Does Bullock really have the final say on demolition? Is there any way of appealing this decision to a higher body? As others say above, demolition before any designs have been submitted is just reckless.

And so the disaster unfolds...

"There are many links in the chain which could affect whether we end up with a good building or a bad building. One important link depends on how committed the architects are to designing a pool with good quality detailing."

Architects come up with buildings like the Laban Centre (which cost 14 million).

Accountants make buildings like the Downham Pools.

With some vision, ideas and creative input I seriously think we can have the current streetscape most people like and fulfill all the other criteria.

There is always another way.

Forest Hill deserves a beautiful, well thought out, well designed, well built pools that looks great, that we can all be proud of to use and walk past. There will have to be housing as part of this scheme, but all the criteria for the pools should apply to the housing too.

Don't give up. If you want to keep the Victorian streetscape AND have a great new modern pool facility say so.

I think it's possible to have your cake AND eat it in this case.

Look at the OXO Tower and the Coin street development. Historic facade, modern interior and well designed low cost housing. And yes I am comparing this to the OXO tower! They had their cake AND ate it.

Although 'casserole' might be more apt there.

This corner of Forest Hill is meant to be for the community - not housing.
The developers acquired (read stole) 99% of Forest Hill and Sydenham to build on when the common was enclosed 200 years ago.

This little corner was left for future schools, libraries, allotments, parks, community centres, swimming pools, generally facilities for the less well off.
This "gift" was probably pre-emptive to avoid any formal arrangement that so much land be set aside for the people. And indeed there are no legal restrictions on this parcel of land.

Building housing here is effectively enclosure part 2.

Those who managed to go to Steve Grindlay's talk the other week in the library will probably be better informed. I couldn't get in, but this high-lights the fact that Forest Hill is short of community facilities: ie space to hold meeting such as this.

Louise House could have reading rooms, computer suites, meeting rooms, local history archive, home education facilities, periodicals, etc etc.
And they could put the books back in the library, if it no longer tried to be a community centre as well.

This is not just a battle for the pools any more. The philistines want it all.

So what are we going to do?

I am in agreement with quite a bit of what you say Perryman, but it annoys me when - here and in other places - people talk about new housing as though it were such a terrible thing. What do you think makes a community, if not people, living in homes? I assume you have the benefit of a home (unless you are posting from a laptop on the pavement somewhere), and London needs more homes.

You might be right about when the common land was enclosed 200 years ago, but if it hadn't been, where would we all be living now - under a tree in a pear orchard?

I am not defending one point of view or the other about the pools by the way - to be honest i cant make up my mind about all the arguments - I just wanted to put in a good word for housing (and no, I'm not a property developer)

Slightly more recently (2003) in the Forest Hill Urban Design Framework the site of the library, pool, and Louise House was described thus:

I quote the UDF because it should be taken into account when the council considers any planning applications and should at least encourage the retention of community facilities.

I hope that this site will continue to remain primarily for community and leisure use and not end up dominated by housing. There are plenty of new homes being built in Forest Hill town centre (i.e. Print Works, Clyde Vale, and Finches) but with so many new homes it makes the need for decent community facilities all the more important.

Would it be appropriate to put some questions to the next council meeting? This would officially lay down some markers.

For example, since January 2006 (maybe 2004) apart from demolition have any other proposals for the use of Louise House been suggested by officers of the council?

If the council considered converting Louise House for residential use, what were the objections?

If the Mayor and council can support the restoration of the Boone Chapel, which has lain derelict for 63 years, why does it not have the inclination to retain the frontage of Forest Hills pools?

I won't put too many questions on here as forums have eyes....

Can anyone tell me how far the council are with the decommisioning of the Pools on Dartmouth road.
I was told that they was hoping to have a plan in place by September re: development of the site, the pool has been closed for a long time now & I cannot understand why a provisional plan was not at least thought through before now.
Anyway just keeping an active interest as lived opposite the baths & used to go there regulary iback in the early 90,s

The Forest Hill Society shall have two key council officials at their general meeting on 7th May where we hope that we shall find out more regarding the plans and timescale for the development of the pool.

[/b]At the last council meeting Councillor Feakes asked the Cabinet Member for Community Services the following:-

Oh dear, I've seen who are the two senior council officials attending the FHS meeting.

Moving swiftly on...I'm betting the phrase "State of The Art" being used at least 10 times.

The presentation from last night by Steve Gough and Aileen Buckton is now available at http://foresthillsociety.blogspot.com/20...neral.html

Notes from the meeting will be posted on the website in the next week.

I can't persuade the whole presentation to play (from the three green boxes onwards), but I do note how they put demolition and site clearance before community consultation and engagement! There are still some people who hold out hope that the old buildings can be retained.

The way it works is....

People wish to debate use of Louise House and the open space, they (the council) say no concentrate on the pool and we'll debate the rest of the site at a later stage.

Two years later the mayor decides to demolish the pools, Louise House and build on the open space.

No public consultation but the promise of discussion after the buildings have been demolished.

Well the mayor can't be accused of not listening, as he hasn't allowed a debate on the matter.

Was any indication given as to amount of land that would be given up for residential use?

If I remember rightly from last night, architects are initially to produce a feasibility study looking at the options: options incorporating a low, medium and high density of housing would be looked at, high density being extremely unlikely.

Why are the council looking at the feasibilty of various housing options? Isn't that up to a developer and the planning department?

Would I be right the council haven't decided what poerportion of land to give over to housing and that will govern the size of the leisure complex?

The moves over the Pool and Louise House are so depressing, but I wonder what is going on. Incompetence might be one way of explaining it, and the tragedy/farce over the new school in the north of the borough is certainly a recent example. In this case, however, I am inclined to the "follow the money" line of enquiry. Who is gaining what by the demolition?

It was clear from the faux consultation (which the Council 'lost' at the time) that the strategy was demolition. All that has happened now is a bit of delay and ... demolition. Whose interest is being followed here?

BD has sadly been absent from the debate but he has a couple of questions about the recent FHS meeting about this subject (a) were all you who feel so passionate there (b) is it true, as I heard, that in fact the Sydenham Society took it over, and © if so is this all out war?