The pool design, size etc would have been less compromised if the Sydenham Society hadn't muscled its way to ensuring that the facade was retained. A new build would have produced a better and less costly outcome.
, something which has always beggared belief, as well of course as that particularly vexatious and inappropriate listing of Louise House. I think its amazing in local democracy terms that an amenity society in an area adjacent can have so
much influence on the outcome of another community's amenity. The potential for a larger and
more comprehensive new build development incorporating Louise House was lost at an early stage. I'm glad that new and exciting bids are coming through for Louise House and can't wait to see it up and running as a sustainable venture especially given the immense constraints and costs that
Listing incurs.

I thought keeping the existing fascade was an excellent solution and totally agree with rshdunlop's post that the landscaping does work well and opens up that section of the street. It would have been a massive shame to loose part of our local history and I'm glad it has been preserved. I recall the petitions, consultation by the council on different options etc. etc. and dont see the result as a failure of local democracy, but rather the opposite. Clearly you cannot keep everyone happy.

Well yes, the opportunity was lost when Lewisham decided to build the new pools in Willow Way and not Dartmouth Road. And then those pesky local societies and busybodies campaigned to get the pools built on Dartmouth Road after all.

Democracy is such a pain, isn't it? Life would be so much easier if we lived in a dictatorship. And then we wouldn't have to waste time expressing our views on fora such as this because we wouldn't have freedom of speech.

Roz, like you, I find the issue of the pools "beggars belief". Yes, I'm amazed as well!

Amazed that anyone could take such a cavalier attitude to the potential irretrievable loss of the area's local history. I positively welcome the Sydenham's Soc's muscle in contributing their expertise to ensure that these three (together with the Library) Victorian civic buildings aren't bulldozed in the so-called name of modernism. How wrong we've been in the past (see the programme on Deptford High Street - thread here).

Thanks, Blushingsnail, I'd forgotten that there was an alternative proposal, one which would have provided an opportunity to provide all the modern facilities at a lower cost by throwing up an easy "shed", rather than having to really think about the design and tieing it in with the existing facade and producing, in the end, a really strong finished product.

As for poor Louise House, I'm sure its time will come, when the economic good times start to roll again (as I'm sure they will in this cyclical world) and then someone, somewhere, will be grateful that local people stood in the way of the bulldozers.

This post was last modified: 09-06-2012 04:27 PM by shzl400.

I agree with Roz. Now that the building is nearly completed and visible from the road, the full absurdity of the architectural compromise is revealed. This is not the Council’s fault, except in that they allowed themselves to be controlled by a group of people, many of whom do not live in Forest Hill, who believed they knew what was best for all of us. Being hijacked by a vocal minority is not democracy.
I do not think I have read anywhere a serious discussion of the architectural merit of Forest Hill pools. The argument that they are Victorian and therefore ought to be preserved is so bizarre that I don’t think anyone actually said it. It is not clear what other arguments there were in its favour, except that some people like it. The Victorians constructed many great buildings but Forest Hill pools is not one of them. At best it is an awkward and badly proportioned structure, at worst (my own view) very ugly indeed. However, those who knew better decided it must stay.
The resulting compromise does not comply with any of the basic principles of architecture: unity, harmony, fitness for purpose and appropriateness for the site. The designers have not done a bad job on the basis of an impossible brief. If the meddlers had not won the day, we could have had a beautiful and adventurous new building, one which truly enhanced our townscape and would have been of an appropriate size, as it is clear the new building will be inadequate to meet demand. We will all have to live with this strange and unsuitable compromise.

Why do you think the new pools would have been beautiful?

Lewisham isn't, Wavelengths isn't, The Bridge isn't, Downham isn't. There was no design, they were going to demolish Forest Hill pools without a design for a new pools. So to suggest that Lewisham were going to break tradition and actually create a beautiful bit of architecture for the first time in their history is stretching the truth a tad.

Was it really just the Sydenham Society behind the campaign to save the pools? I seem to recall quite a few residents of Forest hIll being behind it.

Anyway, it's done now. I think the new buildings and landscaping are handsome and compliment the existing (and rather beautiful buildings) well. Plus Dartmouth Road looks like it's found a new lease of life even before the pools had opened.

What should be debated here is what the services should be when the pools open and how it can serve the general public.

That's the problem. Some people can only imagine the past, not the future. And do you really mean compliment?

Melissa, I am so glad to read your post, put so much better than I could have done. I am glad the pools have finally come into being after so many years and with even more years of being open then shut, then open and shut again, which has been the case since the mid 80's. However I do feel angry at the compromise that proved necessary and yes I think everyone has made the best of the circumstances from a design and construction point of view however the history will always be a sore point with me as will the fact that there was an opportunity to get something a bit different and that has been lost. I am aware of the input of local people who have worked hard to get the result we have now and applaud them but still feel aggrieved at the pressure from others to retain the frontage which is as far as I am concerned downright ugly and really just looks silly. Retaining our heritage has its merits but commonsense needs to be applied and in some cases, as Melissa has pointed out, this was never a great example of Victorian architecture, so why retain it at the expense of something better. Comments have been made about the library however as far as I am aware no one ever contemplated knocking it down. Louise House needed to be knocked down and integrated into a wider pools development containing soft play, and all the other things that people expect and need of a modern day but land hungry leisure space.

The Syd Soc were behind the move to get Louise House listed which at the time had the potential to scupper the entire proposal as it reduced the funding package for the pools scheme. This is what led to moves to propose Willow Way as an alternative location for affordability reasons. A concerted local campaign brought the pools back to Dartmouth Road but throughout all of this the public sector cuts began to bite and therefore this was a considerable gamble. The fact that funding was retained and the pools built at all was the result of considerable effort of the Council, something which they seem to have got little credit for. We could well have been in the position right now of not having any due to the delay in the procurement. The only criticism I have of the Council is that it failed to differentiate between 'stakeholding ' groups. Not all groups are equal when it comes to local decision making especially when you have two different amenity societies exerting influence which often didnt concur. Thats what I mean about issues with democratic decision making. There needs to be a review of how stakeholding groups are made up and who exactly they represent. My view remains that the continuing interest of the Syd Soc in Forest Hill interests is no longer appropriate. This is the group of people who sat in a FHS AGM some years ago and argued to a member of a government body for the abolition of all parking in the Forest Hill station car park. Sorry, Syd Soc, what right do you think you have to do this? When I tried to intervene in the discussion, I as a Forest Hill resident for 25 years, was practically told to shut up.
So thats the inherent democracy of amenity societies for you. I dont think we should underestimate their power and influence; their actions suit most people most of the time but as in the example above, they can have the potential to exert some strange influences where they shouldnt be permitted to do so. The consequent 'bring the pools back to Dartmouth Road campaign ' was different as it widened the decison group. The decision to retain the pools frontage was the result of the influence of a much smaller group of people.
There needs to be an appropriate weighting and balancing of stakeholder interests, not allowing a group in another area to have by virtue of their long establishment and organisational capacity and slickness.

We now have a stakeholder group set up for Louise House which has far as I can see is made up of absolutely anyone who wants to express interest in it including businesses from some way away who claim to be potential bidders. It is not appropriate for potential bidders to claim stakeholder interest and influence. That is a clear conflict of interest. The Council seems incapable of addressing this but from a legal perspective, it must surely attempt to do so.
I am keen to see Louise House have a sustainable future but do not want the similar consultation problems that impacted on the pools impacting there also. This is a Forest Hill building and as a Forest Hil resident I expect the Council to prioritise the interests of a defined locality not open the debate to all comers so that the more vocal and experienced can exert greater influence.

The other fact is, there was never any question of the Council throwing up a 'shed'. The Council had made it clear for some time of its wish to set up and involve a stakeholder group- the same group that influenced the new build portion to the rear. So thats no argument therefore.

PS We have used the Bridge regularly for the last few years. It sure ain't pretty but its not horrendous and it certainly does offer a lot of amenity, classes, and services. Dulwich on the other hand looks great but offers very little by all accounts. There is only one pool, ( clearly we are fortunate to have two at FH) which young children can't use as they can't stand up even at the shallow end until they are arond 1.5m so its difficult to teach young kids to swim there without a lot of parental support ( or flotation aids) until the children can tread water. The pool viewing area is tiny. Overall its great to have a pool that looks so fantastic but would seem that the final offer doesnt really justify the extent of the financial investment and that it barely meets current demand.

Of course I am glad that we will soon have swimming pools and some leisure facilities, and of course we should discuss how best to use the rather limited opportunities offered by the new building.
But I am angry that it is all so much less good than it could be because the decision making process was badly handled.

If you consult people you will of course not please all of them. But if you do consult you should make it clear from the start how the decision will ultimately be made. If you intend to give priority to the views of amenity groups then you should say that from the start and then everyone would know where they are even if they do not like it.

As it is, as Roz says, many people who live locally feel they were elbowed out of the process, that others who do not live here had too much influence, and that the listing of Louise House was done by an unrepresentative and unelected few, to the detriment of the rebuilding project and the community as a whole.

I hope that at least in the case of Louise House the Council will set up a consultation and decision making process that is clear to everyone and fair to those who live in Forest Hill

I live across the road from the pools, and if anyone has actually noticed not a lot of restoration has been completed on the original frontage and to my eye looks pretty terrible. All the windows are modern (practical) pvc type windows (although they weren't very special before), the brick decorations near the top have not been repaired in all places. It has not been restored to anywhere near the level of quality that the library experienced.
I have mixed views on whether keeping the frontage was a good idea, I like the history and keeping in in tone with the library but was concerned how practical it would be to upkeep the building and to provide all the facilities that would be needed. Which meant too much compromise, in the end I felt they should have gone with a entirely new building.
I'm just looking forward to going for a swim.

I'm so pleased they've managed to blend old and new together without destroying two of the few decent historical buildings Forest Hill has. I'm glad Sydenham Soc were able to get the plans changed and we can keep some of the original charaqcter of forest hill. Sure there are better examples of Victorian archtecture but if you look around Forest Hill at the more 'modern' attempts (look at the flats next to the Leisure centre) they are usually dreadful. The initial plans for the pools were for a sprawling megolith with a block of high rise flats to boot. No doubt they'd have created a few retail outlets underneath for another nail bar/late night barbers/fried chicken shop too. If it wasn't for those trying to keep a bit of the Victorian character of Forest Hill, the Library would now be sitting on its own like Cinderella surrounded by hideously ugly sisters. For those who would rather not keep our heritage, perhaps you might consider a move to Milton Keynes?

We will continue to disagree about the architecture.

The key fact is that the facility itself is not as good as it could have been.

The people who campaigned for the current solution and the listing of Louise House now seem to be trying to evade their responsibility by saying that's all over and we should now move on to other discussions.

Well we should. And we should give Fusion a chance to make the centre succeed. But that is likely to be more difficult than it need have been. And that's because of the interference of an unrepresentative few.

As my name states (!) I live within meters of the new pool..and whilst I agree some of the refurbishment work on the old building does not look as though it is up to scratch.. I am really pleased with the fact that the old building has been retained! It forms part of that line of Victorian utilitarian/domestic architecture and with its old red bricks, forms part of a series of pools built across London in the Victorian period to showcase their new public amenities. It is such a shame that we are losing them so rapidly, see link below, as I think they're all beautiful buildings. Cant believe someone would want to tear it down

Our own pools are on there as it goes!

http://www.derelictlondon.com/pools.htm

...and sadly I live in those 'dreadful' flats next to the leisure centre.. and would tend to agree architecturally!

I had not previously heard this idea that the design for the pools was imposed on us from outside. I have always seen this as a victory for local democracy.

Personally, I think what they have built is terrific. But then, for me "adventurous", in terms of architecture, just means "ghastly". I can see how someone with different feelings about architecture would disagree, but I'm not convinced that the thing was done undemocratically.

A brief summary of the options provided since 2006 closure:

Initially the plan was for refurbishment. This was abandoned in 2007 when the structural showed the pools were beyond repair.

2008 consultation on three options:
1. Demolish pools and Louise House and build one pool with no housing on the site
2. Demolish pools and Louise House and build two pools with limited gym and community space, and 30 flats
3. Demolish pools and Louise House and build two pools with maximum community space and 7 storey block including 60 flats

The community was clearly meant to select option 2. But there was a sizeable group that rejected any demolition of the frontage of the pool and Louise House.

After the listing of Louise House we were consulted on two options in 2009:
1. The smaller two pool option with no housing and preserving the frontage, but a £3m funding shortfall that the council could not commit to finding even for a 2015 build date
2. A larger complex with two pools and maximum community space build in Willow Way, funded by housing on the pools and Louise House site

Most people favoured the pool on the existing site, but many were tempted by the 'jam today' option rather than the 'nothing in the future' option. Fortunately the mayor found the extra money in the budget and the two pool solution was possible in the 2012 time frame.

Without five storeys of housing above the pool it is unlikely that significant additional facilities would have been built, even with the inclusion of the site of Louise House.

We now have a pool that is almost complete and looks great. The new build (or old build, depending on your perspective) does not stick out like a sore thumb, they appear to integrate well.

And we also have an empty building that the council want to be of value as a community asset. This could be services that compliment the pool, the library, or it could be something completely different - perhaps a theatre, music school, small start up business space or art gallery. This is a real opportunity for the whole community, including those who live in SE26 as well as SE23.

Thanks, Michael, for such a clear re-cap of how we got to where we are today.

Does anyone know what was done, if anything, with the Willow Way site in the end?

The council leased the Willow Way site to a company that sounded like it had interesting plans for developing the site. Currently it appears to be being used as a church, although that would be against planning permission for the site.

The Willow Way site now appears to be vacant again.

But more importantly the opening date for the pools has been announced as Monday 9th July.

Well done to the builders and everybody else for completing this ahead of schedule and ahead of the Olympics. Forest Hill will have the newest pool in Britain going into London Olympics.

I can't wait to jump in.