Michael
I agree live / work units would be ideal. However I may be wrong but seem to recall thatn for devolpments like The Print House the live/work units are the most difficult to sell. How much demand is there for them in SE 23

I am told by people who know what they are talking about, that proper Live/Work units are fairly recession proof as they are ideal ways for people to downsize without the need to run two properties for work and business. The Print Works are not 'real live/work' and this creates a number of problems for potential buyers when the property is not one thing or another or a good balance between them.

WW is in SE26 not SE23 remember. This is not Forest Hill!!!!

I've spoken to a number of the owners of businesses along Dartmouth Road who are absolutely livid about the possibility that swimming is to be moved out of FH.

Thery are keen to be involved with a campaign to support Option 2. One suggestion is a FH trader's petition to be sent to the Mayor.

Now is the time to bolster businesses locally. A swimming pool on the current site is essential for the health of FH.

KEEP SWIMMING IN FOREST HILL!

I've also spoken to a number of businesses in Dartmouth Road who are livid that the building was listed in the first place, thus causing considerable problems and delays with the site development and hence the problem that we now face. I find it amazing to see that people who were supportive of the listing now so livid at any possibility of the pool being relocated. This is a direct consequence of that listing action. If you seek to put additional constraints on what is already a very difficult and challenging site then this, is , I'm afraid what happens.

The most constructive thing that people can do is actually to see if a challenge to the listing would have any mileage as this is the principal obstruction to keeping the pool on this site. I did think about it but personal circumstances prevented me from spending any time on this.

Unfortunately it is in fact the myriad and complexity of consultation that has also exacerbated this problem. If this was France, the local Mayor would have just got on with it and the pool would probably be open and everyone save the Face Off lot would be happy.

There isn't going to be a challenge to the listing of LH - and there never was. The listing could only be challenged by the owners (LBL) who indicated at the time that they had no wish to do so. The time allowed for such a challenge has now well and truly lapsed.

Let's stay in the present and not go over the past.

We are faced with two options - keep the pool in FH or move it to WW.

I believe that the vast majority of the local population want the pool to remain on its present site in Dartmouth Road.

Quite right, Roz.

I warned people at the time to be careful what they wished for. As ye sow...

Before the meeting on the 25th I think I briefly saw a more in depth feasibility study by Allies & Morrison which I can't now find on the Lewisham site. Did I imagine it, or was it removed from the Lewisham website after the meeting? Don't suppose anyone downloaded it and could mail it to me?

link: in depth feasibility study by Allies & Morrison

Perryman - thanks for posting the full presentation link. I've just looked over the detailed plans for the first time and I have to say they really do look excellent; great use of the internal spaces, pleasant asthetics from all external viewpoints, and if the Horniman extension is anything to go by, a very skilled and competent set of architects.

The thought of losing the Pools from Forest Hill, especially in light of such a good proposal by A&M, really appals me. Now is definitely the time to collect as many signatures as possible (Dartmouth Road businesses, FH residents etc), and get local/national media onto the case as involved as possible.

Thanks to all the hardworking representatives of our community organisations for their efforts on this issue to date.

<>

<>



Indeed. But someone's got to show how option 2 could, at this time, be afforded. Otherwise, we either abandon the idea of getting swimming back anywhere in FH (or in the SE26 bit of FH ward) for the foreseeable future ( = forever, probably) or, kicking and screaming, accept option 3. I know which I'd go for.

If the council only have ?9.5m, why not Option 2 with just that amount?

Or to put it another way why does ?11m-12m have to be spent on the pools, how all the schemes have a similar price?

Just 3 years ago, we were told there could be a new pool for just ?4.7m.

ForestGump says: "If the council only have ?9.5m, why not Option 2 with just that amount?"

Very. Good. Question.



I've probably just forgotten which page on which document it is on, so I'd be grateful to know:

Has anybody managed to find a reference in all the gumpf about what budget advice was given to the architects?

As in: Do we know whether the Option 2 or 3 architects were ever asked to produce sets of designs for ?9.5m?

They didn't ever tell us if the architects were told of the budget or asked to work to one. But I suspect not.

The issue of affordability was given by the Mayor as one of the key reasons for the potential move of the pools to WW. But there is little difference between the two options in reality and it appears that it may be more of a political decision than one based on facts and reason......i.e. wanting to be able to say before next years election that Labour are delivering a new pool in 'Lewisham'.

- Not much good to the traders and town centre
- Not much good to the residents (of either FH or Syd - which could lose The Bridge in time)
- Not much good for the site which could remain as it is now for years

P.S. The listing of Louise House is a red herring, no matter how much some may still be troubled by it. It just meant that last summers options fell away then, rather than now, when no mixed use developers of leisure and housing in a falling market would have been found.....

I few questions I posed on Sydenham forum in response to a posting by Councillor Chris Best:

Does this mean there is definitely no possibility of option 2 being delivered before 2015 with a bit of creative thinking by people in the council?

I think a lot of local people will be disappointed if this is not an option in the consultation.

Has any analysis been done of the wider implications of the two options on local businesses and Forest Hill town centre? There is a strong argument that building a leisure centre on an employment area will result in significantly fewer jobs in Forest Hill town centre. While building live/work in Willow Way and a pool on the Dartmouth Road site, would result in higher levels of employment than any other option.

Finally, without the pool frontage being listed is there any protection for it in option 3 when the site is sold off to a developer?

I'm struggling to understand why WW is cheaper than FH and why we are being bullied into accepting the WW option. Redevelopment of the original site appears to be no option at all, as putting the project on hold to see if we can afford it later, is not an acceptable solution.

It's quite right to question why a cheaper option for FH cannot be put forward. Read my lips - we want is swimming in Forest Hill. Obviously an impossible task Ugh !!!

I am also concerned about what will happen to the original pools building if the plot is moved to WW. We could end up with the loss of the facade and some hideous council block of social housing anyway.

If the government are printing an extra ?100 billion this week why not throw some our way? Better still, sack the Treasury Minister that authorised Fred the Shred's ?700k a year pension and use his salary and perks to pay the extra needed for FH pools. He is clearly incompetent and a liability. What a waste of public money!

Is there a problem reducing the total budget to ?9.5m thus allowing an immediate start?

Re Option 3 will it be delayed until a buyer of Willow Way is found, and what's the situation if that site sells for less than expected?

Forget the previous post a load of nonesense re Willow Way.

I meant the Forest Hill site being developed for housing.

Related to the Mayors recent decision being more political than based on fact and consideration I don't think the Mayor is worried whether the pools site is sold and what for at the moment. He only has to worry about that if re-elected!

All of the questions here are perfectly valid and do not appear to be being considered any further by the Council at the present time.