I'm new to the forum, but have been logging on as a guest for a while now.

Can someone explain what is so wonderful about the pool building, other than the fact that it's old and Victorian? I stood in front of it pondering why you guys want to keep it. I can see why EH didn't list it. I frankly cannot see why this shockingly bad example of Victorian facadism should remain.

If you force the council to retain the building, and Forest Hill doesn't get a pool and other community facilities, you will have a lot of explaining to do to my 5 year old son and other young families in the area.

Why should the council spend more public money on saving a building that English Heritage does not deem worthy of listing, when there are people sleeping rough and existing in poverty in our borough? I think we're extremely lucky to be offered these new facilities at all.

Its interesting that the 'anti' lobby is more vocal than those that are in favour of the new pools, but I guess that's always the case. It does give a false impression of local feeling though. A majority of people I know in FH want the new pools for their children to learn to swim safely and in comfort - not in a Victorian shed!

Ironically, I know what the Victorians would have done in this situation. They wouldn't have given a second thought to bulldozing the redundant and building something new. They kept what was practical, useful and (sometimes) beautiful from previous generations, but embraced the new.

Welcome Jacksprat,

Plenty of people who want the pools quickly renovated and actually open have children and are just as inconvenienced by this. It is just we are less vocal.

On the homeless, if the council's position was that the whole site, (library included) was to be cleared for affordable/council housing/housing associations for desperate families and the homeless, then morally there can be no argument.

However the housing in option 2 and 3 is designed to attract the highest price, and the wealthiest purchasers.
Option 2 is arranged as 2 small blocks actually avoiding the threshold for providing affordable housing.
Option 3 will be above the threshold but as the gateway building is part of the centre, I suspect the council will be able to claim special circumstances.

Incidentally, these are not so much options as stages.
Worst case if 'option' 1 was forced on us, there is nothing stopping the council putting up flats on the green square and creating their gateway building at a later date. The main feature that cannot be added later is the learner pool.

I have tried, both in this forum and elsewhere. Clearly I've failed.

Actually, I don't think you can. This is the conclusion of the EH inspector's report:
"Forest Hill Baths is of interest as a surviving example of an 1880s covered public bath complex, which retains its pools and some other features. They also make a positive contribution to the streetscape... However, their architectural interest is limited in comparison to contemporary listed baths... It is not of sufficient special architectural interest in a national context (my bold) to fulfil the criteria for listing."

There are several references scattered throughout the report to the pools' positive contribution to the streetscape, and their interest, both social and architectural. It was only when considered in a national context that they didn't warrant listing.

In four hours today we approached over seventy people as they came away from the Council's exhibition. Forty eight were happy to sign the petition. Others took a leaflet and said they would sign online. Only three opposed the petition and supported total demolition of the pools. It is not that the "Anti-lobby" is more vocal, merely more numerous.

That is what we all want. Do look more closely at the wording of the petition, and the reference to "the pools frontage block".

To be honest although I remember the Pools well as I child , and was taught to swim there in 57 by a lady with pot marked legs and sounding like she belonged to the SS , I cannot see the building will be much missed.
Take a look at the outside. I am sure the costs of restoration would be very high.Surely not all old buildings need to be retained just because they are old and I believe they are only Edwardian but I could be wrong.
I voted for Option 2. I appreciate that involves some new housing but less than option 3. I cannot agree with the earlier posting calling for more council housing. I would think Forest Hill has more than its fair share already. I appreciate private market not good at present but could be a market for them if price not to high. The land , a major cost , would be sold by LBC , so they have a say in ultimate selling price.
I did object to the back page of the form to returned and refused to fill it in

I had a look at the 'exhibition' yesterday. All very glossy with personnel there to sell the concept to us sceptics. I was disappointed but not suprised by the design and after having had a talk to one staff member there, was joined by a chap who proclaimed that the designs I disliked were his fault as he was one of the architects. He pointed out that the negatives always make more noise than the positives, and that people always resist change. I suggested he read up the comments on this forum but he reckoned that they would not really be representative of everyone in FH...
As the final decision rests with the Mayor, and he has already committed to bulldozing Louise House, I left feeling rather hopeless about it all

Interesting to see that the perspective on the illustrations was distorted. Reminded me of a recent planning application, where the developer managed to disguise the true dimensions, bulk and impact on the streetscape. Perhaps LBL learned from this, or more likely this is what architects do as a matter of course (any architects out there?!)

Jacksprat made a comment about the benefits of keeping the Victorian building, and that he/she failed to see any.

Apart from the social history, which Steve Grindlay kindly points out in this chain, from my point of view, the building is made of a beautiful red brick that has lasted over 100 years. New builds are rarely built to this level of quality or design. The new structure is unlikely to last anywhere near as long, or stay in such fine form. Of course the current building looks delapidated, but that's because the council is not looking after it.

The argument about homelessness is irrelevant. This is not an issue about homelessness but about quality of life - in terms of both health and leisure - and the allocation of fund for this purpose. If you want to feel guilty that our taxes are being spent on leisure facilities, then by all means campaign against the billions being wasted (sorry spent) on the Olypmic games 2012! Did you see the legacy of the Athens stadium in the paper yesterday - such a sorry sight.

In discussion with one of the architects outside the station the other day, I questioned the 'public square' being where they've put it, rather than being a link with the library - a public square between public buildings, you understand.

The location was justified as being part of a regeneration project and new 'gateway' approach to Forest Hill - also included in this thinking was the 'Landmark building' block of flats.

My interest is in this 'regeneration' and 'gateway' thinking. On the basis of regeneration, shouldn't Salcombe House be bulldozed along with The Victorian pools? With apologies to residents of Salcombe House (which I understand is part of an estate), it hardly merits retention, in architectural terms, as part of a regeneration plan.

Is there a regeneration plan, or have I been misled..?

I support Jacksprat re: demolition of the old building. I admit it is a generalisation, the 'keep it because it is old' mentality is one of the reasons London has third world infrastructure - because major developments take years through public consultation and enquiry e.g. Thameslink '2000', Peckham-Camden tram, Crossrail, etc trying to satisfy objectors who can't see the cost/pain vs benefit equation.

It is rather disingenuous to compare these complex cross-London transport projects with a small, contained development in Forest Hill. And why did you put "keep it because it is old" in quotation marks. Who were you quoting, because I can't remember anyone else saying that? There are better reasons for keeping it.

Forest Hill station was replaced with a 'new' building. We got a porto cabin. Nice.

I attended a parents school event in Forest Hill on Friday, not one single parent that I spoke to, had heard about the LBL Redevelopment Meeting scheduled this week and last week in Forest Hill Station.

This is not good enough.

I received a leaflet through my letterbox about the pools display last week. I understood the Council were leafleting all households in the wards of Forest Hill, Perry Vale, and Sydenham. Perhaps the parents you spoke to live outside the immediate area?

what we were witness to 'the consultation' is the council ticking a box to say they have given us our right to speech. from what i understand is HLM (the architects) have been assigned to produce a concept to see what we think, these are very professional people that know how to present and sell ideas, they were not allowed to talk about the existing buildings, there historical value or anything, it was not their role, they may not be the 'architects' of any proposal.

what was ironic was that they had a quotation from Sir Norman Foster mentioning FH as a unique place in London, or something along those lines, but this is when the pools are still in use.

the proposals are far from final it is still concept stage, the building shown is a nominal object to help demonstrate the concept. the 'concept' of option two is best suited, with full facilities of swimming and a series of dwellings to pay for it with still part of the money coming from the council.

where the concept in option two fails is the disconnection with the existing library, having turned its back on it and the disconnection with the rest of its environment, the shops across the road and the rest of dartmouth road. the idea that FH central is the only focus is wrong and out of touch for a community building.

these points are very important if you want a building to work and if it doesn't work it gets trashed.

and i still want to see an option four, where the facades are used.

oh... i live dead closed to the pools and still with FH ward, i didnt get an leaflet.

RE: keeping buildings because they are old.

I don't think anyone wants to keep it because it's old. They want to keep it because it's interesting and helps define the area.

Euston Station was possibly one of the most beautiful train stations in the world, but they knocked it down to develop a 'better building'.

Forest Hill Station is another examples of doing away with the old and replacing with "a better building'.

They wanted to knock down St Pancreas because it was old. London has had a huge amount of it's history torn down post WW2.

Go to New York, or Paris, or Barcelona or Berlin, all great cities, like London, but all cities that celebrate their past, preserve, update and lean from it. London has incredible transport links, better than most large cities I have been to but we love to moan in the UK.

Personally, I'd prefer to have interesting architecture, whatever it's age, around me which is one reason why I live here, not in Milton Keynes or Slough.

^^^^^ Could not agree more

I think we need to be clear about what is really going on. I live about 2 mins walk from the pool and I haven?t seen any of these plans or spoken to anyone about them. Why? Because the council don?t want to ask us because they know what we?ll say!

Basically the council want to partner with property developers to redevelop the pool site and has done for years. Property developers won?t put up much money unless they can build a zillion flats on the top in a. Hence the crappy ?local landmark? plans. When the council lost the vote last time they just closed the pool - and let it fall to bits so that with every day it?s left to rot and the weeds grow longer, and, in time it will become a ?hazard? which has to be knocked down on ?health and safety grounds?. It?s so transparent. Any decision that involves a bit of work (like keeping part of the old structure) will not be countenanced by the council as it is too difficult for developers. All they have to do is procrastinate until some bloke say?s it?s unsafe and they will pull it down and build their flats with a small pool attached?.

I have looked at the three options presented at Lewisham Council's website http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/CouncilAndDem...tHillPools

and its extremely difficult to see what the actual buildings and frontages will look like. I hope that additional elevations and more detailed information will be available at the exhibition held at the FH Library.

Option 1 only has one pool, so although the public space surrounding the leisure facilities look the best in my view, presumably this is not an option as the school children would not be able to use the facilities to learn to swim and will have to continue to be shipped off to Beckenham.

Option 2 and 3 have two pools, and both retail and housing (I guess the Council is keen on income from retail and housing, so have not included two pools in option 1, which does not have retail or housing as part of the plan).

The foot print of the leisure centre in option 1 and option 2 are very similar, so I dont see why its not possible to facilitate two pools in option 1 and keep the larger public space outside the building. But again I guess this is gentle manipulation from the Council re income from the site.

The problem with this consultation as presented on the Council's website is that the information and images are simply insufficient to give you a real sense of what any of the options will look like in real terms. The first image of every option is a bird's eye view (sort of anyway) looking towards Kirkdale, the second image is from street level but looking down towards the station, so how can you compare the two images? Also the second image focusses on the library, 1/3 of the image is of the library rather than the new development. The proposed Residential Block B from option 2 and 3, is not on the street level images, and I find it hard to believe that the quite substantional looking Residental Block B will be invisible.

There is no head-on elevation of the new facilities and the proposed residential blocks, only side-way glances obscured by the lovely library building. It seems to me that Residential Block B in option 3 is several storeys higher than the leisure centre and sticks out considerably, but from the street level images, this is not obvious and residential block B does not feature at all. Without any measurements of the buildings its impossible to tell what the difference will be.

None of the foot prints contain any measurements either.

So, I hope all of this is only meant as a summary and that people will be able to see more detailed plans, from all angles, and some measurements of heights and widths at the exhibition.

Architects impressions are notoriously biased, please note the lovely fluffy trees lining Salcolmbe House, this is architecture speak for making something look lovely and inviting, but is not actually a real feature of the development (ie these are mature trees and wont grow to such loveliness over night)

I hope as many residents as possible will comment on these proposals and that unlike the last consultation held on the subject, the Council will actually listen to what we, the residents, have to say.

Rikke

See this link for the designs on the pools and register your views.

http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/CouncilAndDem...HillPools/

-My personal view is to combine the open spaces of option 1 with the building of option 2. This would allow for a public square, a green open space, plus the building of option 2 would allow for two pools and better facilities.
-Open space is more important than residential blocks on this site.
-If the better facilities of option 2 need to be funded by housing, then just one block to the rear would be better.
-The building looks like it will date quickly - beckenham pools design style may be better.