I'm far more pessimistic than that!
I'm suggesting that after the consultation returns a split vote, the council will decide that a significant number of 'us' are now open to the idea of swimming outside of the area and as there already are 5 pools within a 15min bus ride - bridge, peckham, ladywell, dulwich and crystal palace - there is no need for another at WW.

The timing of the closing of the FH pools on safety grounds was very convenient and this seriously undermined the credibility of the reports. How difficult is it to fill a hole in the pools in any case?

Repairing the pools doesn't really suit anyone 100%, but we have the money right now, the mayor gets to honour his promises, the save the facers get to campaign another day, the shops get a few more customers and we get our local pool back again.

Gaz said:
"It looks like all these extra walkers will have to go through Forest Hill town centre and past the shops in Dartmouth Rd. Sounds like a brilliant business opportunity there for the shops to supply drinks, snacks, caf?s stops etc for all the people on route and in need of sustenance for their extra 6-9 minute journey!"

Oh yes, right - because no-one is going to consider the extra 9 1/2 minutes walk (with small children who have short, easily tired legs and bundles of kit) to make it worth jumping in the car and driving straight past all the shops to the pool instead of wandering up Dartmouth Road and browsing in them, are they, Gaz?

Surely you can't really think that Forest Hill Town Centre is north. I posted a link to the ward boundary map a while back (post 762) which shows it almost on the eastern boundary (the railway) and, if anything, slightly south.

Although my previous post seems to have been resolutely ignored, it does make it fairly clear that a Willow Way Pool would not be in Forest Hill as Forest Hill is defined in Lewisham Council's very own Urban Design Framework & Development Strategy. Unless this document has been superseded, the pools in their current position are unquestionably an integral part of Forest Hill Town Centre.

Although anyone arriving by train would get off at Sydenham as it would be closer to Willow Way.

How, exactly, was it skewed? First, it was not a consultation, just a petition. Second, its terms were simple in the hope that nobody would misunderstand:
The aim of the petition is to prevent the London Borough of Lewisham from demolishing the Superintendent's Block of Forest Hill Pools and Louise House next door.

The present site is in Forest Hill, the proposed site is not. The petition states:
We... call on the Mayor... to replace the Victorian swimming pools on Dartmouth Road as soon as possible, while retaining the frontage block...this will help revive Forest Hill as a vibrant town centre. A leisure centre hidden on Willow Way will damage the vitality of Forest Hill.

How, precisely, is this dishonest?

SFFH was dishonest because the frankly extremely unpleasant volunteer who engaged me outside the station one day insisted that I should sign her petition even though I disagreed with her aims, her methods and almost everything she said, tugging at my sleeve as I attempted to walk up Dartmouth Road. So much for simple terms. It was only through force of will I was able to resist. I've seen less hard sells in a Timeshare sting, frankly, and if those were the methods employed then I find the petition worthless and yes, dishonest. Meanwhile, the right-thinking locals found they could blame the council for everything. Good work, SFFH. And we're still waiting for our apology.

And I'm sure everyone who signs KSIFH's petition is fully aware of all the options and the full text of KSIFH's mission statement, oh yes. Call the group something less 'Flag, Mom and Apple Pie', and more akin with what its aim is (a suggestion is in a post above) and I might find it rather more honest. KEEP OXYGEN IN FOREST HILL! KEEP BUILDINGS IN FOREST HILL!

By the way, I still don't see how memberships of these two groups is in any way mutually compatible.

I'd like a pool somewhere near where I live. I'd like that to be in SE23, because it would be nearer (and I live closer than most to the existing site). But if it was marginally in SE26, SE22 or SE6, say, I wouldn't mind that much, and I think throwing one's hands up in horror because it might be is just wrong.

The whole pools debacle has really robbed me of my faith in citizen's movements, I'm afraid.

Babs, your force of will must be phenomenal if you managed to resist a female SFFH volunteer. Do you still get changed in a phone booth?

...'frankly extremely unpleasant volunteer who engaged me outside the station one day insisted that I should sign her petition even though I disagreed with her aims, her methods and almost everything she said, tugging at my sleeve as I attempted to walk up Dartmouth Road. '

Sorry, have I missed something- are the Big Issue sellers are now in on this petition thingy?

I also think I encountered this person at the Horniman Triangle the other weekend who took it upon herself to wag her finger at the non signees and anyone who wanted to debate the issue...

The Horniman Triangle? Now there's a good site for a pool...[runs away]

There used to be a paddling pool there but now it is filled with sand.

I feel a song coming on ... Music, Lyrics

Night night all.

Mary / Foresters

I used the smiley face in my original post as I wasn't being entirely serious when I suggested that people would actually use the local shops on the way to/from any pools...

Also (according to my walking experience and tfl) WW is closer to FH station than Sydenham station, I'm afraid.

As for my comment that the mayor/Council would have to consult a wider electorate than just north FH in their consultation; I was trying to emphasise that the council would need to seek the views of those not just in the area north of the DR pools (and thus those with most to gain from keeping the pools at DR).

***

Incidentally, on the KSIFH petition it states, "We believe that this plan can be made affordable if the Council will look at alternative approaches which we can present."

What are the alternative approaches? I think I'm only aware of the idea of developing WW into live/work units to cross-subsidise(although I'm not sure how much extra this will realistically generate).

If I had encountered the verbally agressive lady I would NOT have signed. As Roz says we have enough of that with BI vendors.

I don't know how you reached this conclusion. I used journey planning on TfL and it came back with the following timings for walking from the stations:

Forest Hill station to Willow Way = 20 mins
   

Sydenham station to Willow Way = 11 mins
   

Forest Hill station to Thorpewood Avenue = 11 mins
   

For completeness: Sydenham station to Thorpewood Avenue = 18 mins

To be fair, if you use the bus the timings are about the same, but no quicker than walking from Sydenham.

If coming by train they are likely to continue to two extra stops on the ELL to Crystal Palace and walk through the park (total time 19 mins). So it will actually be quicker to get to Crystal Palace pool by train than to walk to Willow Way!

As you pointed out in your previous posting, rather than a 20-30 minute walk people will use their cars. There is no parking capacity in Willow Way so they are more likely to go to a pool with good parking - The Bridge, Crystal Palace, or Beckenham. The Willow Way site is the wrong location. It is outside either of the defined town centres and has not parking capacity. This is contrary to national, London, and local policy for the positioning of a leisure centre. And for good reason, such a site for a leisure centre is not economically sustainable.

With regards to the live/work proposal, we are still preparing costing and a full analysis. In the current market it does not alone solve all the financial problems (but then neither does housing on the pools site fund Willow Way funding gap), but it does make a significant contribution and is actually a very interesting development in its own right. At this stage I do not want to give further details on a public forum as this is not the right place for proper consideration (it will be made public in due course).

And one other alternative approach is to find a way to build a pool on the existing site for less than ?12m. There are a number of ways to do this, all of which involve compromise in terms of design or facilities, but at least they give us a viable leisure centre.

Michael
I can well believe WW might be a little nearer to Syd than Forest Hill but fairly close call.
I am not as fast as I used to be but 20 mins to FH station seems very high for an able bodied individual.
I did not know TFL did estimated walking times.

I do however totally agree that the new pool ( whichever site it is on ) will get very fre clients coming by train.

Surely enough potential clients within 1 mileof either site to fill up the pool and 1 mile is easy walking distance.

Baboonery, the passage of time appears to have done little to soften the memory of an encounter you first told us about in September last year (Post: #588). Then you simply said the petitioner was "rather annoying" because she thought you agreed with her. Six months on she has become an "extremely unpleasant volunteer".

I'm still not clear how this brief encounter substantiates your allegation that "SFFH skewed its consultation" or KSFH is not named "honestly".

Michael.
Journey planning on TFL states that it takes 6 minutes to walk from Boots to the station. No, really, it does. Obviously that's an anomaly, but I generally find its walking times overstated.
Not that it strikes out your point, just saying.

Steve,
I think insisting that people who don't agree with a petition sign it and not leaving them alone until they do, then claiming they support you, is dishonest, yes. I apologise for not giving exactly the same amount of detail in both my posts on the matter, I will refer to my personal archives in future.

It's not that I don't sympathise with KSIFH, I just think they're too wedded to the DR site and the DR building and insufficiently appreciative of the constraints on the council.

Baboonery, perhaps the lady that hassled you was just a bit too passionate and enthusiastic for the cause - rather than dishonest. After all, you can easily walk away, who would sign anything that they didnt agree with, if they really didnt agree with it?

Like I say about the BI seller - walk by, dont buy - if you dont want to be hassled by these annoying women.

'Dishonest' would be if she had signed it for you - which wasnt the case at all.

It would also be if others were hassled into agreeing to sign it despite similar reservations, which I have no doubt happened.

I still dont understand why anyone would sign something they didnt agree with. I take your point that someone might not have an opinion and think - why not sign? Especially given the persistence and enthusiasm of the lady in question (as you describe it).

"Why not sign to make this person go away from me, given that petitions are generally meaningless and half the people on it are probably 'M. Mouse, 38 Disney St, SE23'", yes.

We've already had someone on here admitting that he signed the KSIFH petition despite strongly expressed reservations.

But then, I doubt the value of petitions in general.

Love the way the BI seller has appeared in a thread on the pools. People just gotta get it in somewhere

And all this unethical recruitment by signators. Shame on them.

Apparently each volunteer was supplied with a shiny new Queen's shilling to use on potential non-signers.

"Get 'em drunk! Make 'em sign and keelhaul them all!"