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.