I vote for a new pool.

It seems very unfortunate to me that this whole debate is now descending into personal blame and acrimony. Perhaps a few facts would help.

Individual members of the public even if they be leaders of a campaign group or the mayor himself are not responsible and therefore to blame or praise for listing buildings. That is the responsibility of English Heritage and they have clearly taken the view that Louise House is of sufficient value and importance to list. Indeed I believe that they listed it under all four national criteria for listing i.e. architectural merit, historical interest, group value and connection to a famous person. They exist to take a broader view beyond local political pressures. Listing buildings is not always the disaster that some suggest. The listed library next door could not be demolished and replaced with a modern deisgn; it had to be retained and modernised inside and haven't Lewisham done an excellent job there! Listing doesn't in any way mean that the insides can not be adapted - English Heritage want a viable building with a future just as much as anyone else. That is the best way to preserve its future.

Continuing to play the blame game about delays doesn't really help the current situation. Anyone who went to the recent public meeting about the pools can be left in little doubt that the actual situation is that the local community is divided on this issue. Some people want a modern pool as soon as possible and if that means demolition- so be it. Others - like me- strongly feel that Louise House and the Pool's frontage block should be part of a modern pools complex. I don't honestly know which group represents the majority opinion but neither really does anyone as the council has not recently consulted on this. What I find slightly patronising though is the idea that there might not be a large group of local people who do genuinely feel strongly about their local heritage or who do not have the intelligence to know what they are signing up to. As a signatory of the petition I knew what I was signing up to and trying to rubbish it seems a rather pointless tactic.
Surely the way forward now is to offer people a real choice between totally modern [with Louise House ] and retained pool block with modern complex behind and at the side - then at least both sides can feel that their concerns have at least been listened to.

Couldn't agree more Davey.

Perhaps I should only respond to Devon once he or she comes out from behind the cloak of anonymity which I have always avoided.

I am pleased with the outcome of the listing request which I made. In this I am joined by 1,400 supporters (and rising). Lewisham Council managed to consult 600 people.

I asked English Heritage if they would consider listing the building. As the national experts, decided to do so. Whatever the imperfections of this system it cuts both ways: they didn't list the pools the last two times. Consultation is not part of this process. But then did the Mayor consult about his decision to demolish Louise House in the first place?

I do not want to cause delay. But a pause is preferable to a really bad decision. Lewisham Council have mothballed both buildings for over two years in any case. The Options presented to the public were merely concepts and could be reworked quickly. The more significant cause of delay will be the collapse of the Counicl's funding model based on new housing as a result of which the scheme will need to be rethought anyway.

Grade II listed buildings can be altered internally without difficulty. External alterations can be made too with consent. In a case where the long term future of the building is more likely to be served by agreeing to an external alteration, EH normally take a pretty relaxed view.

Devon's suggestion that our signatures have been obtained improperly is patronising to local people, smacks of desperation and is beneath contempt.

Perhaps a short holiday in the West Country is called for?

At one time I lived in Southwark. It is very interesting to note this piece about the Camberwell Baths from the South London press:

"Plans for the regeneration of the dilapidated swimming pool will be on display next week. Three companies have stepped forward with proposals to take over the Camberwell Baths: English National Ballet, Fusion - which currently runs the pools - and architectural firm Ash Sakula...A total of 90 companies expressed an interest in the Grade 2 listed Victorian baths resulting in 7 submissions from which the final 3 were chosen."

Seems like Southwark are cleverer at this old pools and what do do with them business than Lewisham!

It's not about people not having the intelligence to understand what they sign or not feeling strongly enough about conservation, it's about the fact that the people that signed a petition that asks the Mayor to reconsider may not agree with a fait accompli that takes the decision out of the Mayor's hands altogether and dictates a reduction in facilities?

I wasn't told that there was an application for the listing of Louise House when I was asked to sign the "no demolition without design" (that I signed) and in the back of my mind I have this feeling that I've been taken for a ride and been asked to support something that was in effect something else, i.e. a way to buy time so that the application could be approved.

The Council intended to pour the money from housing into the new pool, the listing of Louise House denies this. The Council's offer was for the largest possible investment in sport and swimming and now it's a much reduced investment to be divided between sport and conservation, something that the Sydenham Society is perfectly comfortable with:

"The Sydenham Society believes that a fourth option should be put on the table ? one that retains the current streetscape and is not dependent on high-density housing for funding. The facilities may not be as ?highspec? as those on offer..."

So now instead of options 1, 2, 3 and 4 there's option 4, 4, 4 and 4. Hardly enough options for a consultation.

To David Whiting, very good point, I actually don't know the answer but it would be worth a research.
Victorian Pools normally had limited or no dry sports area so an obvious cheap solution to convert them into a financially viable centre within the same footfall is that of converting one pool tank into dry sports area. Something to bear in mind when suggesting to the Council to reconsider refurbishing and also something that puts comments like "Dulwich did it, why can't it be done here too" into context and also could give a hint as to why a ballet company may want to aquire a pool.

I do not accept this statement that has been made a number of times recently. As I have stated previously there is no reason to believe that the housing market in 2012 will not be healthy once more. Andy Hornby, CEO of HBOS (Halifax) back this view today with a belief that the mortgage market in the US will turn round in 2010. The Sunday Times today speculates that it will be 2011 when the housing market picks up.
What I am sure is that by 2012, when the Olympics are in London and Forest Hill is connected to the tube system, the housing market in Forest Hill will be healthy. I do not even expect that prices will be lower than today's levels.

If we are to see decent leisure facilities in Forest Hill we need the council to consider the financial viability of housing on the site and find a way to minimise the funding gap to provide leisure. As Max has pointed out, housing and leisure is a funding model that has been used all over London. I see no reason why the current housing market conditions should lead to any delay in building the pool and I do not think the council should be encouraged to find excuses to leave the pools and Louise House empty for another 2-10 years.

In the council's previous plans, which have now been shelved, we would have had a pool probably in 2011, but that required work to begin in the first half of 2009. I hope that this timetable does not slip too far due to the council needing to reconsider their plans for Louise House. The time that has already elapsed without a pool cannot be used as an excuse to add further unnecessary delay, this will only lead to an end to swimming facilities in Forest Hill and a serious problem for local businesses.

I hope that we can work together to put pressure on the council to bring swimming back to Forest Hill as soon as possible.

Seems to be some confusion here. The No Demolition Without Design Petition stopped weeks ago - once the Council conceded that there would be no demolition until their 3 designs were consulted on in the summer consultation.

I was referring to the recent Save the Face of Forest Hill petition which is entirely consistent with a request to list Louise House as it states:

We, the undersigned, reject Options 1,2 and 3 of the Council's proposed designs. We wish to see the retention of the Pool's frontage block and Louise House and that these significant local landmark buildings be retained as part of the new pools complex.

People may not agree with this [ though clearly quite a few do] but it isn't unclear or inconsistent with listing. Clearly the choices have now changed but given Louise House will now be retained [and could be turned into flats if housing for cross-subsidly is really wanted by people] there are surely still two options demolish everything else and build new or keep frontage and incorporate into new. That is something worth consulting on and I guess even those who want the pools demolished would like some say in what replaces it.

I'm not confused at all, the "no demolition without design" was the first phase of a conservationist campaign whose second phase is called "Save the face of Forest Hill", they were started by the same person that submitted the application for listing and at the time of the petitions the application had already been submitted and at no time, until listed status was granted, people asked to sign were told about the application.

Confused is who thinks that converting Louise House into flats could bring in any money, let alone upholding Louise House for its services to the poor whilst proposing to sell it to the wealthy.

The SFFH petition is inconsistent with a petition altogether. Technically speaking the petitioners have no power to reject anything. A petition that's properly written asks somebody to do or not do something.
Unless you're claiming that the petition was not for the attention of the Mayor but of Tim Walder, imploring him to submit an application for listing of Louise House but that would be rather at odd with the fact that he started the petition and with the fact that there's no mention of listing in the petition text.

On consultations, again, they are not referenda, they are there to inform the people of what the Council is doing and to inform the Council of what the people think of it so that the Mayor can take fully "informed" decisions and I think he's got the picture of public opinion quite clear, what he doesn't know now is where the money is to come from.

I wrote to EH asking them to consider listing the pools or louise house. I presume many others did too, as is their free will to do so. English Heritage choose to list once something has been brought to their attention. As previously mentioned, the council have not thought about including this in their plans, it shouldn't pose too much of a problem if the architects have been given a proper brief. The fact that the council didn't see this coming, didn't even think about it and didn't even have it as an option is rather short sighted.

But lets learn from this. I truely believe that this will mean that we get an even better pools, better architecture and everyone can be happy with a solution for everyone.

Trying not to get into continual point scoring - I hope!- and slightly wary of unproven conspiracy theories the point I was making was that anyone who signed the SFFH petition during the summer supported keeping Louise House which is entirely consistent with its listing.
There was no direct mention of listing on the petition because that is the responsibility of EH and the petition was to the council.

The suggestion that Louise House could be turned into flats was to address those who wanted cross-subsidy to get the most facilities that they could and not some scheme to house the rich!
I can't pretend to know about the technicalities of how petitions should be worded but the petition does express a wish to see Louise House and the frontage block retained as part of a new pools complex which seems pretty clear and unambiguous to me.

Some might well know the Mayor's current position better than me but at the last public meeting the council officials said that they had ?7.5 million set aside and that they could now apply for EH funding for Louise House.
It is clearly hard to suggest an approach now that will address the concerns of both sides of this very polarised debate but drawing up two designs for consultation - one which demolishes the Pools block and the other which incorporates it seems the fairest to me

I wonder what planet some people are on.
I wonder if people know how much facade retention can add to the cost of any project and how much it can severely restrict what you can get on a site, and the practical problems that can ensue? I have recently been involved in a housing project where the planners insisted on the retention of a facade of what is a fairly remarkable building. The developer objected on the basis of practicality and concern about structural integrity which was borne out by surveys and which my organisation agreed with. No consideration was given to this by the planners who gave into dogma from local amenity groups. The facade has just collapsed through no fault of the developer, other than the degree of disturbance which was inevitable in this type of building project. This means that the external face of the building has to be rebuilt from scratch, which means going back to the drawing board and revised planning for a half complete building. Six months delay at least and escalating costs. Thats the reality of facade retention, and its a fairly common one. It compromises projects and unless well justified I would suggest something to be avoided.

Lets learn from all this indeed. Lets learn that there are those amongst us who prioritise dogma over decent public facilities. Lets learn that regardless of the democratic process it is still possible for organisations like EH and intrenched individuals to disrupt that process. And lets not pretend that EH and the like work without political motivation and dogma of their own because they simply do not. Its time that they were held accountable to the public interest which they pretend to serve.

I did actually mean ' unremarkable' building in my first paragraph!...

Roz,
You make some good points about facade retention, but I would point out that it is not actually the facade of the pools building that people wish to retain, it is the superintendent's building at the front of the pools. This is a separate building and the structural integrity would not be such a major problem.

We do then have to ask what the building would be used for and I have found it difficult to imagine a use that would benefit the community (other than conversion to housing which I always think is a shame as the only way to preserve a building rather than a facade). You are also correct that there leaving the superintendents building in place would substantially reduce the options for what can be built on the site due to the poor use of space. Nasaroc has reasonably concluded that there is space for a new pool and leisure facility behind the superintendent's building and Louise House, plus taking over the pocket park. What there is not space for is housing to help fund the leisure facilities (other than in the two frontage buildings themselves).

The council have demonstrated that there is little money to be made from housing in Louise House and, although they have not provided figures, it would be reasonable to conclude that conversion of the Superintendent's Building to housing would also not make significant profits - more likely it would make a loss - even in the housing market of 2012, and therefore it would be completely counter productive.

I would like to see is a design that proves me wrong, that shows how we can keep both buildings and provide the swimming and leisure that residents want/need in Forest Hill. I am still keeping an open mind about this possibility and it is for this reason that I am neither in favour nor against demolition. I do not believe I have the necessary information and possible designs that enable me to take a position on this small part of a much bigger issue and I am not prepared to take a side until I understand what is on offer. This is why I was not prepared to sign the second petition despite signing the first.

Both sides can state and restate their positions on this issue in public and on this forum - and I am sure they will! But let's now proceed to a mechanism that will bring facilities to this site as soon as possible.

The one way to get through this impasse is to draw up two designs (one for demolition and one not) and to put those together with a high quality pools/leisure building (s) to the public in a properly run consultation.

I very much hope that we can depend on the undoubted leadership skills of Michael and Tim L, chairs of the FH and Sydenham Societies, to help us to get to this point. Michael in particular has put a great deal of work and effort into the "pools issue" to date and I know that he is a person who is always willing to listen to both sides of the argument and settle issues in a straightforward way to the benefit of our community.

Michael is correct - let's ask LBL to draw up two designs to "show what's on offer" - and what can be done with the space.

Personally, I very much support Michael's idea that Louise House be considered for gym/leisure/studio/ public meeting space use. Used in this way, LH would not only be revenue-generating but would free up space elsewhere on the site. And don't forget - there is a large space to the rear of LH, roughly equivalent to the floor area of LH itself. This could provide room for an extension to the rear of LH.

In the hands of gifted architects a fantastic scheme could be produced which we can all be proud of. Let's get on with it by agreeing a "two design consultation".

Thanks Nasaroc.
One point about the rear of Louise House is that the laundry in particular is part of the listing. I have not been into the site to look round but would be interested to know if those who have viewed the site and recommended it for listing would be willing to see demolition of this block. Even though it is listed it should be possible to convince English Heritage that this part of the site should be redeveloped for the benefit of the community. But I honestly do know fully understand the value of this section of the listed building as well as those who sought to list it. Guidance on this point would be helpful if we are to make use of the rear of Louise House in its present form or in a new form.

I think we want both a pool and a gymnasium and possibly a dance studio to cater for all users.

Michael:

Lets see LBL conduct a proper competition between architects where they are told "our budget is ?7.5M, we want two pools and dry leisure facilities. If you need to generate extra monies to cover an increased budget, you may include housing on the site. The community is deeply split over any decision on preserving the existing buildings, so your design may include or demolish the Superintendant's block of the pools (and/or possibly Louise House). Louise House has been Grade II listed and would need the relevant consents before being demolished."

The resulting designs could then be short listed before being put out for consultation.

A two pool solution on the site of the existing pools is feasible (as proven by Capita options 4 and 6 in 2006). Option 4 (retaining the Superintendant's block) was costed at ?8.3M, while option 6 (new build) was costed at ?7.5M (2008 pounds). Both provided parking, community and fitness facilities. If Louise House is used for the dry fitness and community facilities, then the new building would only need to be single storey which would save money (and could then be used for the refurbishment).

This seems like an excellent response - surely this is an approach everyone could agree on? I think that the only change I would make to New Forester's request is that the architect(s) draw up 2 plans - one with the Superintendent's House, one without. Let's get on with it!

Sounds like a reasonable, commons sense solution to me.

Lets get on with it. Everyone wins.

Yes, Grasshopper is right, in fact there is already a plan using the whole of the land for housing and leisure and that's the plan drawn by the Council.
You can do alternative plans and see how they compare with that but of course the original Council's proposal has a ?13.5m budget for leisure because that's the plan that extracts most money for community use.