There are significantly more plans available in the full report, which is available at http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/CouncilAndDem...yStudy.htm which is directly accessible from the summary page http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/CouncilAndDem...HillPools/

These more detailed plans give a better idea of how the buildings would be used.

In announcing the demolition of the pools and Louise House wasn't this to facilitate a better view of the library from the station end?

I may be wrong but is the proposed building further forward than the existing buildings and infront of the library? As the line of the building follows the curve of the road won't the library be blocked from view till the last moment?

Any idea when the new build (option 1-3) is to start and finish? It would be good to have a swimming pool/gym back at Dartmouth Road. I think the local shops on Dartmouth Road have suffered since the closure of the pools.

I think option 1 is best of the bunch? Having more usable open space would be good for locals?

Options 2 and 3 are horrible. Have a look at the more detailed plans via the links posted above.

It's a shame that the architects involved were not allowed to even contemplate keeping the facades of the existing buildings. Tis options isn't even mentioned in these documents, so therefore was outside of their brief.

Obviously the council know a lot more about architecture and conserving old buildings and converting them than the architects (sarcastic comment).

Goodbye Forest Hill, Hello Milton Keynes.

So utterly depressing isn't it? This is supposed to be a community facility and here we are (the active members of our community) saying how awful we think these plans are! who listens? No one. That's local democracy.

The council obviously see an opportunity to stuff a load of social housing where an amenity once stood and knock down two of the nicest and most historic buildings in Forest Hill into the bargain. I bet the only reason they're not knocking down the Library to replace it with a MegaBowl is because they spent so much renovating it.

It's the disingenuous way the council goes about this that really angers me. Just look at the language they use for options 1&3:

Option 1: words like: smaller, basic, limited
Option 2: words like: feature building, local landmark, large, extensive

Dear Mr Smith, would you like extensive or basic leisure facilities? how would you like a local landmark (ie unimaginative block of flats)? can we have your votes please for Steve Bullock Mayor of Lewisham (no).

If we dont like it then let's go and tell them. Times and dates are posted earlier in this thread. I shall be there on Fri evening at about 6pm. Will rope NewForest into it if he is around.

i vote no to b*****k and no to labour i have done for so long, they think they have all the power and they feel they can do as they like. just look around you.

just as i feared a building that is dead before it arrives, i did hope that the architects would be clever about this but hey what a surprise, who are the architects?

none of these options work for this reason, they are proposing a generic looking building that turns its back on the community, that is a great way to get us on side after taking down a local icon of its time.

what i can gather is a part timber clad and part concrete render building, this a real shame, i am so so disappointed. where are the historical elements?

the more of us that turn up to complain the stronger our voice, they must revise the plans to respect the community, why are they including shops and cafes when we have great facilities like that here already? i cant believe these idiots.

ok i got to stop ranting, they look like they have included some trees

BE THERE FOR THE CONSULTATION AND TELL THEM EXACTLY WHAT YOU DONT AGREE WITH, YOU CAN CHANGE THIS. this friday and saturday.

They'll just do what they want anyway. After all, they'll just go around the estates asking if the residents want extensive facilities and a local landmark or basic, limited facilities with an innovative shooting up gallery for the local druggies.....

The first stage of our campaign "No Demolition Without Designs" is now complete (and that petition is now closed). The Council has undertaken not to demolish before September. During the course of the campaign we obtained signatures from 951 people. Thank you to everyone who gave their support, we seem to have won at least a small breathing space.

However, all of the Council's published designs involve demolition of all of the heritage buildings on the site. A new campaign, "Save the Face of Forest Hill", is being launched with the aim of preventing the Council from demolishing Louise House and the Superintendent's Block of the Pools at all: they should be included in plans for the new pools.

To express your support, please visit http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/save...-hill.html

Thank you.

thats positive... they redesigned sainsbury's after complaints about the design.

express you opinion. it is great in numbers.

I'll be there Londondrz

Having followed Michael's link above, I think that Option 2 is the least worst of the proposed options as it provides two pools, and some dry facilities. However....

• All options turn their back on the library and do not open up the promised new vistas. I would have preferred to see a square created that could act as a venue between the library and the pool
• Do we need the provision of fitness facilities over sports hall or community space (There are already three gyms around here that I can think of. David's Rd, Saints & Sinners, LA Fitness)
• Foyer in Option 2 is uninspiring
• Separate staff required for cafe and reception, so cafe will never be open (example: The Bridge)
• Architects have not employed 'best practice' in the changing village
  
  • Toilets and showers should be placed so that you are required to pass them before entering the pool area
  • Lockers should be where they can be monitored fulltime to avoid vandalism
  • No ability to split changing area by gender
  • Need separate entrance to Learner pool
    
• Area above Learner Pool / Plant is not exploited for community use
• Split of Residential looks wrong to me 10x 1Bed, 16x 2Bed, 2x 3Bed. We have already seen that 1 Bed units do not sell well here. If Lewisham want to raise ?2.5M from housing, then they need a sale price of roughly ?5M; something like 4x 1Bed, 20x 2Bed, 2x 3Bed would sell better. I'd like to see more 3Bed to encourage more families, but they do not command the necessary premium
• Option 3 adds a lot of housing for little (if any) benefit. We get a larger fitness suite, an odd-shaped corridor they mockingly call 'community space', a retail unit and a creche.
• Option 1 provides everything we need, but we had two pools before and I'd fight for two pools again.
• I spoke to some providers of sports facilities in March and they said that we should be able to get a sports hall and pool facility for ?10M. We're not getting value for money.
  

There were various Victorian conservation architects lurking around the forums a while ago. Did they come up with some proposal of how to save the Superintendants' block? My memory of the block is as a bare, unwelcoming and impractical space. I'm sure it could be revamped, but expect it would take large amounts of money and the front would still be inaccessible for disabled folk. Convince me otherwise please; Capita's proposal for a new pool hall behind the original facade looked reasonable from the outside, but did not work inside.

The Council's consultation on this is taking place between 3pm and 7pm on Friday 18th July and between 9am and 2pm on Saturday 19th July in Forest Hill Town Centre (i.e. in front of the train station).

Save the Face of Forest Hill are looking for people to help with petition signing. The petition can also be found at http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/save...-hill.html

If you can help, please send me a private message.

Tim Walder

re Clissold Pools - i was in the pool there 2 weeks ago, and it seemed pretty open to me!
and it is fantastic, by the way.

Indeed.

It cost ?32 million, had to close for four years and then had a further ?13 million spent on it before it re-opened last year.

It was supposed to open in 1999 and cost ?7 million.

The following posting has appeared on the Sydenham Town website -and it's content is spot on, I think:
"I've just received through my door in Bishopsthorpe Rd a folded over white leaflet which I was just about to throw in the recycling bin when, on opening, I discover that it is the consultation 'alert' for the redevelopment of Forest Hill Pools (ie the demolition of Louise House and the Victorian pools complex). I would have expected that the views of the public on such a significant development would have been sought via at least a 4-page A4 document (of the type Lewisham have previously circulated to discover views on Sydenham Road regeneration, controlled parking zones etc). An A4 leaflet in colour would have given the Council the chance to print the 3 options for redevelopment on offer - thus gaining the widest set of views, not confining the response to those who are online and/or can visit Forest Hill library over the next two weeks. Having looked at the options online my response is to complete the questionnaire and reject them all - as other posters on this site have said, the proposed buildings are bland, functional blocks which will bring Milton Keynes to Forest Hill. I urge everyone concerned to sign the petition which has been set up demanding the retention of the Victorian buildings. It is at this link:..."
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/save...-hill.html

Interestingly a flyer being handed out at the station tonight said that the Mayor would also be at the Station tomorrow evening (between 5.30 and 6.00pm) with train company representatives to talk about the ticket barriers. Hopefully he will also get tied into the Pools Consultation and at least find out for himself what a representative section of the community think about it.....with any luck this will include positive comments about the need for a high quality new pool within the foreseeable future, as well as the negative comments.........?

i completely agree, if we express only negative points the council may retract to there little hole but if we say that to produce a great set of needed facilities is good for there legacy, they would be more open to criticism and prepared to redraw, this is the same with the architects.

See you there in the next hour or two?

They've got pretty little models and video and everything!

I got a cup of tea, but no biscuit.

I spoke with the architect at length and he was very helpful, and a nice chap. No horns or anything.

There is a fantastic video - a fly through of option 3, and great models of all 3 options.

I particularly like the picture of the proposed zebra crossing across Dartmouth Rd.

All very impressive - if only they'd offered me a biscuit.

Hats off to the incensed lady who took to the stage to give us all a piece of her mind and had to be talked down.
And every one of them words rang true, and glowed like burnin' coal.

I'm just off to do a stint in the station car-park, behind the public loos, with a petition that says:

People who agree with these sentiments are welcome to come and sign and, perhaps, discuss why some of us believe that these buildings are worth saving. Alternatively, you can sign online at:
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/save...-hill.html

For those who may be unaware, here again is a summary of the historic background of the whole site which I hope explains why I and others believe we have something unique in Forest Hill which should be cherished and preserved:

Holy Trinity Schools (1874), Forest Hill Pools (1885), Girls' Industrial Home (Louise House, 1890) and Forest Hill Library (1901) were built on a single large field, known as glebe land, that was awarded to the Vicar of Lewisham on the enclosure of Sydenham Common, in 1819. "Enclosure", incidentally, was a device by which those who already owned land in the parish were awarded plots of ancient common land which they fenced, to keep out "trespassers". The losers were those who owned no land, but had managed to scrape a living from the common.

This field, popularly known as Vicar's Field, was let by the vicar as allotments to those who had lost their right to graze animals, gather wood, catch game etc. on the common. Over time, and in response to pressure from local groups, the vicar made parts of this large field available for purposes that were considered socially valuable.

The four buildings that cover the Dartmouth Road frontage of this field offer a vivid picture of late Victorian social attitudes: the schools offered education, particularly in the principles of the Established Church; the pools offered cleanliness (people brought their washing to be cleaned in the laundry in the basement, and there were private slipper baths) and healthy exercise; the Industrial Home gave training to "the deserving poor" to keep them from a life of crime and, of course, there was the library. In both the school and the pools the sexes were kept firmly apart. Boys and girls attending the school had separate entrances, playgrounds and classrooms. The pools also had separate male and female entrances, with separate ticket offices, pools and slipper baths for first and second class swimmers. Much of the evidence for these social divisions still survives in the pools, and would be lost with total demolition.

Two of these buildings (the school and library) are listed grade two and two may soon be demolished. I believe that such a well preserved group of buildings which, until recently, were all still used for their original or similar functions, is unique in London, if not the country and they should be preserved intact.