What are you people like! It was relevant! as an example of being hassled in Forest Hill - which really only comes from the BI seller outside Sainsburys and the occasional druggy beggar - who thankfully seems to have cleaned up her act or gone away.

Just seen your smilie face! I take it all back, before this becomes a thread about the BI seller again....

When did people become so easily hassled? Half the forum acts like a Victorian lady around the place. Parasols at the ready! Keep the draughty corridors at bay!

Well Brian, from the safety of your own home, do you wish to take your signature back?
I'm sure quetta can remove your vote if you pm her with your name and address.

I checked again on TfL and asked for journey times from sites directly adjacent to the station rather than the station itself (clearly TfL recognised that it can take some time to get out of stations). So here are the times:

FH to Thorpewood Ave = 6 mins
FH to Willow Way = 15 mins
Sydenham to Willow Way = 10 mins

ha ha ha - yes, especially if the back gate is closed and you have a heavy push chair with lots of small children and shopping.....

If I was coming from the station with a pushchair, kids and heavy shopping I think I would go straight home first , not on to swimming... common sense, n'est-ce pas? Wouldn;t have the energy....

Baboonery, you speak such sense and in my mind summarise things so succinctly.

Guys, the assessments of Willow Way, distances etc just comes across as being so Hill -Centric. If you want to win the argument with the council then you need to change tack as they simply won't give in to that. Not a popular view I know but the fact it takes 15 minutes for a number of people to walk to their local swimming pool is hardly a hardship. What do you think everyone else in the UK does? If you live in Sheffield or Manchester of Glasgow do you have a pool within 6 minutes walk of your home? I think not. The fact that an additional 6 minutes travel is being promoted as a decision maker on significant local authority capital expenditure is becoming farcical. Despite the pool being in Dartmouth Road I still caught a train or a bus to Crystal Palace as the facilities were better and cleaner. (until asbestos etc) . Now we prefer Beckenham Spa over Dulwich Baths or Ladywell as the facilities are much better and the experience a whole lot nicer, albeit more expensive. Growing up in Northern Ireland where the population is a little less dense than in London and with probably lower expectations of public services I had to take two buses for an hours journey each way to my local pool.

I suspect that people will still use a pool in Willow Way if it provides decent facilities and do not see it automatically unviable for that reason. The Council must believe that they will get planning for this otherwise it will fall at the first hurdle. I doubt even they are so stupid as to pursue an option that will do so as when they decide they will be proceeding with one option to the virtual exclusion of the other - the design exercise will be extremely costly. Neither of these sites is straightforward from a feasibility point of view.

Hi Perryman
No I am happy to leave my signature if it would help the numbers.
I was not pressurised to sign. They were very polite.
I agree I have no problem also with WW but would prefer if pool in DR as then no or less new housing there.

I'm glad to hear it , Brian.

I find the suggestions that petitioners have been pressurising people to sign, and in particular the description of one of them as "extremely unpleasant", rather offensive. I know all those who are gathering signatures, have been one of them and am married to one of them. The one thing that unites us is the passionate belief that swimming should be brought back to Forest Hill, on the most suitable site (the one where two large holes already exist), preferably retaining the frontage block, as soon as possible.

In my experience most, if not all, of those who signed were keen to do so and it is, frankly, patronising to suggest that they didn't know what they were doing. And if anybody wonders whether the suggestion that "half the people on it are probably 'M. Mouse, 38 Disney St, SE23'" is true I can assure you that every signature appears to be genuine, as does every address, and there is not one "M. Mouse" amongst them.

If those who oppose our campaign feel so strongly, why not begin your own. I can assure you that it is considerably more demanding than sitting at home in your underpants, tapping away at a keyboard.

On that note I bow out of this debate; I have rather more pressing things to spend my time on.

Baboonery and All,

I was approached by an extremely aggressive lady to sign the SFFH petition who was then rude when I declined to sign. Strangely it was the same person who approached me to sign the KSFH petition, and again demanded to know my reasons for not wanting to sign.

I also agree that a lot of people are probably signing because they don't know the full 'story' and just want to get away quickly.

Lastly, I would love to have the time to start a petition but I work full time and when I'm not working I'm doing things with my kids (one of which is taking them swimming miles away!).

So call our family selfish but we just want a pool ASAP within 30 mins walking distance and as local tax payers within the budget available.

   
http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/report...-pools.pdf

It seems a pool within a 20mins walk is a target for london and a target largely met by the inner london boroughs, so the extra 10mins walk to upper sydenham is significant.

The map and report is from 2008 (and does not include the new pool at deptford). It shows a corridor of relative pool deprivation running along the west boundary of lewisham, obviously including most of se23.
But looking at other borough's pool provision, it seems 3 or 4 pools is about average - and since lewisham already has 4, I think it reasonable to think that a new pool/reopening FH pools would mean an existing pool will close, as already noted. And as half the 20min coverage of the bridge is in a green area of bromley (and all within Beckenham spa range), there can be little doubt that the bridge would close.

To plug this corridor, the best place for a replacement pool is probably stanstead rd west of brockley rise. This is about 2 miles from ladywell and east dulwich pools and is in range of 'east' sydenham ('west' sydenham is in range of crystal palace pool)

WW is a very poor choice on this 20min criteria as half of its coverage is already in the crystal palace pools range and it covers part of southwark (dulwich woods). Also any coverage east of the railway is invalid as the rails are in our way.

Of course the last 2 points (woods and railway) also apply equally to our existing pools site.

I think its amazing that people are getting up in the middle of the night to post; clearly its leading to some sleepless nights for some.
I hope everyone , including the petitioners and BI sellers (oops I've done it again) manages to have a good Bank Holiday weekend regardless.

I was woken by a recycling box being thrown through a neighbour's window at 3.00am. Wrong house Roz - better luck next time!

Let's face it: the ONLY attractive element of the WW site is LOWER COST. Nobody in their right mind, given a completely free choice, would go for WW over Dartmouth Road, which has all the advantages of prime site, history, proximety to other local amenities, public transport to the door, 5 local primary schools withing walking distance, in a town currently providing no leisure facilities.

Well done LB Lewisham for managing to acquire ?3m to prettify Sydenham High st. Surely in this pre-Olympic time it would not be impossible for a Council with a will, to find extra outside funding to return a swimming facility to an area so deprived of local sporting facilities.

Is always choosing the cheapest option the best way to build for the future ?

Maggie,

Willow Way is not really a lower cost. Both pools would cost between ?12-13m. The difference in affordability comes from Lewisham council saying that they will assume money will come from house building on the existing pools site (approximately 60 flats, with profit figures based on 2007 values), but they are not willing to consider cross-subsidising the Dartmouth Road site by developing Willow Way. If this were included Dartmouth Road would be quite close to Willow Way in affordability.

I also do not think the real issue for most people is affordability, it is timing. Unfortunately by not considering cross-subsidy of the existing pools from development on Willow Way, the council are forcing local people to accept one option.

The feasibility study makes it clear that planning risks associated with the Willow Way site are high. It would not be the first time they pursued one option to the complete exclusion of other risks (the listing of Louise House).

According to all London and national guidelines the pool should be kept where it is, and it would not surprise me if Willow Way Pool and housing on the existing, well positioned, leisure site is significantly harder to achieve than the council are admitting - purely from a planning perspective.

Sorry, Michael. You're right, of course. But what I meant was, LOWER COST to LEWISHAM: sell off a bit more of the family silver to replace it with nickel and tin.

Steve,
That post has made me really angry. Posters are claiming that volunteers, possibly the same one, have been unpleasant to them because they didn't agree, and your automatic reaction is to be offended...BY THE POSTERS. For shame. Take a look at the beam in SFFH's eye.

Blimey, Perryman - page 12 shows the situation in 2012, which is pretty sobering:

http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/report...-pools.pdf

A pool at either DR or WW should sort out west Lewisham - east Lewisham don't appear to be so 'lucky'

Re the maps, it depends what is meant by a swimming pool. Neither Wavelengths or the new addition at Deptford appear on the maps.

What do the London Assembly know about the late delivery of the new leisure centre at Loampit Vale that the council doesn't know?

And Ladywell pool will be dead in the water before the replacement opens?

I think distance of pools used to be based being within 15mins walking distance, this report goes for 20 mins walking distance. I believe the Lewisham Leisure Needs Survey was based on a pool being within 15mins driving time.

By the way in Camberwell did they not recieve ?1-2m from the government to refurb a pool, why not look to see if a similar sum is available to bridge the funding gap at Dartmouth Road?

Re Camverwell
I believe a number of govenment MPs have either first or second homes in Southwark. Also I understand the constituency of the lady who wants to suceed dour Gordon.
What Government clout have we got.
Lewisham should NOT base anything on driving time , this immediately downgrades over half the populace who chose not to populute the borough by driving.