SE23.com - The Official Forum for Forest Hill & Honor Oak, London SE23
Online since 2002   11,000+ members   72,000+ posts

Home | SE23 Topics | Businesses & Services | Wider Topics | Offered/Wanted/Lost/Found | About SE23.com | Advertising | Contact | |
 Armstrong & Co Solicitors



Post Reply  Post Topic 
Pages (104): « First < Previous 38 39 40 41 [42] 43 44 45 46 Next > Last »
Forest Hill Pools
Author Message
brian


Posts: 2,002
Joined: Apr 2005
Post: #821
15-03-2009 01:19 PM

Roz
Many interesting points.
How do the council know that the FHS is mainly white and middle class ? Define middle and working class ? Does one have to be working to be a member of the latter ?
I expect the main users would be the schools.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Contrary Mary


Posts: 124
Joined: Oct 2008
Post: #822
15-03-2009 04:20 PM

Roz:

As a member of simultaneously at least 3 minority ethnic groups, I would like to thank you for showing concern that I may not be being represented properly in this debate - however, while I have not mandated you to speak for me, I have mandated FHS, by supporting their campaign, because it reflects my own views.

Let me also point out that the lower someone's income, the less likely they are to have the time and energy to put into issues they may care passionately about - but that doesn't mean they necessarily feel unrepresented by 'the vocal minority'. I have known many people who look at everything from the war on Iraq to their noisy neighbours, at the 'white middle-class' complainants on such issues, and take the attitude that they are an 'unofficial resource', as in: "Okay - it's being dealt with. Good. Back to sorting out my own problems. They'll take care of it". And if 'they' get it wrong, 'they' soon hear about it! They are in fact, more likely to hear nothing when they are getting it right.

Local civics are no less representative than the established party political system, which is designed to reflect people's opinions on exactly the above basis. In addition, the civics hold open meetings and have open memberships where all views are welcome, and no-one is expected to simply fall into line with a prescribed position, eg, p.2 of this:

http://www.sydenhamsociety.com/image/May...h%2009.pdf

So even if you disagree with what they are saying, please stop knocking them. Would you prefer it if everyone was completely apathetic?

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quetta


Posts: 29
Joined: Jun 2008
Post: #823
15-03-2009 07:41 PM

The Keep Swimming in Forest Hill campaign was launched on Saturday.

In roughly 3 1/2 hours of campaigning we now have over one thousand supporting signatures. One thousand people of mixed ages, classes, ethnicities and political views actively want to keep swimming in Dartmouth Road; want swimming on the existing site as soon as possible; and see this additionally as a way of helping to revive Forest Hill as a vibrant town centre.

Add your name to the petition on-line at http://keepswimming.notlong.com or look for us next Saturday in Forest Hill town centre or outside Horniman Gardens on Sunday.

Join the campaign to keep swimming in Forest Hill.

Quetta

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gaz


Posts: 86
Joined: Jul 2008
Post: #824
15-03-2009 09:02 PM

Some very good points, Roz. I too feel that building any pools at all in Forest Hill is in jeopardy as there are so many differing requirements. Mine is simply that I'm fed up with not having swimming in the local area and just that I want pools built asap in the locality.

However, I do feel that the importance of having pools at the current site in order to regenerate the local area or to keep Forest Hill shopping alive is overstated.

IMO, having high quality housing stock at the pools site is just as likely to generate demand for quality shops along Dartmouth Rd. Furthermore, FH residents travelling to the pools from FH town centre/the station are just as likely to shop in the Dartmouth Rd parade whether the pools are located at the current site or at a new site further up the road in Willow Way.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Baboonery


Posts: 581
Joined: Sep 2007
Post: #825
15-03-2009 10:12 PM

I think the idea that 'all views were welcome' in groups like SFFH is laughable, frankly. Imagine going into a meeting and saying 'I think the best way to save the face of Forest Hill is to demolish this mediocre bulilding and get an interesting new facility on site'. You'd have been shouted down within a second.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Satchers


Posts: 262
Joined: Nov 2007
Post: #826
15-03-2009 11:02 PM

To the various people who seem to think that a pool on Willow Way is easy to deliver.

The relocation of the pools site to Willow Way would be contrary to the Local Plan and Government Planning guidance in that it requires the relocation of a leisure facility to an out of a town centre location (which Willow Way is), which can be quite difficult to do when a more centrally located site is available. It also requires the change of use of the existing pools site (and the pocket park) to residential use.

We should not underestimate the complex issues related to both options and we really shouldn't assume that because the Council has indicated (at the moment) that they prefer one that it is the easier one to deliver. It all depends what issues they think are important at the current time.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
IWereAbsolutelyFuming


Posts: 531
Joined: Oct 2007
Post: #827
16-03-2009 01:49 PM

Would the campaign petition statement not benefit from being worded more simply? By that I mean removing the wording about "retaining the Victorian frontage" and just saying that the petitioners want provision of swimming facilities on Dartmouth Road.

I'd love to sign the petition but the statement is just not representative of how I feel. I guess it depends on whether the campaign is about "Keep Swimming in Forest Hill" or "Keep the Victorian Frontage and Swimming in Forest Hill"? Not having a dig, just interested to know?

Would it be useful to have a second petition called something like, "We don't care about the old Pools but want swimming facilities returned to Dartmouth Road"? A combination of the two would catch the widest selection of people who, one way or the other, want the Dartmouth Road site used for swimming.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
michael


Posts: 3,255
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #828
16-03-2009 03:42 PM

In my mind this campaign is about a poor choice between two options, both of which keep the frontage (like it or not). For me swimming in the current location is the most important aspect, and is what the petition is fundimentally about. But there are some people who would not have signed it without the inclusion of the Victorian frontage (others will not sign it if there is any mention of the frontage).

For me the frontage is a side issue Smile. Keeping the frontage probably does not significantly add to the cost of the new leisure centre, and may even make it cheaper (if a little harder to build).

There is space on the petition to add your own comments if you wish.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Perryman


Posts: 820
Joined: Dec 2006
Post: #829
16-03-2009 03:44 PM

IWereAbsolutelyFuming, you are complicating things.

Yes, I agree option 1 (flatten frontage) but without the gateway towerblocks would have been quite popular and divided opinion here, but it was never presented for reasons unknown.
In any case, I suspect the plan is to let the frontage rot beyond salvage or that it will be declared unstable at some point, so option 2 might well deliver exactly the same result anyway.

SE23 is pretty united on option 2 so please lets keep it simple. Option 2 is not extravagant - just replacing like with like, and being modern. it should be more economical to run and it should attract more customers, especially with the new rail routes at FH

I'm confident that se23.com is representative of the area and any further consultation will hopefully strengthen the Mayors hand in delivering on his promises as soon as possible.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
robin orton


Posts: 716
Joined: Feb 2009
Post: #830
16-03-2009 04:37 PM

I feel uneasy about Perryman's statement that 'SE23 is pretty united on option 2.' What about the views of Gaz, DavidWhiting, Roz, Baboonery, Alanque and aswaspooluser, all vigorously expressed on this site since the present range of options emerged on 25 February?

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Contrary Mary


Posts: 124
Joined: Oct 2008
Post: #831
16-03-2009 06:02 PM

Baboonery:

I don't see how what I said about local civics has any application to SFFH.
I regard SFFH as a single-issue campaign group, not a civic association.

The remit of a civic association is to deal with all concerns in the area in the round, on behalf of their membership. They usually (FHS included) have a consitution setting out the conditions for democratic election of their committees.

A single-issue campaign group is more likely to be a cabal. I have no idea whether this is the case with SFFH or not. I do think they have done their own cause harm in the past, mostly with the listing. The fact they are currently in alliance with FHS does not necessarily mean that they have impact or influence on FHS's decisions, which I understand are taken by FHS's own separate commitee. The moment it does, I for one, will be reviewing my position.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Perryman


Posts: 820
Joined: Dec 2006
Post: #832
16-03-2009 08:57 PM

rest easy robin orton.
Some 80% of people voting on the options on this site voted option 2.
That is pretty united in anyone's book and far more united than we were under the options presented last year.

I meant no disrespect to those who do not want a pool or wish it elsewhere, and I'd prefer it if they could be reassured if possible and brought on board.

Remember, option 2 was not made up by dreamers, but researched and presented formally by the council. It is valid and I wonder if the mayor is simply determining how much we want it by seemingly promoting the third option.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
robin orton


Posts: 716
Joined: Feb 2009
Post: #833
16-03-2009 10:52 PM

Perryman, I think you're misrepresenting the views of those who, like me, are inclined to support option 3. I do very much want a pool and option 3 seems to provide the best chance of actually getting one in the forseeable future. It' s not that I'd 'wish it elsewhere' than on the present Dartmouth Road site; indeed, other things being equal, I'd much prefer to have it there. But nobody seems to have any idea about how LBL could be convinced that option 3 (let alone option 1, which I'd ideally have preferred) is affordable on an acceptable timescale.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
robin orton


Posts: 716
Joined: Feb 2009
Post: #834
16-03-2009 10:55 PM

Sorry, 'option 3' in the last sentence of my previous posting should of course be 'option 2'.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
koza


Posts: 39
Joined: Jun 2008
Post: #835
16-03-2009 11:13 PM

80% of who's gang? a true representation of the community that it actually has a direct impact on? NO... don't kid yourself.

is this all about keeping the pool frontage a good idea or just backward thinking with no forward looking intention of progress, resolve in good design much needed regeneration and much deserved recompense.

not selflessly but selfishly pushing and campaigning because one knows how to, has got time too opportunistically at the expense of the rest of us that just want pools that are well meaning and build-able, clever and positively considered for towards the LOCAL community much unlike what is offered in option 2.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
michael


Posts: 3,255
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #836
16-03-2009 11:19 PM

Robin Orton wrote:
But nobody seems to have any idea about how LBL could be convinced that option 2 is affordable on an acceptable timescale.


Willow Way would be a perfect site for Live/Work units like we have in Havelock Walk and in Rollins Street in the north of Lewisham. Live/Work units are increasingly in demand, even during the current housing market problems, and so they are the best way to cross-subsidise the pools. They can generate significantly more employment on the Willow Way site (which is a perfect site for Live/Work), keep employment on the existing pools site, and a new pool would revitalise Dartmouth Road shops, adding more employment.

A&M came up with a good design for the new pool which does not overlook neighbouring properties and which keeps the existing frontage. As I have suggested previously the cost of building the new pool with or without the existing frontage is about the same, so why not please everybody and leave it there? But the argument is not about keeping the frontage, it is about providing the best possible leisure facilities, at the best possible cost, in the shortest amount of time, with the support of the community, and safeguarding the future of Forest Hill as a district town centre.

At present the Forest Hill Society and other groups are doing everything we can to get a better version of option 2. We do not want to wait until 2015 to get a pool in Forest Hill and as I have outlined above, it should be possible to fund the right solution in the right location.

The Willow Way site moves swimming out of Forest Hill town centre, it will damage the local area and the local economy and, in the long term, I do not believe it is economically viable as a site for leisure.

What we are proposing is a sensible solution that is genuinely better than a pool on Willow Way. As long as the principle of building live/work on Willow Way can be agreed, this will be able to cross subsidise the pool more effectively than the Dartmouth Road site cross-subsidising the Willow Way Pool through social housing. All of these points were put to the Lewisham Council at the mayor and cabinet (see http://www.foresthillsociety.com/2009/02...binet.html) as well as before and after this meeting.

The economic, leisure, employment, and timescales all work best with this proposed solution, it meets the requirements of everybody in the community. I hope that Lewisham Council are seriously considering how they can make this an option in the consultation, rather than giving us two second rate options.

You can help support this proposal by signing the petition at: http://keepswimming.notlong.com
I would also recommend attending the Forest Hill local assembly
WEDNESDAY 25TH MARCH 7.30PM, Living Springs International Church, 8-10 Devonshire Road, SE23 3TJ

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Perryman


Posts: 820
Joined: Dec 2006
Post: #837
17-03-2009 05:08 PM

I think the se23.com option survey will be representative of SE23 - who exactly will vote for a significant public facility to be moved further away from their home? It adds value to the area and therefore to people's homes. For the non car owner, not many will vote for an extra 10min walk when they may well have walked 20mins to get to the existing pool site. Those 2 groups surely make up a healthy majority.

The problem is, a se26 survey will choose the upper sydenham site despite many/most already being in the Bridge and Crystal Palace pool 'catchment' areas. Unless the results are weighted to take this into account, another public consultation is pointless and will end in deadlock.

Also why is it that the existing pools site is the one the council perhaps would rather build homes on? Answer: because this site has the greater value.
But why does it have greater value? Answer: partly because it is easy walking distance to FH station, and major bus stops.
But in my opinion, the better transport links are exactly the reason the pools should remain where they are.

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
aswaspooluser


Posts: 10
Joined: Mar 2009
Post: #838
17-03-2009 07:31 PM

Perryman,
I think that you will find that Willow Way is probably a 5 minute walk from the current pool site which for the non car owner is not a huge distance. It is also served by all the same buses plus 2 other routes (356 & 202).

Bring on Willow Way!

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
robin orton


Posts: 716
Joined: Feb 2009
Post: #839
18-03-2009 09:09 AM

Can anyone explain to me the implications of the following, an extract from paragraph 10.10 (about option 2) of the report on the pools considered by the Mayor and Cabinet last month?

The value range for the housing receipt from Willow Way would have been ?2.9m at the current market rate and ?5.2m at the market peak. However, as outlined in section 7, residential development on the Willow Way site would be contrary to planning policy. The site valuation should therefore be disregarded in terms of the development appraisal.The estimated net cost of this option is therefore ?12.2m which is not affordable within the specified financial envelope. The cross-subsidy that may be achieved from commercial development on Willow Way is considered to be zero for the purposes of this report.

Presumably the FHS proposal for life/work units is intended to get round the planning issue. But, if that doesn't get anywhere, why is 'the cross-subsidy that may be achieved from commercial [i.e., presumably, non-residential) development on Willow Way [...] considered to be zero for the purposes of this report'?

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Satchers


Posts: 262
Joined: Nov 2007
Post: #840
18-03-2009 02:02 PM

Reply to Robin Orton

I realise your question was probably rhetorical but I will have a go anyway!
I think the answer is because if you can't change the use (as the Council assumed) then for the purposes of that report that new employment development would have no value at Willow Way. Clearly this is not the case, as they will know, as it would be worth something even if it were a much smaller amount. But they may not have been able to put a value to what it might be and therefore have assumed nothing. All we do know is that it would be less than housing and live work.

There is a strong case for looking at the employment issue on Willow Way in the round, and in proposing forms of development that would create as least as many jobs on the site as may have existed in its last use or for other small scale employment uses. This can be combined with housing, either in the form of proper live work, or mixed use development. This issue is certainly a long way from being resolved and is not as clear cut as was stated.

A similar question to yours perplexes me....it is almost as hard to change the location of the pools from a town centre site to a non town centre site in planning terms (both Lewisham and National Policy precludes this), and yet the full value of residential development on the Pool site was assumed in the report to support option 3? I wonder why this was?

Question to 'aswaspooluser' - can you say know why you want the pools on Willow Way? Political, locational or timing reasons?

Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

Friends of Blythe Hill Fields


Possibly Related Topics ...
Topic: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Forest Hill Pools Cllr Sophie Davis 1 3,983 11-02-2019 01:08 PM
Last Post: StuartG
  Forest Hill Pools Documentary hillview 0 2,836 06-01-2019 09:14 AM
Last Post: hillview
  Thefts from Forest Hill Pools Gym Lockers Tina 4 6,387 14-09-2018 08:25 AM
Last Post: hillview
  Forest Hill Assembly - Saturday 11 March , 1.30 – 3.30 pm at The Forest Hill Pools Cllr Paul Upex 0 3,092 07-03-2017 10:02 AM
Last Post: Cllr Paul Upex
  Forest Hill Pools Slipper Baths localbigwig 0 3,385 23-02-2016 05:54 PM
Last Post: localbigwig
  Face lift of block before Forest Hill Pools Cheeky 3 7,394 23-06-2014 12:39 PM
Last Post: digime
  Save Forest Hill Pools alexis 62 65,062 24-03-2008 08:38 PM
Last Post: sydenhamcentral