By the way, probably the Mayor thinks that people in Forest Hill are just fed up with this all story and as long as he takes a decision there won't be electoral repercussions.
So maybe one way to counter this is to make people in Sydenham understand that their pool may be at risk and this could be a way to move them to recommit to 5 pools for the Borough and possibly ditch the Willow Way option.

I just spotted a post by Cllr Chris Best on the Sydenham forum (click here).

She writes:

And that is an important difference from what presented in the pdf.

Max - I think you are in severe danger of dominating this discussion to such an extent that others simply aren't getting their voices heard.

Option 1 has NO subsidy from Willow Way - I've just checked with council officers. The simple explanation is that Chris B has (understandably) copied her message from the (incorrect) LBL press release.

I know to a man filled with conspiracy theories this isn't a convincing explanation but there it is.

Let's just return to a discussion of the three options please. And let others have their say!

Thank you for opening my eyes Nasaroc.
I was believing in conspiracy theories.

Like that one that says that when a local authority says that they wil open a new swimming pool it normally means that they'll close another.
It can't happen in Lewisham of course, that's why the presentation on the new pool has a page with a map showing how a pool in Willow Way will serve Forest Hill and Sydenham.
And then of course the complete lunacy that says that the Council holds a secret document called the budget that says that there's only as much money going around.

Of course there's a simple explanation, as explained by the ever straightforward officers at LBL.

In reply to Nasaroc. Page 34 of the stakeholder presentation clearly shows a Land Receipt (Low) from Willow Way for Option 1. My suspicion is that prior to the presentation there was, on the table, an option, let's call it Option 1A, which had housing on Willow Way and no housing on the building on the Pools site. A drawing of this option is included in the presentation - page 10. There was an alternative option, say 1B, with all the housing on the Pools site as illustrated on page 11. 1B is clearly unacceptable to many people. For some reason 1A was excluded - but the corresponding table on page 34 wasn't correctly updated before the presentation. If option 2 is to be considered, then it seems to me that 1A should also be an option. Since 1A doesn't need a developer interested in building the leisure centre complete with housing at the same time, it should be equally as deliverable as Option 2 but without the complexity of integrating the new with the old and utilising a constrained site. Note that I'm not saying that I would prefer Option 1A to Option 2 at the moment - just that both options should be considered.

Excuse my ignorance.
Are you saying if pool goes to WW the whole of the pool site would be housing.
This is totally unacceptable.
We already have far higher population in SE 23 than ever before. We need green spaces and more importantly where are these new people going to work. Please do not just say City and Docklands, who knows how many more jobs this sector will shed. Cannot ever see City/ Docklands employment going back to previous peak even after 5 years or so.
Am I alone in wanting no new housing in SE 23. ( probably am but so what )

So the press release is clouding the issue.

Ok..starts again.

Why no allowance for funding from Willow Way on Option 1?

Looking at the presention slides, there's an indication the housing of Option 1 would reach 6-7 storeys?

Could not the amount of housing under Option 1 at Forest Hill be reduced by using some of the reciept from Willow Way?

By the way has the cost of this centre significantly increased?

Brian - You are right. As presented, if the Pool goes to WW, the whole of the existing site including Louise House and the Laundry Block behind would be used for housing.

Sir Steve Bullock and swimming pools. Is he a closet vandal with a vendetta against deep water?

First, in the late 1990s and asleader of the Council, Sir Steve attempts to demolish Forest hill Pools entirely but has to backtrack after a campaign by local people and pool users.

At the same time the Council purchases, off-the-peg from British Petroleum and as a substitute for Forest Hill Pools, the dismal Bridge facility.

Subsequently, and as directly elected mayor of Lewisham, Sir Steve swings his demolition ball at Ladywell Pools and again has to be seen off by local people.

Last year, he was again on the demolition kick, and this time it was not only Forest Hill Pools but also Louise House.

The latest gambit promises him at least the satisfaction of the demolition of Forest Hill Pools minus the frontage block. But he's still into dismal, in the form of the Willow Way proposal.

But . . . praise be. Sir Steve may have since been on the road to Damascus and become a closet conservationist. Just look at the amazing Option 2. Go for it Sir Steve! Leave us a legacy we can all be proud of.

Forest Hill Society Executive view can be found at http://www.foresthillsociety.com/2009/02...ion-2.html

We are supporting option 2 (just like the overwhelming majority on the se23.com poll)

But if as the report states Option 2 is unaffordable, how will it be funded?

I suspect what are needed are the figures put on the Low, Medium and High land receipts to see how narrow is the funding gap.

Is it likely the mayor will delay his decision and ask officers to see if there are other sources of funding to bridge the gap?

I am not against option 2 but just think we have no change of securing it.

Why was our council leader Knighted , presumably for just doing his job

Take a look at Allies and Morrison's website to see the amazing stuff they've done (click on PROJECTS). Let's be inspired and back them (option 2) 100%.

http://www.alliesandmorrison.co.uk/

I don't think that we as residents can resolve the delivery of option 2, mostly because we don't have all the information and also because we don't know what other issues are influencing it.

However, this alternative didn't exist a couple of months ago and it seems to me that it must be worth the Council looking again at whether they can find some way of delivering it. That is what I think we should be pushing the Mayor to 'decide' at the Mayor and Cabinet Meeting on the 25th Feb. Find a way to deliver Option 2 please!

It has a great number of advantages, particularly to the long term sustainability of Forest Hill Town Centre, which would then have significant advantages for the Borough in terms of business rates, employment etc. If a solution can be found it could unite both the 'save the frontage' and the 'pools now' camps.

I have submitted an idea to Lewisham Council for turning Louise House and the Laundry into an Arts Centre and Theatre. This would include a place for classes, particularly for young people in the area. It would also have a strong focus on art because there is such a large artist community in the area with nowhere to exhibit work except at the Dartmouth Arms. The Centre would be a place to exchange skills and hopefully inspire young people. It would also include a cafe and bookshop to be open both in the day and evening. The council have responded very well to this idea and I am in the process of drawing up a more detailed vision for this, including designs and a business management model. The blog about the project will be going live very soon and I will post details of it on the SE23 site. All the pool options include turning Louise House and the Laundry into housing but the council are still keeping an open mind about it because the high cost of converting the buildings would not bring them any dividends in selling them.

Arts Centre? Theatre? Ooh yes please!

I know of several actors in the area, including several who deal with particularly community-based projects who would be keen to contribute in some way to this (I mean as supporting your suggestion or once it's up and running) ..... Let me know if we can help!

I agree Teresa the best of luck with your project.
Certainly would be the first time LH used for any useful purpose.
Again good luck.

On 25th February, the Mayor and Cabinet meet to decide which of the three options for the development of Forest Hill Pools to accept.

We urge you to write to the Mayor in support of your preferred option. FHSoc is backing Option 2 (see http://foresthillsociety.blogspot.com/20...ion-2.html)

You can email the Mayor at steve.bullock@lewisham.gov.uk

Feel free to copy your email to the Forest Hill Society (email@foresthillsociety.com) and your local councillors.

I've been though this thread but can't find anyone who has figured out the scoring in the LBC powerpoint presentation, so may I ask:

1. how did the raw scores which put option 2 in the lead get converted to percentages which favoured option 3 (the explanation given - 50% financial etc doesn't favour us with the actual calculation, which is not transparent)? I think this is important as the actual (and rather key) calculation might reveal more assumptions which might be challenged.

2. how is ?11m-12m affordable but ?12m-?13m "unaffordable", given the overlap and the uncertainty of these estimates, which are only for concepts?

Can anyone remember what the anticipated cost of the refurbmishment of the original pool was? Looking at the slides this option was dismissed in 2008, though from memory that was when the budget was ?2-?3 million. If it is now ?7 million....

Given the entire process from before closure, it is difficult not to be cynical and think the council just want to build houses on the current site and move the pool to a nothing spot in Sydenham where it can happily see out its days as a neglected box.