Forest Cid
I am not an incomer ( born 1949 in Sydenham and lived all my life in SE 26 and 23 )
I agree with a lot of your points but not that Willow Way in SE23. This is totally ridiculus. Willow Way is in Sydenham and probably always will be.
As I say , I agree with a lot of your points about WW could be ideal for most people but shame you had to spoil your argument with that comment.
It is like saying Seattle in Canada. It patently is not as is Willow Way not in Forest Hill.

We actually were delivered a questionnaire this year, but for those missed out: online questionnaire link

It is quite a straightforward choice for us (personally). WW is not walking distance; FH pools is.
That, somehow, the council have lost all the money it saved on (non) maintenance of the old pools (including cockroach powder) is their problem and they need to be held to account at the ballot box until swimming returns to FH.

For me, option 1 (FH pool site), does not mean in any way that I accept that the project should be postponed. It is a loaded question. Loaded with problems that are of the council's making. Tough.

PS I sympathise with Crofton Parkers, who get quite a bad deal with both options. The ideal site for the pool is Stanstead Rd as proved before.

brian:

Brian, if you reread forestcid's comment you can plainly see that he is stating the fact that WW is in Forest Hill Ward:

forestcid:

As for me, I'm actually quite sad and very frustrated that due to all the infighting, nitpicking and narrowmindedness/prejudice shown against WW exhibited on this site means that if se23.com is truly representative of the three wards that are being consulted, then we have no hope of getting a pool built. The choice is clear: a pool now in a different location (IT IS NOT THAT FAR AWAY!) or a pool later - if at all.

It's all very well saying "Option 1 but preferably sooner" but that isn't given as an option. If you choose Option 1, you are choosing to delay any more investigation into the viability of a pool until 2012.

(Rant Over!)

Finally, I really don't know how the council will use the data they collect. Will they reduce it down to the votes cast or will they give more weight to the reasons stated as to how likely (or not) one is to use either location?

I am sorry Brian, but I thought I was asking for the Forest Hill pools to rebuilt-not the SE23 pools. If you are campaigning for them to be built, for instance, in Honor Oak then that would be interesting!
I also a agree that it would be silly of me to say that Willow Way is in SE23 and this spoils my previous points, but your comment is based on false premise.
I did not say it was in SE23.
I said it was in the Forest Hill ward.
You can check on the Lewisham Council site.
Also I did not suggest you or all of those holding out for original site rebuild were incomers, simply that some of those who were making that call were voices and faces we had neither heard or seen before the last few years and maybe have other agendas other than the pools.
Would anyone of us who have lived local to the pools for many years say you could find Sydenham in a turning off Dartmouth Road?

Welcome to the site forestcid.

Thank you Perryman.
GIB now!

I accept WW is in Forest Hill Ward but 100% not in Forest Hill.
Perhaps you have not noticed Sydenham Police Station and Sydenham School for Young Ladies , both of whom are in between WW and Forest Hill.

I accept that this is not the main point at issue but an important point .

With regards to the Pool . It would seem the council are saying that WW is the only option for a pool in the near future. So what is the point of wasting money on the questionaire ?

Its always struck me as a little odd that the school just along Dartmouth Road (and before WW) is called Sydenham Girls whilst the one tucked away near Sydenham is called Forest Hill boys, the latter being very evidently to me in Sydenham. Does this mean that FH is ashamed of its girlchild population and vice versa? Or does it mean that when it comes down to it, the identity of the location of any building or business is as it suits at the time?

In responding to the questionnaire there is as I see it an inherent problem in not responding directly to one of the options or attempting to modify the answer, in that it may count as a spoilt or unacceptable vote. The position is that the Council have made their decision on the questionnaire, imperfect and questionable as it may be , but there is only a choice between two admittedly unpopular options and people can either choose to not respond or make their decision. The fact that it may seem illogical or impractical or that there are a number of issues with getting planning on WW is not relevant in the context of the questionnaire. Like it or not, agree with it or not, the agenda and considerations of the Council in this matter is simply not the same as most of the people campaigning to retain the old site and I doubt unless there is a mass public protest , march, sit in, sit out, road blocks, etc, this will be taken on board.
The question as to whether people want a pool sooner rather than later is the key one here. If the council subsequently realise they can't develop the WW site or can't sell Dartmouth Road, then that is something they will have to live with and deal with, but surely they must be credited with having some savvy. I know mistakes have been made and there are always a range of competency levels in any organisation but why would they embark on a course of action which they simply cannot achieve, ie planning on WW? Is this really Bull(ock) headishness wagging the dog?

Rosemary
Noone is saying that a pool on Willow Way cannot be achieved. Simply that it is not as in their control as they imply. I see no point in their getting people to support an option for a new pool on the basis that it can be delivered simply and easily when this is not the case. Its not going to look great if they do run into difficulty on this one in due course, although I expect they will blame the 'planning system' which it is perfectly obvious already is a potential problem here. The Council themselves acknowledged in the Mayor and Cabinet Report in March that the pool on the pools site is by far the easiest to achieve in planning terms. But no mention of any of these issues in the consultation.....

As far as I know they have not actually even considered the potential of live work on Willow Way and a pool on the pools site in these options?

They appeared to stop doing work on the options at the time of the last mayor and cabinet report and don't seem at the moment to be interested in being honest about either of them?

Savvy is not the issue, blinkered is.

Michael

Are you yet able to show us the figures on which this belief is based? Do you believe that Lewisham Council will accept them?

Otherwise, I see no grounds for not accepting their view that option 1 will involve at best a delay and at worst no new pool at all. Half a loaf is better than no bread (although in the present economic climate, I reckon we shall be lucky to get half a loaf!)

I won't respond to the petty personal abuse about what Brian thinks I may or may not have noticed in and around Forest Hill but what have noticed is that there is and has been historically a real element of snobbery between SE23 and SE26.
I remember someone who had moved to a road off Thorpewood Ave being put down by a Horniman's resident because they had the wrong postcode to claim they lived in Forest Hill. This attitude is reflected in many-not all- of the keep the pools in SE23 points placed here. Does it really matter if it is on the original site or one bus stop further up the road? How much fuss would there be from SE23 if it were placed, say, near Mayo Park? A bigger distance away than WW from the original site but still in SE23?
I don't mind if it is SE23 or SE26 as long as is reasonably close to the FH site and it is built now.

Someone from either side may like to explain how elected representatives for Forest Hill took votes from people in both SE26 and SE23 and yet resorted to misguiding people about the proposed site of the pool? Suggesting it would be much further away than was proposed.

When we are looking for votes in SE26 -Oh we are all part of the Forest Hill community!
Now we're looking from support from another electorate- Oh SE26, you don't count as Forest Hill anymore.

Robin,
I do not wish to put any figures in the public domain yet about potential cross-subsidies from live/work units on Willow Way as I am in the first stages of submitting a planning application for such a development. This is only part of the way to close the funding gap, the other main way being the fact that building costs have fallen substantially over the last year and ?7.5m cash in hand goes a lot further than it did when Lewisham last offered a tender for a large building project.

But with housing on the Dartmouth Road site the council are willing to wait for better market conditions before building housing on the site to cross subsidise the Willow Way pool. Unfortunately the council have not fully explored the live/work options for the site, and since such a development would be more commercially viable than the pools, and would create more jobs, it is contrary to their own policy EMP3.

There are still some big questions over the funding of Willow Way which the council are pretending do not exist. The funding gap in the February feasibility study is closed by building 60 flats on Dartmouth Road all for market housing. In reality at least 35%-50% (or possibly 100%) of this development is likely to be social housing, which would reduce the cross-subsidy.

What is surprising is the absence of detail in the consultation form. It does not say how many houses will be build on the existing pools site to fund the pool in Willow Way, nor does it provide details of the finances, to see these you need to read the report to major and cabinet from February.

I can understand why most people completing this consultation will vote for option 2, but you should make it clear in your comments which you believe is the best location for swimming, not just which delivers swimming fastest. That way if I am able to prove that Dartmouth Road is an economically viable solution the council will be able to build a pool in the best position, rather than just make sure they start building before the next election.

Brian:

I've read enough of your posts to know that talking about monitoring the representativeness of consultation responses (if only to give proof against the kind of accusations Roz was making previously about other sources of local opinion) will only entrench your anti-pc opinions - but regarding "re-instating Aparteid" (sic)

Don't throw that term around

(and learn to spell it properly!)

It is an insult to those who had to suffer it for real, and there are quite enough people more well-meaning than yourself who appear to think it's okay to use it as a way of describing any division they happen not to approve of. I am heartily fed-up with running into people of my own age and older (who therefore ought to know better), from varying ethnic backgrounds, who have such short memories that they have forgotten that Apartheid meant suffering and humiliation on a daily basis for some 30 million odd people on a scale they could not begin to imagine. I do not believe that council equal opps forms where you are given the right to refuse the question are anywhere near the same league of 'oppression' as being unable to live with your own family for most of the year due to restrictive pass laws, or running the risk of jail for kissing someone in your own home.

Contary Mary
I am at a loss for words.
I am and always have been totally against Aparteid. That is why I object to the councils efforts to insist we are catergorised by race rather than residents. It is the council at fault here , not me.
Surely I am not alone in objecting to filling in a form about my race when the issue at hand has no connection whatever.
I really do not see the relevance of one's ethnic background to the question at hand.
Cannot believe how my words have been twisted. It is the council at fault not me.

When I said WW 100% that was an historical fact. However I totally agree that the good people of Sydenham should equally be questioned on this matter.

Again does anyone know the cost of this exercise in futile democracy ( as only one answer , WW , would get a result ).

Well I'm hoping that people discard the 'dont vote for this option' directions, ignore the misaligned circles on a incorrectly scaled map and just chose which option they prefer.

The Mayor changes his mind on this issue annually so if SE23 decided that yes, we do still want the pool in Forest Hill, and continue to apply pressure, then I think it unlikely he will persist with the extraordinary idea that we no longer (after 100 years) can afford to provide basic swimming facilities in Forest Hill.

Couldn't agree with you more, Perryman.

Brian, I suggest you read previous posts by baboobery and roz. It's quite clear what the reasons are for such a question. Indeed, the issue has been explained by several people several times previously on this very thread.

Well, at the last count 5,426 people have signed the petition to keep swimming in Forest Hill.

They have signed a petition which calls on the Mayor of Lewisham to replace the Victorian swimming pools on Dartmouth Road while retaining the frontage block and asks the Council to keep swimming on the present site as 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.

5,426 people would like the Mayor and Council to be aware of their preference.

Quetta

Brian
You should not be suprised that your words get twisted as it is a stock in trade in such campaigns and practiced by both sides. How many of those five thousand people who signed the petition to keep the pool in FH were told the other option would be to have it built all the way down in Sydenham?

Forestcid,
Contrary to popular belief, most people signing the petition did so of their own free will, and not in their blood - extracted from them by a pack of ferocious middle-aged ladies after treatment that would make the Bush regime wince.

Have a look at the wording of the petition on the website: http://keepswimming.notlong.com/ signed by over 400 people out of the 5000. It was made clear that the other intended site is in Willow Way, in Sydenham. I know there are some people who believe that Willow Way is in Forest Hill because it is in the ward, but do the same people claim that platform 2 at Forest Hill station is not in Forest Hill because it is in Perry Vale ward?

The leaflet that campaigners were giving out also makes it clear why the Willow way site is opposed and this is not because the postcode is wrong. You can read the leaflet at http://sites.google.com/site/ksfhcg/ and more detail about the Willow Way site at http://sites.google.com/site/ksfhcg/what...willow-way

The idea that this is a fight between Sydenham and Forest Hill is completely spurious, and this is not the argument made by the petition. Most people in the Sydenham Society recognise that Willow Way is a poor choice for a pool and will harm the local area, that appeared to be the overwhelming opinion at the AGM a few weeks ago.

What does matter is moving the pool out of the defined town centre and onto the edge of an industrial estate, against all relevant national, regional, and local planning guidance. There is a reason that such advice exists and that is to get good leisure facilities in good locations for the local community, not another second best option - just like The Bridge in Lower Sydenham.

Michael,
The insults have to stop. That woman was rude to me. Live with it.