It's a bit of an assumption on my part - but it seems to me that people who want Willow Way, do so mainly because the Council have effectively said it's that option or nothing else in the near future. There appear to be a lot of people who just want the council to get on with it and provide Swimming in or near to Forest Hill. Personally I'm for keeping swimming in Forest Hill Town Centre and am prepared to fight for it!

aswaspooluser,

I've just timed it, and it is 7 and half minutes walking fairly briskly between the existing pools and the Willow way site. I think the 10 mins timing is a better estimate on average once you factor in prams, and children and gammy knees.

Anyone walking it in 5mins is too fit and needs to readjust their life/TV balance.

It is not an unpleasant walk apart from Willows way itself - not many willows here. This is an industrial zone and so it is not exactly an inviting area for leisure activity in my opinion.

Option 2 still gets my vote.

A couple of points - and please don't think I'm being flippant by these remarks, I'm just tired from work and want to rush off outta here!

I thought that 'business use' would have far less value as the options would either be that the council lease out the existing units for annual rent; rebuild and lease for rent; or sell to an employer to build their own units. Selling to an employer would not be worth as much as selling to a developer - and it'll probably be quite difficult to find a business that wants to own offices. Housing stock is worth more as once built the developer sells it off piecemeal. I don't know much about Live&Work units but would have thought this would require a change in land-usage again.

I'm not sure that creating employment on Willow Way is relevant to our pools requirement (these extra factors have a danger of overcomplicating this)? Also, I agree that the issue seems a long way from being resolved which is the bit that scares me - I want a pool asap! - not in some distant future after planning issues have been resolved!

Is the Willow Way site really considered as a non-town centre site by Lewisham and National policy? When I think of out-of-town/non-town centre I do not think of a site in an already built-up area, 5 mins walk away, served by the same transport infrastructure with similar cachement area properties.

Also, I understood that there were no 'change of planning use' issues for building residential units on the current pools site? So the only objections that could be raised were to the size and scale of the residential project, whereas changing the use of Willow Way to allow for residential allows for a whole new range of objections to be raised that could potentially scupper any residential development there.

Me:

Ok, Perryman - I admit I timed this too the other week and came in at 6 minutes at a leisurely pace whilst munching a kebab from the shop opposite the current site!

Satchers,

I just want a new pool ASAP and I'm fed up with all the delays. I don't particularly want it in Willow Way, I'm just willing to support the most feasible option that will deliver somewhere where we can swim by the earliest possible date and at the least expense (being a local tax payer).

Gaz & Perryman

Thanks for your timings - I obviously walk too fast!

Gaz, great questions (yes, changing the pool site to housing will require a change of use and this is by no means a given, yes as far as I understand it Willow Way is not a defined Town Centre site, yes Willow Way complicates things but it also has the potential to add funding too, yes business use will have less value but realistically how much value do you think you can get out of large scale developer housing at the moment?)

Aswaspooluser - thanks

What seems really obvious is that we all want a pool as soon as possible but it isn't actually the policies that are holding this up it is the lack of joined up thinking and 'hare before tortoise' approach that has been taken again and again. There were always planning issues to do with the pool way before Louise House was listed (whatever you do with it materially affects the setting of a Listed Building - the Library - for a start) but these were always put off into the future and never dealt with or acknowledged up front. What is happening now is some of these are being realised as part of the process rather than in spite of it. Yes, it is painful and annoying but when we get the right solution on the table that ticks all the boxes it should mean that delays to the programme once started are minimised and there should be much less need for factions to develop and large scale objections to Planning Applications. I don't believe with the information and justification we have been given to date that we should be forced to accept an option that we don't really want simply because we are told that it is the only way to get a pool.

However, we still have no indication yet that The Council are going to offer the community a real and fair set of options. We need to keep pushing for this and votes on the petition to say we want a pool on the pools site NOW are an important part of this. I know not everyone wants to keep the frontage but if we can still get the pool we want, if it doesn't add to the cost and it makes planning easier does it really matter if it is retained to those that want to lose it?

I know I will be told I am being unrepresentative by a few on SE23.com but literally everyone I speak to about this basically wants the same thing......but for 'political' reasons it may not be allowed to happen. Does that seem fair or reasonable?

Good points well made, Satchers! I don't BTW think you're unrepresentative , except perhaps on the optimism front, but you deserve credit for that, and for all your hard work, not criticism.

Yes we do all want the same thing- a pool on the current site if that is indeed the best/viable/realistic option for the local community and if that will provide us with the optimum facility. However for me the point about 'ticking all the boxes' is perhaps the nub of the matter. I'm just concerned about having too many boxes to tick. My heart sank when I saw the wording of the petition.
My own view about the retained frontage is not just that I am keen to see it go , ( from professional experience its only worth doing in exceptional circumstances as its very difficult,expensive, and the outcome is almost never as good, and for a modern facility thats a real shame) but that its very retention provides an added complication to an already difficult development site. I do honestly think that if all the groups want to see a swimming facility retained on the current site then everyone needs to be prepared to be flexible on this point of facade retention. I do not get that comfort at the moment form some quarters but I may be wrong.

Hi Roz
I've resisted posting on this subject for a while but...

We are informed that Council Officers say that refurbishing existing buildings costs half as much as building the same space from scratch. So retaining the frontage will reduce the cost of the development.

Yes, it adds complexity, but it's well within the capability of a firm of architects like Allies and Morrison who did such an excellent job integrating the decidely modern extension of the Horniman with the existing building.

We should end up with just as good facilities as we would have had if the frontage had been demolished under option 1 whilst retaining the cluster of Victorian buildings identified as one of the 'key anchors' for Forest Hill in the 2002 Urban Development Framework.

I've personally not been too fussed about retaining the frontage, but it is apparent that it is a major issue for many people. The current petition wording represesnts a consensus that is acceptable to almost everyone - even those who aren't concerned about retaining the frontage - and that's why it is being signed by virtually everyone that is invited to sign it. Isn't it fantastic that after years of factional concerns, we now appear to have widespread consensus?

Sorry, I don't follow your logic. Unless QS estimating principles have suddenly gone into reverse, as I understand it ,its normally more expensive on a m2 basis to refurb than to build anything new, even with VAT concessions. A new build may require different space standards hence this may increase costs consequentially.
Retaining the frontage does not constitute refurbishment - it is facade retention making part demolition, shoring up and stabilisation quite complex and expensive on the public purse, meaning that reductions have to be made elsewhere in the budget.

Facade retention as a principle dictates too much about how you approach a new development and places a further constraint on design proposals and on budgets. If swimming is to be retained in FH on the current site then all I'm saying is that people need to be open to the possibility of having to concede that point.

[/quote]

I totally agree. The problem here is that we don't any longer have the option to concede that point after the mayor, in his wisdom, removed the (borderline affordable) option 1 from the new consultation, effectively leaving a Hobson's choice of option 2 (unaffordable) or option 3 (affordable).

Quiet frankly there have been so many posts. a lot of them very complicated , I am not sure at all what I should be doing or thinking on this matter.
Are people not just going back over and over the same points in slightly different language.
I hope I am not being negative but am I the only one who is bogged down my more and more on this which I am sure we have been through many times before.

Whatever is decided good luck.

Roz
I think you may not have looked closely at the plans for option 2. Option 2 doesn't just retain the facade, it retains the entire Pools frontage building. What goes is the 'sheds' with the collapsing roofs that sat over the pools themselves. So far as I am aware, the frontage building is in reasonably good shape and simply needs some refurbishment to make it a useful part of the new building. If you look at the plans, it actually represents a very small percentage of the total floor area. There is no question of shoreing up etc as would be necessary if it was just the facade that was to be retained.

In the 2005 Capita report the frontage building was described as 'a high quality frontage building giving appropriate 'civic presence' to the highway... Brick, terracotta and stone were used for the frontage building, with timber trusses and lower quality stock bricks for the pool halls.'

Roz (again)
The figures that reached me were ?3000/m2 for new build, ?1500/m2 for refurb. Clearly both figures could vary wildly depending on the state of the original building and what the refurb / new build was aiming to achieve, but I can believe that providing any existing building has no serious structural problems, it must be cheaper to refurb it than to rebuild it.

Keep Swimming in Forest Hill petition: we are heading to nearly 3,000 signatures after two weeks of campaigning. Can the Mayor ignore the many people who are actively supporting this campaign? Of course he can! But if he has any political acumen, he might think again!

In collecting signatures (at FH station, outside Horniman Gardens, from residents in private houses and blocks of council flats, outside primary and secondary schools, walking up the road) I have been amazed at the complete cross-section of people who have jumped at the opportunity to sign the petition - young and old and from all backgrounds.

Quetta

Well done on organising so many signatories to the petition in such short time, Quetta.

I am still, however, very concerned that the Mayor and Lewisham will just look at this petition and just think, "Option 2 'As soon as possible' - that'll be sometime (if ever) after the Council's capital programme is reviewed in 2012 then."

http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/LeisureAndCul...HillPools/

I.e. The petition seems to only 'vote' for Option 2 and doesn't seem to apply pressure to get the pools completed sooner.

Has anyone got any further input in:

* Persuading the Council to sell Willow Way as Live/Work units (and any evidence of the increased financial benefits if this is done); or

* Any progress on identifying how the pools could be built more cheaply; or

* Any other sites that could be sold off to meet the funding gap?

As I think these are the key issues (unless the concensus is that we should wait and see whether the Pools are affordable in 2012-2015?)

Gaz - I agree with you that a responsible council would now be looking at the issues you list - rezoning of Willow Way, cutting building costs on option 2 etc.

There are two local architects with plans of how option 2 could be delivered much more cheaply without loss of facilities These are both senior partners in architectural practices, both with experience in building pools.

Their plans should be looked at seriously - this isn't going to cost LBL any extra money - and they could save local taxpayers a fortune.

But one gets the overwhelming feeling that the mayor and officers are simply unwilling to listen. Let's hope I'm wrong.

As the petition numbers start to swell and the mood takes hold that option 2 (despite the delays and cost) is the one that could win, I can't help feeling, that this simply isn't a course of action that makes electoral sense to the mayor or our local MP. Even if option 3 scrapes through (a very unlikely outcome in my view) many of the local population will be resentful that the pool has been moved out of Dartmouth Road, and that's bound to have voting repercussions. If option 2 wins, people won't have sympathy with the mayor's dilemma - electorates very rarely think like that (ask John Major and Ted Heath!).

I'm sure the mayor doesn't want to paint himself into a corner (and neither do I - I want to vote for him). So please listen to the stakeholder group with an open mind.

Electorates are particularly unlikely to think like that if pressure groups paint the politicians as having no dilemmas at all, but merely as rapacious buffoons who want to drive their steamroller over the wishes of the local people, cackling and chewing on a cigar (while forgetting to mention that previous pressure groups bear their share of responsibility for the mess).

Whilst I respect all the passion and energy going into petitions and what not,the problem I still have, is , re-reading the original Council report to Cabinet, whilst there are so many questions begging about the logic and (lack of ) regeneration of Forest Hill, Option 2 only offers a review in 2012 whereas Option 3 appears to offer certainty now. So as I see it, its either;

a) Butter today i.e Willow Way or
b) Potentially jam tomorrow if the Council feels like it, if a number of other factors happen to coincide making it look like a good idea, and if they have the money.( Ie current site).

In option 2, there is therefore a significant risk that the pools may not be delivered at all, or for many years. That is quite a risk to take- don't you think?
If we want certainty of a pool, Option 3 appears to be the best choice for ensuring delivery. Its not going to be an easy ride, but at least we have a reasonable certainty of having a pool somewhere nearby. It will also hopefully widen peoples horizons to at least the end of Dartmouth Road which cannot be a bad thing? At least everyone will know where the police station is and perhaps use some of the shops down there. Presumably all of those people walking from the FH town centre to WW for a swim will also be passing the same parade of shops opposite the current site? So how will resiting the pool at WW necessarily reduce footfall and potential shopping along Dartmouth Road?

The Council is on the brink of announcing a formal consultation exercise on the two options. Noble as it is, I fear that this petition will serve to confuse people, especially as they are likely to respond with their gut reaction rather than a more analytical and informed one.

Of course, we all want a local pool, and we all want a vibrant town centre and few people are going to sign something saying otherwise. Believe me, having lived here for 24 years next month, and having no plans to move for another 10 at least, I really do want both of these things, but I feel that to delay the pool decision to 2012 is far too much of a gamble. The will for a pool is here now, it may not be tomorrow. The regeneration of FH Town Centre is a different matter and not necessarily uniquely bound up with the existing pool site.

PS, As regards listening to the stakeholder group with an open mind, I'm not sure this particular group speaks with one voice, Nasaroc!

Roz,
You are entirely correct that the choice we are likely to be offered is butter today or potentially jam tomorrow. What the council is refusing to take seriously is the very real potential solution that is jam today.

Building a leisure centre, used by schools on the edge of an industrial estate makes no sense. People from FH and Honor Oak are more likely to drive to Willow Way rather than walk the extra 7 minutes. People from Sydenham and Perry Vale will not go via FH town centre and will not use the shops and library on the edge of the town centre. Are there ever any police at the police station? What is the advantage of knowing where this is?

Once we have a new pool in Sydneham, do not expect any money from the council or elsewhere for the regeneration of Forest Hill. The idea of the arts centre in Louise House will be killed off by selling the surrounding site for high density housing. The outcome will certainly be the contraction of Forest Hill town centre into a small group of shops between Sainsburys and Derby Hill, with no noticable increase in shops in Kirkdale, other than the Tesco that has been given planning permission already.

The petition does not support either option 2 or option 3. It calls for consideration of the possibilities for creating option 2 in a reasonable timescale. If there was the will, there is a way, instead there is willow way.