed new building.

We need to think not about the Victorians who built these buildings but today's children who have to travel miles to the nearest pool and cannot go swimming after school in the local area. It may not be a pleasant conclusion for some people, but in my personal opinion the conclusion is clear - do not save the existing buildings.