Thanks Michael.
Worth pointing out that on the Perry Vale side we cannot take a direct route to Dartmouth Rd - we have to go via the underpass, so on a practical level we too are out of range (2/3 mile) of the Upper Sydenham pools (No Brian, the rickety unlit iron footbridge route past the nuclear plant does not count).

Andrewr - I am surprised, but it is true - US Pools would be still in FH Ward, so indeed the councillors could still be held to account if the new pools were to close. The ward boundary follows Sydenham Pk/Wells Pk Rd or there abouts (where is that boundary chap when you need him?)

But these ward boundaries are fairly artificial imo, just balancing and dividing up populations. My point is still valid that moving the pools to another district would very much reduce the influence we had over their future.

And the Mayor's argument that effectively the 'Forest Hill' in FH pools refers to FH ward rather than the district centred on FH station and within SE23 seems quite desperate really.

Unfortunately, it seems that Willow Way is just in the Forest Hill Ward (map from http://www.election-maps.co.uk). The boundary also goes up the middle of Wells Park Road and then down the middle of Sydenham Hill to London Road. You have to wonder to which areas most of the 'consultation leaflets' will be delivered...

I was at the meeting this week, although arrived late, and was quite shocked to hear our Mayor whining about how he tries to do his best but people are never happy (I paraphrase, but I thought he was on the verge of petulance - certainly not an appropriate mayoral attitude). I wondered if his mention of DDA in connection with Louise House might be a set-up, in case the forthcoming consultation chooses option 2 and he can then say it can't be done after all because of DDA complications.

I was also amazed to hear the guy at the right of the table (white shirt) saying that it was melodramatic to say the heart of Forest Hill would be lost by moving the pool a few hundred metres (indeed it is 600m) down the road. Looking at the ward boundary map, such a comment could possibly be excused by someone with no knowledge of the district, but surely anyone speaking authoritatively on the subject (as he clearly appeared) should have an understanding of what constitutes the centre of a town. Did he come and look, I wonder?

Moving the pools from its current location to an industrial area should never have even been considered. Surely Julie Such should have stepped in at an early stage to advise that the restoration of the pools is a vital factor in the regeneration of Forest Hill... Julie?

Unfortunately, my guess is that the two options presented for consultation will show either:
'an instantly build-able nice shiny new facility on Willow Way (while still keeping 'Forest Hill's wonderful heritage' by way of the fa?ade in front of housing)'
or
'a long long wait for some dodgy swimming sheds behind a shabby relic of a Victorian fa?ade'

Any consultation is unlikely to indicate the negative impact of creating even denser housing (and, by definition, even less leisure) in the centre of Forest Hill, or mention the mis-use of glebe land.

In spite of concerted and overwhelming support for option 2 and rejection of option 3, the mayor has seized on the apparent determination to keep the fa?ade to rule out option 1, which I am sure would have been everyone's second choice. In retrospect, maybe we should all have stood solidly behind option 1 and then tried to get a decent design - at least then swimming would have stayed in the same location.

Steve Bungle has already decided on option 3.
The proposed consultation is a farce.
He thinks he is providing a swimming pool in Forest Hill, when it is clearly in Sydenham (where there is already a pool).
There is no reasoning with him.
VOTE OPTION TWO!!

Anyway, thanks Michael for your map post.
linky
It is worth pointing out that on the Perry Vale side, we have to use the underpass to get to Dartmouth Rd, so Upper Sydenham (US) pools are out of range (2/3 mile) for more of us than you indicate. (No, the rickety unlit iron/German footbridge past the nuclear plant does not count.)

Andrewr, I was surprised but indeed US pools would be within the FH ward and so the councillors could still be held accountable if the new pools were to close. The ward boundary seems to run along Sydenham Pk/Wells Pk Rd or there abouts.

But my point is still valid - if the pools move further away to a different district, our influence on their future would be significantly diminished.

As for the Mayor's argument that effectively the 'Forest Hill' in FH pools is referring to FH ward rather than the district centred on FH station within SE23 - it is rather desperate really.

PerryVale
What is wrong with The German Bridge. I am certainly not detouring via underpass.

Foresters,
The 'White Shirt' to whom you refer was Councillor Robert Massey - http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/CouncilAndDem...ertMassey/ from the thriving district of Catford South (the one with no town centre and possibly the most boring in the borough). He is also on the Strategic Planning Committee so he knows better than most how to destroy town centres.

His is (or certainly was), by profession, an astronomer at the Royal Observatory and is often the "talking head" called upon by the BBC News to explain eclipses, black holes and stuff like that on the telly in words of one syllable or less that the general public can understand.

When you say he is "from" Catford South, that is the Ward which he currently represents - I'm sure I recall him representing a different ward a couple of years ago.

I always thought he was rather a good egg and am disappointed that he should have made such a sweeping dismissal of the facts.

As was I, although unsurprised.

About a month ago, the same point was made to me by a friend who used to live in the area, and actually was at Sydenham School, so knew exactly where WW is - although in fairness, may not have realised which end of it they are planning to put the entrance.

Difference is that with her, I had a right of reply. Councillor Massey's comments had to stand unchallenged because of the speaking rules.

That has only been true for a few years (since 2002, I think). Until then Willow Way was in Sydenham West ward. It is also in what those who live there have called "Upper Sydenham" for perhaps 150 years. It is also very firmly in SE26. The proposed development could no longer be called "Forest Hill Pools", and future discussions would have to take place in the "Beyond SE23" section of this forum.

I agree Steve. Willow Way is 100% in Sydenham. Seem to remember a dairy there when I was young .
As mentioned we will have to rename Sydenham School for Young Ladies to Forest Hill, plus of course the rather under used Police Station.
I appreciate that Sydenham has a much older history than Forest Hill but since they had separate entities WW has always been in Sydenham.
Our Mayor cannot just tear up historic maps. A certain painter from Linz tried that .

Right on Steve,

I dont' really care whether its in the the Forest Hill Ward or not, its in Sydenham!!!

I completely agree that WW is out of Forest Hill, but the ward boundary allows the mayor to make what is effectively a unilateral decision with this as his reasoning. I don't think he is overly concerned with the historic (and still clearly understood) boundaries.

The question is what can possibly be done to counter what seems depressingly to be inevitable.

The Mayor could talk to local people instead of hiding behind his officials, as happened last August, and behind Council procedures, as he did last week.

His failure to talk face to face is yet further evidence of his insincerity concerning consultation along with his disregard for the reasoned arguments of local representatives such as the Forest Hill Society, the Sydenham Society and the Save the Face of Forest Hill campaign.

RobWinton said:

"could we not force Lewisham's hand by applying for change of use (or putting forward specific plans that do not require change of use) for Willow Way and test whether it would actually get it or not? If you plans are sensible, then it could work, and then they'd almost be forced to agree to option 2."

(sorry, haven't yet worked out how to do the cut-and-paste thing)

Maybe, but commercial planning applications work out quite expensive for a single individual:

http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/...2008v4.pdf

I have no idea what the hectareage of the Willow Way site actually is, but am guessing it would be prohibitively expensive...

Although, if you were to manage to find, say, 150 or so people willing and (the difficult bit in the current climate) able to back you to the tune of ?100 each - or (better, from a representativeness perspective) 600 willing/able to back you with ?25, you might cover it depending how big the site is, of course.

Discussions on the forum in general suggest you might have trouble finding that many Forest Hill residents willing to agree about anything! But I'd love to be proved wrong.

I would happily part with ?25 if this would enable us to stop Option 3 being considered by the Mayor as the only possibility to build a new pool in the Borough ( because let s be honest, it would not be in Forest Hill). This has been such a farce and I still can t believe that the Mayor is getting away with it without ending in the national press. How interesting the Consultation process. Only a few days ago I received some other uniteresting consultation documents from the Council ( on more ways to waste our money in places already heavily pregnant with projects and funding like Catford and Lewisham town centre) and guess what, I was the only one to have received them , out of 5 leaseholders in the block....and none of my immediate neighbours on the same side of the street had received anything.

I would be more than happy to donate 50 quid if that guaranteed the Allies and Morrison scheme went ahead. I was dubious about keeping the frontage, but their design is blooming marvellous. And we should all now, as it's still, officially at least, an option, be pushing wholeheartedly for it, and this alone. Bring on the campaign, even if it means raising some of the money ourselves!

I'm afraid I don't understand the point in us applying for permission to develop Willow Way as I thought the main argument - aside from the complications of maybe having to change the planning use of WW - was that flats built on WW would only contribute a negliable amount to the funding of Option 2.

To get the pool built at the existing site before 2015, I fear that it would either have to be radically scaled back (probably to one pool rather than two) or a lot of housing would have to be built within the pools complex - which will then mean delays due to the 'one developer' problem that appears to have scuppered Option 1.

Perhaps we could apply for some National Lottery funding to bridge the gap? Is that a viable option at all?

There could also be the possibility of commercial sponsorship but I doubt this would raise significant funds.

Cannot see many private house buyers wanting to buy in WW. There are far nice places to buy houses.
If we are talking about state supported housing then where is the money for the pool.

Live/Work units on Willow Way, possibly with some residential above, would be a great way to regenerate the Willow Way area. The site is much more suitable for proper live/work than for a swimming pool.

The A&M proposal (option 2) did contain housing on Willow Way that would close the funding gap for the full cost of the pool (based on all private housing), but this was rejected by the council due to the planning considerations. Live/work may provide less cross subsidy but would still significantly close the gap. However, the council seem to be unwilling to progress this option and instead want to give us the option of waiting until 2012 to see if more funding might be available (seems unlikely).