More food for thought:

I considered the Perry Vale car park for the preferred Leisure centre site, and it is a very tight fit (pools end to end maybe?), remembering we need to keep a road through to the industrial estate. But there would be very little parking area left.

I do not think you can get away with providing just the few spaces in front of the station for parking.
If you could get away with it, Lewisham would have sold the PV car park off years ago for development.
In any case one objection to the council's proposals was the lack of a parking area. Sorry - this is not my preferred option.

The Centre should to be located on the East side of the tracks, as land prices are cheaper. Sited next to something unpleasant will reduce the site price even more and there will be less restrictions on design.

The portacabin site is next to the South Circ, the railway, and a grimy underpass. And it is close-ish to the station/centre. It is near perfect although slightly small. On livesearch, link there seems to be a garage and some general garden area immediately behind, that might also be need to be bought.

I think this proposal would be more in line with the UDP, which wants to make more of the centre of FH. The Council's report on their proposal had very contrived links to the UDP - the truth is that it does not tie in very well at all.

Size for size, the current pools site and the extended portacabin site are equivalent, so morally we are not eating into the glebe land we have inherited.

Of course Louise Hse needs to remain as a community area - Lewisham is desperately short of study/computer areas, the few provided often over flowing (youths even daring to sneak into the local history room in Lewisham library).
The computer facilities in FH library are always full, so there is a local demand.

This would be appropriate use of the building.

Isn't the East side of the tracks Catford, or lower Sydenham or somewhere equally as ghastly. I thought that they'd closed access as the area had been quarantined. Do we really want or need to take our families there?

Why dont we get inventive and ask them to build a leisure come shopping center OVER the railway al la M11 shopping centre?

The railway is not wide enough for a shopping centre. Think of the eyesore that would be created, we had enough trouble fighting to keep the views of the Church from London Road with Forest Hill Central. Think of the traffic generated on the local roads. Think of what would happen to the shops in the existing town centre.

If you want a large space to put a leisure centre then the big empty space is Bell Green and could be built with ample parking, but it is hardly in the centre of Forest Hill. Having a leisure centre on the existing site will help local businesses and the library to survive.

Keeping the existing buildings and converting them to housing will almost inevitably mean that we will need to find a way to squeeze a leisure centre behind them, hidden away from public view, and there will probably only be room and funding for one pool and limited leisure and community facilities in a lower quality design building. There are ways that it could work, so I am not ruling out all possibilities, but they are difficult to achieve. But a pool over the railway, in Perry Vale car park, or in Devonshire Road nature reserve is clearly a non-starter. Tyson Road or Bell Green might just work, but I would not recommend pursuing these if you want to see a continued town centre in Forest Hill.

Nooooooooo! Not Bell Green, there is already a pool there. We want our Forest Hill Pools back and ideally not lose the Victorian streetscape. If the old buildings have to come down then we want a modern building that compliments the library and retains some features of the old building. If there must be some housing in this space then it should be kept to a minimum and not be intrusive - iMHO.

sorry had to join and jump in...
please not bell green i live very close to that and its a nightmare with that sainsburys being here.
going to get ten times worse when they build the homebase.
about time lewisham did something about the traffic that super store brings to the area
hoilday times are really bad for trying to get down southend lane up to perry vale,

the forest hill pool should stay in forest hill where the people want it. bring it to bell green and its classed as lower ( no wants to live here ) sydenham and no longer forest hill.

Devonshire Road nature reserve?
Who suggested that as the preferred Leisure Centre site?
That reserve is extremely well run, award winning, has plenty of public access and is a local asset.
Michael, I hope you firmly corrected whoever suggested that.
Please say you did?

I've still not had anyone tell me why the rent-a-porta-cabin has to be in central FH - surely it would be better placed in an industrial zone?
I've pretty much convinced myself (if no-one else) that this is the natural site for the leisure centre.

OK it is the wrong side of the tracks, but only just, and I'm sure the high priests of UDB could bless the site, and tie foxtons bunting to the lampposts, to enable the more observant snobs to have full access.

Nobody had suggested the nature reserve except me and I think it is obvious that this would be a very bad choice, but I thought that since everybody else was suggesting impossible places to put a leisure centre I would join in.

The portacabin site is too small for a decent leisure centre (i.e. two pools) and I do not believe Lewisham council still own the site. TfL are also likely to object to any planning application because of access to the site for coaches.

port-a-cabin site is fine for them for now until the regeneration of forest hill becomes more apparent.

but going back to the useless carpark by the station, although there are many good reasons to have the pools here i still believe that they should remain in the place where people expect them to be. sticking to well established routes woks better and is better for the whole of FH.

and going back to the area in front of the station that forms part of the visual connection to the pools, forming good visual links that cross the railway tracks around the site of the station will improve permeability and regenerate both sides.

at the end, i would like to see the pools reestablished, without anymore dithering, i would like to see an option 4 for keeping the existing buildings, simple a real consultation that provides options and takes on board the local communities concerns.

I WOULD JUST LIKE TO GO FOR A SWIM!
There is no doubt that the long campaign to save Forest Hill Pools has obliged Lewisham Council to provide a more attractive replacement and those who were involved deserve our thanks.

But, we can not always have everything we want and to carry on campaigning to oppose demolition of the Victorian pool buildings when English Heritage decided that unlike the library they do not merit listed building status is going too far. Local people are being deprived of what many said they wanted ? a clean, light space with a gym and a pool inside it.

But now it is decision time and people should carefully consider the schemes on offer before making sure that they reply with the only voice that matters - the printed questionnaires or via http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/foresthillpools before August 8th.

Option 1 is the most realistic, it provides one pool a gym and a valuable social open space. The building allows for natural light over the pool itself and a terrace linking the library to a landscaped town square.

Option 2 gives the council or housing associations permission to build housing between 5 and 7 stories high on the park in order to finance a small training pool, with a new access road behind the library on Thorpewood Avenue. A caf?? and some retail space will also provided.

Option 3 This is the largest and most controversial project. It requires even more housing and retailing which could prove too much for other local traders. More gallery space and meeting rooms will decide the fate of ?difficult sites? like the Kirkdale or Brockley Rise Adult Centre.

Option 1 with the comment NO HOUSING ON THIS SITE is the positive answer that the council require from us. It will save the park for future development like a Training Pool with a better housing scheme elsewhere.

Two or three buildings are unnecessary, one well designed building has to be more cost effective. This is a challenge to the council to ensure that the final design is popular enough to earn its keep. Over developing the site may not leave room for the people who want to use it.

Delay and rising building costs could result with neither a new pool nor the old Victorian buildings; the commitment to a pool was made by the Mayor whose office ends in 2010. Options 2 and 3 hand the council our permission to develop the whole site for housing after 2010, which may after all be their own preferred option.

So the fight to save swimming in Forest Hill is not over yet. It is up to all of us to cast a careful and critical eye over these schemes and vote before August 8th to make sure that we are able to go for a swim in Forest Hill?s future as well as its past.

The Save the Face of Forest Hill campaign, which seeks support in persuading the Council to keep Louise House and the pools frontage block as part of the new devlopment is winding up a gear.

We currently have 455 supporters on our petition. To add your own you can sign online at http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/save...-hill.html

We are expecting there to be a Public Meeting on this issue shortly.

This is probably the biggest single change in central Forest Hill for about 30 years. There is a clear need to get it right, not simply rush into it as Kingfisher suggests. Having done quite a lot of standing around persuading people to sign the petition I can say that a number of things become obvious.

A majority of people are completely unaware of the current plans for the pools. A fair minority think they are still going to be refurbished. There remains a strong feeling among many people that the buildings should be saved as far as possible, and that feeling cuts across all ages and ethnic groups.

I sympathise with this point of view but there have been repeated attempts over the last fifteen years to get the pools listed, I don't call that rushing into things. The last re-furb was only able to go ahead because a second attempt to list both buildings was in train. Continuing to campaign for retention whilst construction costs continue to erode the capital will ensure that nothing is built at all. If that happens and the Pools are not built, I hope the people who carried on will feel able to face the rest of us who took a more pragmatic approach.

Its the questionare itself that doesn't stack up. If a training pool can't be provided because of cost why do they ask respondants to make suggestions for more facilities? Is it because it will introduce further delay. Options 2 and 3 are very controversial in planning terms. How do all of the residents and school feel about having buildings this high so close to their homes, with the additional noise, traffic and parking issues it will raise? Were Options 2 & 3 designed this way to exite and worry them so that their objections are blamed for the councils failure to rebuild?
Option 1 with NO HOUSING is a clear intruction to the council to GET ON WITH IT!

I don't understand.

I was born in Forest Hill, grew up here,

You are asking me to accept the DEMOLITION OF MY HERITAGE FOR THE SAKE OF A SWIM????

This I do not accept.

These buildings add character, dignity in a world that is vastly becoming "SAMENESS"

No-one wants a new-build, so please swim somewhere else (temporarily) and let those that care for their environment be.

Why can't we have both?

Thank you.

I think Forest Hill Billie may have forgotten that buildings are meant to be for people not the other way round.

"The Forest Hill postcode district has a population of 31,279 in 13,950 residential properties and the greatest number (55.9%) of the properties are flats."

Thats a lot of "no-ones".

The few hundred well organised people who keep on trying to keep the Victorian buildings do not even constitue a tiny minority yet they feel able to speak for everyone. They could have forgotton who and what the Forest Hill Pool building is actually for.

If retention was based on the beauty of the buildings they'd have been demolished long ago. They have been kept going this long because the "no-ones" like swimming and want their kids to learn too.

I think Forest Hill William may be a wee bit extreme here , but of course not for a mere mortal like me to say.
I was born in SE 26 so am a foreigner , but lived in SE26 and 23 all my life. Even Sydenham people used the pool and infact I used far more whilst residing there.
I do not actually remember the building as a great gem , although I do believe one of the few Edwardian Pools Left. I recall back in the 50's when the cubicles were along side of the pools so your clothes got really wet.
I am all for saving historic buildings , some would say I am historic myself , but would have thought the priority should be for a pool , with if possible the frontage of the old building saved ( but may not be possible ). Doubt if I will be using any new pool but I think it is important for the youngsters.

Kingfisher, I think you are missing the point here, because this is precisely my point, or am I not a person?


Architecture concerns not only construction, it also concerns "articulation"; the building must work and must please and suit the needs of those who use it, and aesthetics, both of proportion and of ornament.


Can I suggest you read a bit more about it.

Who haven't been given a choice to vote on whether to keep the frontage of the buildings as the decision to demolish was taken in the absence of any form of public consultation.

So maybe its you that constitutes a tiny minority that feels it can speak for everyone, because everyone i've spoken to at a local school, bar one, (that is one is sixty!) would like to save the frontages.

And only three were aware of the re-development meeting, I really do not understand why this has been held in the Summer Holidays, and why there was such little notice given.

I would use the new pool if it were built, although I notice that the showers arrangement on the new plan appear to be along the lines of the miserable two public dribbles which constituted the old showers.

I think the important thing is to have a swimming/fitness facility so to that extent I am not too troubled by the loss of the old pool building (bit of a Victorian monstrosity in some ways)

The leisure centre at Beckenham works quite well because it is a dedicated site - it is certainly heavily used. The LBL plan is underwhelming and potentially horrible with the tall residential blocks. My fear is that the decision to build housing has already been made and that all that is left is to determine whether to make some nod towards public disquiet about a boring old pool.

The existing buildings are not an example of successful articulation;

They have some lovely architectural features like the Griffins and double height ceiling with skylight, which have been included in the new scheme because they were heavily requested during the last lengthy consultation. But just about everything else was old fashioned, dirty and worn out. The facade bore no relation to how users related to the space once they were inside.

I concede that this process has been too short and badly presented but Option 1 does seem to appeal to common sense. Many are worried that Options 2 & 3 are too dependant on selling land and building flats when demand has just collapsed. Whatever is revealed as favourite, its completion may be jeapordised by lack of interest in the housing.

Quite a few of them swim regularly and are also well over sixty, which may not be a co-incidence.

The problem for me, if it is a problem, is that I just don't feel the existing pool architecture is fantastic enough for me to get enthused about saving it, even though I'd be happy to retain it if that was the plan.

Nor do I feel the new proposals are bad enough for me to oppose them with vigour.

Actually, I think they're not bad at all. I like the idea of the linear park from the station leading to the pool, and getting a village square. And the curve of the building along dartmouth road is pleasant.

So I find myself not angry, and happy to go with whatever, but sort of wishing I could be more indignant in some way

Surely everyone who has an interest would have completed one of the coucil forms and returned it as I have done.
Let the people speak.