Converting Louise House to housing would be counter to the reasons given for listing the building. Architecturally it is of limited value, most value comes from the social history of the building, remembering a transition between workhouses and other slightly less evil forms of child care (but nothing that would be acceptable in this century). Converting the building to housing takes it out of public ownership and use and preserves nothing of the true character of the institution. I would also suggest that in the current housing market there is just as little demand for period conversions as new build, actually the government announcement this week may be preferential to new build over existing properties with the support of the developers.

Max's point about only ?170k coming from the conversion of Louise House to housing is based on the estimate before listing. With the listing any conversion costs would be higher and it is possible that it would make a net loss, in which case the council would be perfectly correct (financial speaking) to leave the building empty as they have done for so long.

Housing would not be available until 2012 at the earliest and it would be reasonable to assume that by then the housing market will have recovered, at least in Forest Hill. Imagine the opportunity to buy a new flat above a new pool in part of Olympic London that has only just joined the tube network - people will be jumping/diving at the chance!

Any plans for the development would see the pool built before or concurrently with any flats. No developer would want to try to sell flats next to a building site where a pool is being erected and the council want to see a pool as soon as possible. This means that any risk related to the housing funding of the pool would be taken by the council, not by swimmers of Forest Hill.

In the rather flawed consultation by Lewisham council over 60% of people accepted the need for housing on the site to fund a two pools facility. 27% backed the proposal for a single pool with no housing, and 11% did not express a preference for any of the options. I hope that these figures will at least be taken into account as reflecting local opinion (although everybody is entitled to their own view point).

The sad truth is that by listing Louise House (however important a building), it will put more pressure on the pools frontage to be demolished if there is to be two pools, dry leisure, and housing on the site. It may be possible to put dry leisure and community facilities in Louise House, it will not be cheap to turn a disused and rather neglected Victorian building into a decent gym that people wish to go to, but it is probably the only way to safeguard swimming on the site. But I still cannot see where the extra money is going to come from, let's hope that the planning department or Save the Face of the Forest Hill Pools campaign can provide a solution to all of these competing demands on land, money and heritage.