And it has been mentioned before, but surely now this qualifies as a heritage project, as well as a sports project, and is ideal for Lottery money to plug any gap?

Judging from the Mayor, Cabinet, and Council Officers' refusal to discuss the project, or its timing, it seems that any difficulty delivering Option 2 has nothing to do with 'plugging the gap' in the finances. There are lots of things that could be considered which could deliver a pool on the existing site in an acceptable time frame. Lottery funding is just one possibility. But, for reasons which appear unclear at present, there seems to be no willingness to discuss the project either with stakeholders or anyone else. Hardly a shining example of Open Government, or of constructive engagement with the electorate.

In response to Roz's comment about The Bridge:

"Pools can work well in 'side streets and light industrial locations, ie The Bridge. They may not be pretty but they do the job."

I wouldn't exactly describe The Bridge as a buzzing sports and swimming facility. Its nearly empty whenever I use it, in fact that is one of the reasons I use it! On a Sunday morning you can usually rely on the small pool being empty!

It is very busy for swimming lessons for children, they are nearly all full and well used by many from Forest Hill and Honor Oak who would presumably prefer to swim nearer to home if they could walk there?

Does anyone ever walk to The Bridge? I sometimes wonder if anyone at all would go if it didn't have such a large car park?

I have also been to Beckenham Spa, which is a much newer pool but so popular and busy that you have to swim in a set session and share the pool with dozens of others. It also costs twice as much as you have to pay for children.

I don't think it is unconnected that the very well used and busy pool (and I assume more viable in the long term) is the one on the main road and a good level of visibility and street presence.

I use Beckenham and go by two buses.
I do not believe the fact it is on a main road makes much difference.

When I use Beckenham very quiet ( about 10.45 am weekday ) would not use a busy pool.

I used to walk to The Bridge ( about 3/4 a mile ) , we must learn how to walk , God gave us legs .

Yes, I walk to the bridge, from the top of Dartmouth Road. Actually, I haven't been for a while, but because I found it frustratingly busy on Sunday. Satchers - perhaps you won't want to give away your secret, but what time on a Sunday is it so empty?

I know I'm more willing to walk than most people, but I am quite surprised that the distance between the current swimming pool site and Willow Way is perceived as being so far. Obviously this is only a small part of the issue (perhaps it's not really the issue at all), but still...

Yes Pack of Dusters ( guess you are having a spring clean ).

For many in SE 23 The Bridge is actually closer than either WW OR DR.

No, I don't think the issue is really whether or not one can walk or drive the extra half mile (if that). But that distance does affect the viability of Forest Hill as a Town Centre. It' s a bit like having the bathroom for your house at the end of your road - sure, it's not that far and you can walk down to it easily enough, but it kind of detracts from the viability of your home (just a quick analogy - please don't dissect).

According to Lewisham's website, "The Forest Hill Urban Design Framework and Development Strategy was adopted as supplementary planning guidance in 2003".
Does anyone know if it is still valid or if it has been superseded? It is up on their website (Forest Hill Urban Design Framework)...



and Willow Way certainly doesn't figure in any of the descriptions or maps of Forest Hill. See below for the strategy's map showing positive (red) and negative (yellow) landmark buildings (there aren't many)...



If Willow way was included (as in the quick overlay shown below), it would surely completely distort the relative scales used in, and the aims of, this strategy. Pools in Willow Way would be closer to Sydenham railway station than Forest Hill. I cannot understand how this Development Strategy can be so completely sidelined in respect of the pools when it identifies them as one of the two key attractions (the other being the Horniman) of Forest Hill.

Keep Swimming in Forest Hill petition

As of 8.37pm on Saturday 28th March we have 2,972 signatures on paper and 269 online, giving a total of 3,241 all together. When Sunday's numbers are calculated we will have well over 3,3000 in just three weeks.

A lot of people obviously DO want to keep swimming in Forest Hill but keep collecting signatures - we are aiming for 5,000 signatures in five weeks.

Quetta

Keep swimming in Forest Hill

Signatures are now over 3,500!

I walked along Willow Way yesterday afternoon. Of the 12 properties I was able to access (which is a majority of the businesses located there), 9 were absolutely against the idea of the depot site being used for public swimming pools. And only 3 were in favour. From the 9 businesses, I collected 25 signatures supporting our campaign.

Most of the people had no idea that the site had been proposed by the Mayor, none of the people in business units I spoke with had been consulted and all those opposed to the idea cited general inappropriateness of the site, particularly because of poor access, the difficulties they already had with their delivery vans, lack of parking, and the narrowness of the road. They also expressed a fondness for the Victorian buildings, the expectation that swimming pools should be on a main road not a back street and the general ease of access to the Dartmouth Road site.

Quetta

You would have thought the exsiting Willow Way residents would have been consulted! Just another example of how bad this has all been managed.

Quetta, I believe that the reasons why the business owners in Willow Way have not been consulted are because the consultation process has not started yet. As people on the stakeholder committee, and those who have been reading their Council meeting minutes should know, there is a timetable for this consultation, the Council is committed and intent on consulting widely, and members of the stakeholder group have been invited to participate in same including the selection of the people carrying out the very consultation. The stakeholder group were also asked to advise on other potential 'consultees' in order to ensure that the net was cast as wide as it should be. So why those involved in that group and who are fully informed of the councils plans are going round stirring up bad feeling based on misinformation I don't know.

If the undoubtedly very hardworking businesses are not aware of the potential pool then this is hardly surprising in this current economic climate as most of them will probably be focussing energies elsewhere. Of course, they haven't been consulted, for the reasons described above.

Personally I remain committed to having swimming facilities for the people of Forest Hill, and feel that this should be considered outside the prevailing and narrow dogma of insisting on its location on the current site.

PS. previous references to Beckenham Spas' popularity v the Bridge probably hits the nail on the head for me - I believe that the Spas popularity is largely due to its excellent and award winning facilities which it managed to do on an expanded site, not because its on the main road. People do travel a long way to use it as its better than anything else around. I believe it won a best pool in the Uk award in 2004- correct me if I'm wrong.
The previous pool on that site was ok but not what it is now. This happened because the Council secured additional land which enabled the facility to achieve its objectives. My concern about the retention argument and the petition is that they precludes any alternative being properly discussed by sending people off on a two horse race. We need to see what precisely is being proposed for Willow Way before dismissing it out of hand. The question to be asked is which site can provide the better facilities. period.- and access and accessibility and commercial viability will surely be major factors in that decision, at least in planning terms.

Keep Swimming in Forest Hill

The petition now has 3,919 signatures!

Far from "stirring up" people, campaigners are being approached by people in the street, informed by local press reports, eager to add their names in support.

Quetta

Just noticed in 'Sydenham & Forest Hill Life', sponsored by LB Lewisham, that they have managed to persuade TfL to provide ?3m to make Sydenham 'high street a more pleasant place for pedestrians...' No chance that LB Lewisham might apply for additional funding from the Lottery Fund, National Sports' Funds et al to supplement their available funding for the Dartmouth Road site to make the pools a more pleasant place for swimmers ? Soon.

Roz refers to dogma in her advocacy of Willow Way. The only dogmatists are those who support the narrow reductive mindset of the Labour mayor and councillors. These myopic people cannot see further than the Council's sale of a valuable community asset, namely the Dartmouth Road site, to a private developer for private sector profit.

It shows what a long way the Labour Party has travelled ideologically since the days of the gung-ho privatising Thatcher government, that its members are so keen to strip the local community of this asset under the pretext of providing cheap swimming pools elsewhere. Shame on all of you. You really should know better.

..and it wouldnt be surprised if someone was getting a back-hander to ensure the Dartmouth Road site got sold off for development. Not that I'd dare accuse the Labour Party of corruption, greed and moral theft of public (taxpayers) money for their own personal gain.

Sniffer, gingernuts et al, sooner or later you have to realise you can't always get what you want. Specifically, the moon on a stick demands for

• Brilliant pools
• On the existing site
• Behind the existing frontage
• With more parking and associated amenities
• For very little money
• Yesterday
  

just aren't realistic, no matter how many unfounded and potentially defamatory rants about the mayor's corruption, or demands to divert scarce public resources from every other imaginable area to the express construction of a swimming pool in an ordinary district of south-east London, you come out with. No decision is going to make everybody happy. Now, I'd rather have all those things, but I'm sensible enough to realise that I'm not going to get all of them without getting upset about it. I'm also sensible enough to realise we had a better chance of getting all of those bar the third one a year ago. Now, that gets us nowhere now, which doesn't distinguish this much from the other billion posts on this thread.

My worry is that KSIFH is becoming SFFH II, and will end up being counter-productive. I honestly don't know what we do instead, but impressions of Ian Paisley circa 1985 (FOREST HILL SAYS NO. TO EVERYTHING.) should not be it.

Extravagant and unsubstantiated claims you're making there Bab about supporters for Forest Hill Pools.

And Ginge, there is no evidence of corruption - Labour Party councillors and members are honest and well-intentioned people but unfortunately they are without a sense of civic pride when it comes to retaining valuable community assets and enhancing the built environment.

Whoa! I never mentioned the Mayor - just a reference to the current political sleaze.

I'm happy to compromise, I want swimming in Forest Hill - doesnt have to be 'brilliant' just functional and clean. I also want it to be in Dartmouth Road, ideally keeping the facade - but certainly not a horrible block of cheap looking flats with a pool.

We cant have it yesterday - obviously, but that doesnt make it right that this process has gone on for so long without resolution.

No one expects the pools to be built for very little money, but it is upsetting to read that Sydenham get granted funding for street upkeep and the council have dismissed campaigning to fund our pools this way. What is really galling is the way government immorally spend our money on second homes, porn etc and at the same time tell us there's no money for local swimming. A Labour Government too!

Gingernuts, I'm afraid it's childish to complain about Sydenham getting money for street upkeep. Is everything else everywhere else to go on hold until we get our (architecturally stunning, dead cheap, not at all cross-financed without an increase in council tax) pool? Schools? Roads? Housing regeneration? Stuff that, what about our pool? I'd like to see you go to Deptford and explain why a pool five miles away has to be Lewisham's only priority.

And deposing the Jacqui Smith situation into the argument is a bit ridiculous, really. I'm guessing she submitted the bill because it's what she does month in month out with a perfectly legitimate expense (just like I do for my multichannel TV with my employer, because I too need 24-hour news in order to do my job properly) and clearly had no idea there was a clearly perfectly illegitimate expense that she hadn't used herself, and had no reason to suspect on it. It's not as if it said RUDE PORN MOVIES THAT YOUR HUSBAND HAS BEEN WATCHING 2@4.99. Quite what relevance it has to our pool (other than the fact that you seem to want every other form of public expenditure to stop until it gets built) I've no idea.