I think we need to challenge the criteria the Council has identified to assess the relative merits of the various options. One which would strike me as being absolutely key - but which they have chosen to overlook (in the summary anyway) - is accessibility. Looking at the distribution of public swimming pools in this part of London, the Forest Hill / HOP area is underserved, and Sydenham is not (in relative terms, anyway). I would have thought that the number of households that gain a swimming pool within, say, 15 minutes' walk of their home would be larger for the current site than Willow Walk - partly because of the overlap of 'catchment area' with the existing Bridge Leisure Centre.

option 3 - lovely detailed facade of the pools that are hidden away down a narrow street where there are a number of industrial buildings, uninviting unimpressive and no environmental value. FH needs a symbol of change to move forward and out of the downward spiral it is in, this don't cut it. the proposal for the residential development on pool site is a very bad idea, very badly laid out and i certainly would not like to live in the houses that abut the site, very intimidating and overlooked. have not been listening?

option 2 - i have wanted to see a proposal for keeping the facade of the pools from day one, and they should have done this from the beginning, then the unpopular bunch that fought to list the buildings would not have existed. it looks like an terrible option and i fear for the other plot and the potential mass of the residential development for the sake of keeping the facade. the pools proposal its self looks a growth hideous and unfitting, now can all agree that keeping the front of the pools is a bad idea?

option 1 - a green roof, a far more inclusive and inviting facade, a greater connection with the wider community and they have considered the environmental landscape all very positive things. i am guessing that the residential bit will happen at a later, if we were stuck with the first image that would be on the money, it is a shame that the residential development is so big. but seemingly more realistic to actually work for the community and it environment.

option 1 gets my vote, i do not think it is an option to keep the facade of the pools because a small and very noisy group want them for nostalgic sensitivity, to keep the pools out of view is no driver for change development either placing residential on the pools site would mass housing and ruin the positive environmental texture we have at the moment.

I find it most disturbing that the option the council seem to be pushing for (given the weighting of the financial considerations vs other considerations) will deprive Forest Hill town centre of the pools we have been promised so long.

If the coming weeks indicate the council do indeed propose housing only on the current site and relocation of the leisure complex to Willow Road, I can only hope those responsible for this current mess throw their full weight behind ensuring the Pools remain in Forest Hill. Preserving Victorian architecture, where possible, and where it will not interfere with the overall provision of public services, is a reasonable (indeed admirable) aim, but here we are faced with the very real prospect of ending up with nothing at all. Tim Walder, please assess this situation very carefully, and ensure you are indeed acting in the best interest of Forest Hill overall.

I agree with chica and others that relocation to Willow Way is really a very bad idea indeed - that area doesn't need another pool (they're already got Bridge). In reality, it amounts to most of us losing convenient access to a pool altogether.

In my opinion, there are a few issues with the current proposal:

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA:
I do wonder whether there is scope to reassess the criteria the Council is using? I am under the impression that they have not been especially well-thought-through... similar to the entire pool planning process to date, unfortunately.

I believe that the criteria could be improved to more properly value: (i) greatest benefit for the greatest number of underserved residents; (ii) ease and enjoyment of use once built; (iii) affordability; and (iv) aesthetics. The last criterion may appear to resonate with the conservationists; however, it is not necessarily an argument for preserving the frontage. Whilst I think the frontage is beautiful and complements the general feel of the area, I am sufficiently pragmatic / open-minded to recognise that it may not necessarily be the optimal way to deliver the above criteria. Which brings me onto the next issue...

DESIGN
I believe that all of the current designs, and the proposals of which they each form a part, are flawed in one way or another. That is not to say that the architects are necessarily to blame; rather, it is more likely the outcome of poor briefing - itself the result of poor planning and scoping by the Council. Whilst I believe that it would be regrettable to delay the process (in essence, depriving everyone of a pool for even longer), it is arguably an even bigger mistake to build something shoddy / ugly / unworkable / etc. (see Forest Hill train station!)

Although I am a relative newcomer to the area, I get the impression that the general feeling about Forest Hill in particular is that it's got some lovely houses and areas, but that there's not much going on and the central area could do with some sprucing up. It would be a mistake, therefore, to build something that looks fairly cheap and is completely discordant with the feel of the surrounding residential areas. As such, I think it would be best to at the very least revise the current designs, but more preferably to come up with some new designs.

WILLOW WAY
In this instance, I think the Council has lost sight of what's really important. The main point is that (central) Forest Hill needs some pools. In trying also to kill two birds with one stone, by tying in the Willow Way employment zoning issue, we risk doing everything poorly. Expediency seems attractive, but as we've seen from the current proposals has yielded universally dissatisfactory outcomes.

Willow Way can quite easily be figured out on its own - perhaps a multi-use development to provide more housing and also fulfill the employment zone objective? Certain kinds of shops could fill a local need and also provide a lot more employment opportunities than a leisure centre would.

In summary, it would be best to untangle the issues, and approach each one separately - sort out the Forest Hill pools on the CURRENT SITE, and sort out Willow Way on its own. That is not to say that Willow Way could not subsidise the pools, but I can't imagine that the current proposals are even close to best for each site.

At no time did Sir Steve Bullock or councillors indicate that new swimming pools were to be built anywhere other than on the existing Forest Hill Pools site. It is unreasonable and misleading of them to introduce their proposal for a Willow Way Leisure Centre in Sydenham because they know that people are expecting a facility on the Forest Hill site .

However if it is the case that the building of new housing is necessary to fund the building of a leisure centre, then why can this housing not be erected on the Willow Way site?

I look forward to reading a Council response to this question.

I think the idea is that it might be difficult to put housing on Willow Way because it is supposed to be earmarked for employment, but:

Wouldn't a development including live/work units (such as the one recently built in Clyde Vale, on the site of the old printworks) qualify as providing employment facilities, and therefore get around that problem? If not, why not? Council response?

Referring to my previous post, does anyone know if the Willow Way proposition been indicated at any time prior to this? It does seem odd to come out of the blue - do stakeholder groups know anything?

More worrying (again repeating myself) is that this is the ONLY option out of the choices available to the mayor which is shown as being affordable. Does this not in effect make option 3 the only choice available for the mayor? I may be a bit thick here and am happy to be contradicted, but this seems like the logic to my eyes...

Foresters,
I have not previously heard anything about Willow Way nor do I believe that any of the stakeholders were aware of this proposal.

You are right that the summary clearly favours the Sydenham pool over either of the Forest Hill Pool options. However, I do not believe that option 3 is the only choice by any means.

Reading the report you can see how the low scoring of option 1 is a result of the historic value of the facade of Forest Hill Pools.
If you look at the Evaluation Summary page you can see how it scores badly on the count of "retention of Victorian streetscape". But if you'd argue that the Victorians placed there a pool and not a block of flats then you could argue that the most Victorian thing to do is to demolish. Streetscape in nature - not in appearance.
By the way I also can't understand why it scores so badly in delivery time and complexity. Possibly another point to argue.
And then of course one must argue how the Willow Way Pool proposal sits within the Council's own policy of 5 pools for the borough because if you tackle them on the overlapping catchment area they would have a hard time coming with an answer.

Yes Willow Way strange option. This road ( or way ) is a hotchpotch of housing and very very tiny business units .
I think we need to go back quickly to the council preferred option for the current site. Seems our constant bickering has benifited no one .
I agree the current site much preferred but must admit find one comment implying it is miles from the current site laughable. It is only 2 mins walk.
If we have to look at an alternative site the one I suggested on Bampton Rd at F H School would be better. In my school days they built an open air pool there. Surely this would also be ideal for the school and the young ladies ata Sydenham School would only have a short stroll over The German Bridge.
It would also be nice for an amenity to be in Perry Vale Ward.

Surely Lewisham cannot get away with trying to interpret planning rules for their own [dubious] purposes!
The designated employment zone in Willow Way is meant to concentrate commercial/industrial types of businesses in that area - not sports and leisure.
They seem to think that we will all simply accept that just because a swimming pool will employ people their harebrained proposal will be allowable in planning terms.
If that were the case then a dress shop or a coffee bar or any other type of business that employs people would be allowed to operate there - but their own planning department wouldn't have it on the grounds that it doesn't conform.
I would hazard a guess that Lewisham's UDP would need to be amended in order for the planning department to rightly grant permission for a leisure use in Willow Way. And, with the lengthy consultation process that would involve, anyone fancying a swim this side of 2015 should make alternative arrangements.

If Brian can walk from the current site to the entrance of Willow WAy in 2 minutes, he must indeed be a fast walker. My car odometer clocked 0.4 miles. On Google Earth its 0.38. That makes 12 mph! 8 minutes is more likely.

Maybe a slightly exagerated but it is not far. For anyone contemplating swimming for exercise a bit more walking not a bad thing.
Having said that I am NOT backing Willow Lane. Would be interesting if we had at the beginning excepted the councils option how far the building would be now.
As I said my Bampton Rd option ( as above ) would be a good alternative if one is required.
I think we have to accept the LBC is all powerfull. They do not like their plans being challenged so now coming up with an option no one would want amongst the protesters. It is their way of saying in future we hold the cards protest at your peril.

Michael
I , and I am sure others , appreciate all your work to try and get a new pool.
I have voted in the new poll but suspect the council will only consider 1 or 3 . If 2 comes out on top then , I would imagine , the whole matter will be shelved , or they will anyway carry out one of the other options.
I know we have been through these arguments over and over again and the arguments seem evenly balanced between those who insist on preservation and those who just want a pool.
Personally I love history and old buildings but to be honest cannot see much merit in either the pool or Louise House being retained. I could be wrong but believe the council have said devolpment of the current site only possible if they can demolish these buildings.
If that is the case then let I am now coming down from the fence to support the argument for demolition.
We must also remember that the councils finances are presumably not what they were when these plans were first suggested. Times they are a changing as Bob would have said .

bob dylan was reffering to a peoples revolution to not a banking crisis thanks to greedy bankers.

option 1 it's not brilliant but it does a better job, seems realistic and, what i think is a phased residential development, is easier to swallow so forget about the existing builds now we can see that they look ****, if the pools look the same as they did when i used to go there, 80s, it's not fun or funny it is a time for revolution time to move FH forward and not chain down to history and nostalgic imaginations that never were.

Despite a few concerns about how the latest study still feels like tablets of stone being handed down from on high and staying with the positive.It's good to see Lewisham posting their feasibility study on FHP so soon after the Stakeholder meeting and offering a distinct choice of concepts and of architects to realise them. Hopefully everyone here will vote on the option that they most prefer.

The Willow Way scheme will surely find least favour as it so clearly breaks the Mayor's commitment to swimming facilities on the existing FHP site.

That leaves a choice between:
[a] a modifed HLM version of last year's options [minus Lousie House site] i.e. demolition of Pools and totally new build and
[b] Allies and Morrison idea for a retained frontage block and new pools.
If you want an idea of their local work HLM did Downham Pools while Allies & Morrison did the Horniman Museum Extension.

Last year's options were "concepts" and not "designs" and assuming these are the same, there is little point in criticising the specific design illustrations in the document. The new options now reflect the split in opinion last year between those who want totally modern and those who wish to retain some of the Victorain heritage - a division which did genuinely divide FH and not as some seem to suggest here the minority position of a few out of touch traditonalists or modernists.
I would urge people to now look forward and not to go back over the blame game and arguments from several months ago . Louise House is listed and all 3 council options accept this and appear to turn it into housing which I assume would help subsidise the pools. Personally, I'd have liked to see it incorporated with either the pools or as an extension to the Library as a community facility but that's another story...

Allies & Morrison are an *incredibly* good firm of architects. Get my vote any day. It's pretty exciting they could be involved.

I agree with Nevermodern - imagine the architectural quality of the Horniman extension juxtaposed with the existing pools frontage! it would be great!

It seems to me that the weighting of the scores in the presentation is unfairly biased, and I find it hard to believe that the land receipts from a housing scheme on Willow way would be much different from a housing scheme on the pools site, given the current housing market.

A housing scheme on the pools site is unviable at the moment.

Planning Policy, by the way, can ALWAYS be changed in matters like this. If the council wanted to change the policy to provide housing on Willow way, I'm sure it could. I've been involved in various schemes before when this has happened.

In reply to Contrary Mary: the Council can give permission for change of use from employment to housing as it has already done for the developers on part of the Bell Green site. However, in the case of Willow Way, the Council commissioned planning consultants to advise on its use and the consultants have said that a change from employment to housing will not happen. This is a very cynical move on the part of Council officials - they have briefed consultants to obtain planning advice suited to their aims and they will subsequently, and misleadingly, claim that this advice is objective and expert in justifying a refusal of planning permission for housing on Willow Way.

Option 2 is being presented as an option to the stakeholders and us.
If it wasn't a valid option, it would not be presented at all.
Incidentally, it gets my vote.

Once again it is hard to consider the options too carefully as you cannot read the labels on the various areas - for instants what exactly is the open (?) beige area to the right of the pools in option 2?

On a positive note, surely more people can now see the importance in retaining Louise Hse - the library does not stick out like a sore thumb in any of these options, unlike the ill thought-out non-options presented last year.