Obviously the Jacqui Smith situation is ridiculous! - what next I wonder? 'my main home is a Wendy House'?

Seriously, what I dont see is the Mayor's campaign for funding our Pools in other ways - I may not have put it very clearly, but I think it's fantastic that Sydenham managed to get this extra dosh!!!

As I've said before I dont understand why we have to put up with the bullying tactics of the mayor who throws a curve ball when things are not going his way. Willow Way isnt Forest Hill and I cant understand why we have to wait until 2015 before we can even start thinking about swimming at the original site. Give me some reasonable answers and perhaps I'll be less critical.

The Council has been at best inept and at worst mendacious. It is clear that the strategy, described many years ago by Jim Dowd as I recall, is to keep having a vote until people get the right answer.

The people's response to the 3 'Pools Consultations' has been pretty consistent, but in each case has given the 'wrong' answer to the Council's preferred action.

I think it is fairly clear that the policy aim is to build flats: Forest Hill Central, Tyson Road, Dartmouth Road. This will help the Council tick the box set by the government for new 'homes'. I cannot see any intrinsic objection to this, other than that new building should be considerate of existing residents' views and general externalities. The failure of the Tyson Road application is encouraging, but as has been pointed out elsewhere, it ain't over yet.

The Council's preferred outcomes to the Pools' issue has been to build flats on the site. I am sufficiently skeptical to doubt that there has ever been a serious intention to (re)build a pool. The huffin' and puffin' by apologists for the Council has not provided argument or evidence to dent my view either. Accusations of 'childishness' are generally unhelpful and potentially double edged. Who can read the latest statement by the Council, about a pool in Willow Way or nothing until 2015 ... if you're lucky, as other than a rather petulant response to the expression of local residents views on the matter.

I think the collection of 4000 signatures is amazing and brilliant and makes a BIG statement about local concerns. And there's the rub.

But kipya, the huffin' and puffin' on here last year wasn't because the council didn't want to build a pool, it was because they did. Were they to know that the community would have such an odd reaction to the idea of getting riid of a local eyesore and replacing it with something that worked? Dunno. I just don't buy the idea of Steve Bullock as some sort of Blofeld character, stroking his cat as he mocks the people of Forest Hill for even thinking they might get a pool out of him one day. You didn't want the Dartmouth Road site touched if you couldn't build behind the existing fa?ade, they don't appear willing to build behind the fa?ade, so they're offering other options. Abuse me as an 'apologist for the council' all you like, but I think the OH MY GOD WILLOW WAY reaction is a bit silly, and I think the council would be entitled to ask you to make your blimmin minds up. It can't express its frustration so openly, so it's got to keep plugging away. I honestly don't think there's a realistic option that people wouldn't say no to for some reason.

And I'll stick by my criticisms of the 'but they got money for that, why can't we get money for this' attitude.

In response to Roz's comments:
"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."

- All the schemes basically have the same content as their brief was the same for the pools in all the cases it appears to me. So we can't choose on the basis of what facilities are included in the proposals as there is fundamentally no difference. There are qualitative differences such as in the Dartmouth Road pools proposals as they are currently shown have top light/daylight in the roof to light the pools, the entrance gives out onto a public space, the site area is more generous, the pavement along the edge is wider, etc etc. The Willow Way pools option is very squashed into the site (in my view), has servicing for the shops all along one side, gives out onto a very narrow pavement, doesn't include any public space etc. etc.

- We can't choose on the basis of the designs and the architecture as these are not final schemes and the architects (whoever they may be) won't be selected until after any scheme is given the go ahead. Both schemes have the potential to be high quality contemporary designs. Some might prefer one to the other but that is a matter of taste and not quality really.

- Timing of delivery is very very important and a key question but I don't think we are being given a reasonable/realistic choice here. I want to know that the council will retain the money in the budget for option 2 IF that is what the community wants and not have to start from scratch in 2012? Otherwise how is it a fair 'option'?

So it seems that these other 'peripheral' issues are pretty much all we have on the table to consider.....
- Location
- Impact on town centre
- Potential of achieving planning permission
- Impact on neighbours and surrounding uses
- Qualitative potential of the initial design proposals
etc.

Baboonery - I don't think we are saying no, I think the community are saying yes please lets have pools, please lets work together on the delivery of this exciting project, but please don't give up on the full potential of the project at the first (or second) hurdle. Please look at this in a way that it can be delivered. After all the barriers that have so far been presented to this are not exactly fundamental and the council themselves say that a pool on the pools site is the easiest to deliver. But for some reason they have given up on finding a solution when one is so close and they don't seem to think they can offer us that choice?

Satchers, I really don't understand. The public rejected Dartmouth Road last year, the council is offering something other than Dartmouth Road and being lambasted for not listening. Eh? They can't win. (And how evil of them to use wards, ie the divisions in which they are elected and nearly all their internal administration runs, and not some imprecise local divining method to decide what is Forest Hill and what isn't, by the way). The short-sighted rejection of Dartmouth Road is the underlying problem here. Just because something is popular doesn't make it right. There are only so many sites available in the area, and if we Paisley our way through all of them how are we to KSIFH?

Michael apart, there seems no appreciation of what the council's obligations are, not least the fact that building a pool in Forest Hill is not the only one they have. I'm not sure of the logic behind the 2015 thing either, but personally I could forgive the council for thinking "well this lot don't seem to know what they want, and don't like anything we suggest, so in the meantime, let's concentrate on schools, housing, parks, social services, those sorts of fripperies".

There's going to have to be compromise. You can't always get what you want.

The Dartmouth Road site is a much more valuable one than the Willow Way site in real estate terms. This fact is, almost certainly, driving the Council's preference for WW to the point where it is disregarding its stated policies about promoting the vitality of town centres such as Forest Hill. This same fact is at the root of the Mayor back-tracking on his promise to have swimming in Forest Hill on the Dartmouth Road site.

All considerations about developing the Dartmouth Road site for community use are being set aside by the Council's over-riding desire to make money from its sale. This is asset-stripping and the community should object forcefully because the loss of Dartmouth Road to a private developer is not in our long-term interests.

I was trying to not make any further comment on this post , as many 1000's already and seem to be going over old ground.
However your point about the land being more valuable in DR rather than WW implies private housing. If I am not mistaken neighbouring blocks are state housing . If council/ state housing then values would be of no matter.
I am not so sure this would be a prime site for private housing, but of course could be wrong

Sniffer, I suggest you read before you speed. I don't recall anywhere 'advocating' Willow Way - I am merely suggesting it is wise to wait for the consultation and to see which one is I am happy to concede if it looks like its not going to produce a good result for Forest Hill but first of all I want to see full consideration of all the issues. As Baboonery put it all so well ( and much better than I ever could) we are now having to face an imperfect reality following the unfortunate history of this site and the facility and its good I think to understand that the pool may not be the first thing on Steve Bullock mind when he wakes up every morning. I think how we have all got to this point needs to be appreciated. The last few years did not happen in isolation.

This time last year the Council were proposing to demolish both Louise House and the pools themselves by July 2008. They were prevented from doing so after concerns were voiced by various societies and the stakeholder group and a view taken that it was perhaps best to listen to the stakeholders and work with that group to secure a good result for Forest Hill. And then there was the unfortunate and vexatious listing of Louise House which put an end to those plans. This action was carried out by some who were in fact taken into the Councils confidence about the their proposals so I would imagine that this has perhaps hardened the Councils view on public consultation and who they listened to. Unfortunate given the otherwise interesting constructive and thoughtful views of many other in the stakeholder group, especially the well reasoned and convincing arguments of Satchers.There may have been some questions of wisdom in the Councils haste but ultimately the intention was definitely there, however the momentum has been lost and we have a compromise offer on the table.

I think we should also not lose sight of the various wrangles that have gone on in respect of the pools in the last 25 years,the various petitions, protests, Duncan Goodhews involvement, etc, 'the now we are open now we are shut' sort of thing, and the extent of the public feeling that resulted in the Council keeping them open. With hindsight the greatest favour would have been to have demolished this years ago however the Council conceded to public opinion on more than one occasion.

Sniffer, I dont understand why making money from Dartmouth Road land sale is such an horrific idea; whose money do you think it is anyway? Its yours and mine. They are obliged to get best value out of every deal. Do people not appreciate how hard councils are finding it these days to raise capital funding in the current crisis? Can we blame them for optimising their capital assets which I agree with you, is likely to be the main reason for preferring Willow Way?

Lets see what the consultation throws up, but lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater once again.

Roz, do you take pride in the Council's proposal to turn the FH Pools site into a private housing estate, leaving it derelict meanwhile until the market picks up? Do you think people deserve nothing better? Do you think think cheap and cheerful, as on Willow Way, is all that people are worth? Have you no civic aspiration beyond penny-pinching?

I believe I live in the real world. Come and join me there sometime.

If just having swimming in Forest Hill or there abouts was important to most people, then there wouldnt be an argument. But there are nearly 4,000 people passionate enough about keeping the pools in the same location and maintainting the Victorian frontage, that they are prepared to stand their ground and be heard - even if it means a delay in making that all important final decision. You may not like it Roz, but that's a fact! Where's the campaign to move the pools to Willow Way?

Not the first time I've read something on this board complaining that the pools should have been demolished years ago, "however the Council conceded to public opinion on more than one occasion". How terrible that the council has actually taken notice of public opinion! I thought that was the mark of a healthy democracy?

I reackon the mayor should see this site as it shows the level of discussion from both sides opinions. SE23.com - democracy in action! Yeah - go for it.

I'm a little concerned about this consultation - who exactly is going to be asked?

If the Mayor persists in this ignorance that 'FH' in FH Pools means FH ward, then will the Perry Vale area be consulted at all?
Will those who live within a few mins walk of the WW site ie Upper Sydenham be consulted? Or perhaps also that half of Sydenham who are nearer the WW site than the bridge?

Seems to me that there is plenty of scope to rig this consultation before it is even decided what is to be presented. There needs to be a pre-consultation consultation to ensure the process is legitimate or this is just going to run and run.

I think the consultation should be wide but all replies should be distributed and returned to a collection box on the 2 sites. If you want the Dartmouth Rd site, you post your reply there. Likewise if you prefer the WW site, then catch a bus there. If people haven't got the time to do this, then they probably are not going to be using the pools anyway.

And if the turnout is low, then it follows that the attendance at either pool will also be pretty low and perhaps we will all need to think again - maybe turn the pools site back into allotments - there is a massive waiting list for them.

Forest Hill School Report for the BBC at http://www.foresthill.lewisham.sch.uk/schoolreport.html

Apologies if this has been mentioned earlier in the thread, but I found out yesterday that Tesco have been given permission to open a store at 139-147 Kirkdale. Very close to the proposed new pool site at Willow Way.

Perhaps I am being cynical, but it seems to me that moving the pool site to Willow Way would be very much advantageous for Tesco....?

http://forum.sydenham.org.uk/viewtopic.p...1e38e35c11

This is only going to be a small Tesco Express. Cannot believe the opening will make any difference at all. What has a small convenience grocer got to with swimming. Anyway already a Costco there ( for how long another matter ).
This is a red herring , even if Tesco sell herring.

Baboonery
Sorry, but I have been trying to just let this one pass but it is really bugging me.
When did the public reject Dartmouth Road as the site for the pools last year? I went to the consultation events along with a lot of people, went to the public meeting and didn't see a single person reject Dartmouth Road as the site for the pools?

Did I miss something? Everyone I spoke to and heard wanted a pool and they wanted it on that site. They just couldn't agree about which option - but what community ever speaks with one coordinated voice anyway?

I have a feeling that you are probably referring to the listing of Louise House (again) which is a little unfair to the people of Forest Hill as it was not their doing. The Secretary of State Listed this building on the advice of English Heritage and if they hadn't done it in response to someone in the community suggesting it there is a pretty good chance they would have considered it and done it anyway. The demolition of either of the buildings on the site would have had a material impact on the setting of the Listed Library building and should not have been possible through Planning without a detailed scheme for their replacement being in place.

I just don't get this idea from where we are now that this action has set the project back. It might have done at one point but as it has turned out it is the credit crunch that has done that. By my reckoning, following last summers consultation, the Mayor would have decided on an option in September 08, the Council would now be in the process of looking for a developer (which would take about 4-6 months at least) - and none would be found, for the same reason that the recent option 1 was dropped by the Mayor (no market for complex mixed use projects). We would only now be starting to look at other options and the timetable would be even further back? Whatever we think of the decision to list it is surely time to park this one, accept it is the case and move forward?

Perryman
The council are putting together a very wide ranging and inclusive consultation that should ask just about everyone in South London (nearly a joke) which of the two options they prefer. I am fairly sure that it is proposed to leaflet everyone in all three main wards (FH, PV and Syd), to hold exhibitions, focus groups and it would appear that there are lots of other events planned too. Consultation period likely to be in May. Must be costing a fortune.

Thanks satchers and I think it right Sydenham should be consulted if a new pool is potentially moving in their area. I'll imagine they'll be delighted at the chance of having a second pool.
People can always justify any unfair advantage that falls in their lap.

According to wiki, the demographics are fairly even: 31,300 in se23 Vs 28,095 in se26, so opinion will likely be evenly divided. And the consultants will conclude after an expensive study of the data that se23 want a swimming pool and se26 want a second pool. Well well.

Surely the council just need to decide if se23 deserve their pool back? Why is this so hard for them? If they can show that the area is well served by nearby pools, that there is no important historical interest in keeping swimming here and there are better places to build a pool that will serve more people, then just present the data honestly.
If it is clear cut, I for one would be happy to move on and we can decide what community facility we want on the site instead.

Perryman
Like your argument.
Just talking SE23 SE26 gets us nowhere. Some of both SE23 AND 26 are quite near the bridge ( for instance near The Prince of Wales ).

Just walked down Willow Lane after nice sunday roast at Windmill ( strongly recommended ). I presume spot they are talking about is the council site behind the Windmill.

Also had a good look at Louise House. God knows why this was listed , it is a dump. So is the old pool, why are we so keen to keep this building. I expect most of the people who want to retain it did not use it in the 50's and 60's when it was drafty and compared to modern pools really not very nice.

I personally would prefer Dartmouth Rd but no great problem with Willow Way if it is a lot cheaper.

Not sure where you were yesterday, Brian, after your Sunday lunch. Willow LANE ? I walked down Willow WAY yesterday afternoon. Not a willow in sight. Overflowing bins, a large car mechanics' workshop, the back of a pub, litter: what a dump ! Certainly not where I'd like to go for a swim !: thumbdown: