The official response from the Forest Hill Society to the pools consultation can be read at http://www.foresthillsociety.com/2009/06...pools.html

I asked for some more detailed statistical analysis of responses of the survey. The following information comes from telephone polling only (not online, postal, businesses or schools):

Based on Council Wards:
.............Forest Hill....Perry Vale....Sydenham
Base: 1001.......358 ........ 337 ......... 305
Option One...... 45% ........ 39% ......... 30%
Option Two...... 42% ........ 50% ......... 62%
Undecided ...... 13% ........ 11% ......... 8%


What this shows is that people in Forest Hill ward polled by phone would prefer the Dartmouth Road site (not by much but with a lot of undecided). People in Perry Vale were more in favour of Willow Way. People in Sydenham ward were strongly in favour of option 2 (Willow Way), which is not surprising given it's location on the border of Sydenham Ward.

Looking at these figures what was significant was that there was no overall majority vote for swimming in the so called 'town centre' by those contacted in Forest Hill Ward, despite claims that the masses had spoken out in previous surveys to keep swimming in SE23 or the end of the world as we know it would occur.
Interogating the figures further you realise that from the 358 Forest Hill respondants there was a difference of around 11 between those for option 1 over option 2 and about 46 FH people could make their minds up. Hardly a ringing endorsment for keep swimming in Dartmouth Road.
Which raises the question -What is swimming in Dartmouth Road? Man it stinks! And some call for the new pool to squeezed in next to a butt ugly victorian ex penal institution-(a couple of litres of uleaded and few swan vestas should sort it out)-and people would come flooding in.
What were the comments about how unpleasant WW was?
Pass the sick bag I am going down to FH 'town centre'

I don't see this in the 'answers to questions' document, Michael. Are you still expecting these figures?

I know this has been discussed, but is the issue regarding planning permission for Willow Way and the pools site (in bold below) a factual one or open to conjecture / interpretation?

If this accurately reflects the planning position, then the questions are fair and the subsequent responses are accurate.

If it is a fact that planning policy is not in accordance with the way it is referenced in the consultation questions, surely this completely invalidates the consultation. Particularly as an overriding reason given by respondents for choosing Willow Way was speed of delivery.

I know the consultation is not supposed to be a referendum, but the statistics coming from it will quickly be seen as accurate when they are presented in authoritative way.

Does a process exist for legally challenging such a consultation?

That's because the question was biased. People weren't simply asked which site they preferred. They were told that the Willow Way site was much more practical, and were asked whether they wanted it to go ahead soon, or whether they would prefer to wait for years on the offchance that the Dartmouth Road site might one day become possible.

Robin,
These were responses to specific questions I asked, not the fully report being preapred for mayor and cabinet. So I would still expect to see the division of swimmers in the final report.

forestcid,
You are right. Many of the results are not statistically significant, but you can see a clear difference in voting between Forest Hill and Sydenham. But as Davidsroadperson points out, the question was designed to get people to vote for Willow Way, when what they really want most is swimming delivered early to Forest Hill.

Foresters,
There is no need to legally challenge the consultation as the findings are not binding. Especially when it is so difficult to draw a clear conclusion from the results. the mayor has it in his power to move forward with either option, none, both, or something slightly difference.

With regard to planning issues and timescales, there are a number of comments in the submission from the Forest Hill Society. We do not believe that it is feasible for a pool to be built on either site before the end of 2011 due to planning permission, tendering, and development timescales.

The Willow Way site does not allow housing, but it does not allow leisure either as this is not the correct use of an employment zone. The Dartmouth Road building is currently designated for leisure but this is not protected in any Lewisham planning policies. However, there are other planning consideration relating to the density of housing on the site and it's effect on two grade 2 listed buildings.

The Forest Hill Society has proposed the use of Willow Way for live/work units to cross-subsidise the pool (and as a great addition to the local economy). This option was not made available in the consultation as we have had great difficulty convincing the planning daprtment that such a scheme is in line with council policy. We believe that a live/work scheme is within council planning policies and would like the council to properly consider this option for early delivery of the pools on Dartmouth Road, as the fastest way to proceed is to build a new pool behind the frontage of the existing pool.

We would also like the council to consider redesignating Willow Way as a mixed development, to allow for a small amount of residential development to compliment the live/work units and build a real sense of community around the Willow Way site.

Breaking the figures up by wards is not helpful.
As previously discussed, these wards have strange boundaries - eg large parts of upper sydenham is included in the FH ward, and the Perry Vale ward also eats into SE26.

The breakdown wanted is all the methods of polling split by postcode.

Also the bias towards the phone poll is worrying.

Wrong. Anyone who took the time to research the details (ie like find where WW is), and actually filled in the form (which had a much better distribution this time), were excluded from the telephone poll.

The telephone poll is only representative of those who most likely did not have the data to make an informed decision. And if they did have view, they did not make the time to return the form, so maybe were not too fussed either way.

A telephone poll would be useful in finding out where people swim, how they get there, what facilities they want, would they return to FH pools, etc rather than resolving complex ideas where competing needs maybe have to be traded off.

The key question is not something that can be resolved by an on the spot phone poll, so, for me, this method carries the least weight.

Forresters
As with all planning matters there is a degree of interpretation.

It is 'technically' correct that housing is not possible on the Willow Way site (i.e. contrary to planning policy), but it is also technically correct that relocating a pool onto the Willow Way site is contrary to two of Lewishams adopted planning policies, and so in theory not possible either.

However, some of the policies allow a degree of interpretation and the employment policy that protects the site does give mittigating circumstances where non-employment uses might be allowed. However, this does pretty much exclude housing but could be argued to open a window of opportunity for other employment generating uses such as live/work or a swimming pool. However, this is by no means a given.

So they are giving us part of the argument where they want to and not telling us the rest of the story where it does not suit them to do so! Great basis for an expensive consultation really.....

Nor do I understand the value of a post code breakdown. The pools are on the far side of SE23, and only in it by about 50 yards. Why do the views of people in SE26 who may be closer to the pools than many in SE23 carry less weight?

Not sure who you are quoting there steveb, but it is a fact that those who completed the form were excluded from the telephone poll.
If the form is somehow unrepresentative, then the telephone poll is equally unrepresentative in totally excluding these same people.

This is false and the correct statistical procedure given that nether is more representative and your vote only counts once, is to combine them. (I'll put my point on how appropriate a telephone poll is to one side.)

It seems it is my opinion alone that the data needs to be split by post code. I believe this will show some clarity, but I am happy to be proved wrong. Postcode is a reasonable division of people and one that members of this forum surely agree with! Michael - please can you ask for this breakdown.

And yes, I personally would then weight the data against those who already have a pool in close walking distance (most of se26). Sorry.

I will see what I can do, but I expect that because the telephone polling was done from the electoral roll, the wards was the easiest breakdown.

I do agree that a breakdown by postcode would be useful but I think the breakdown by wards is probably a good guide. Only about 6 streets in Perry Vale are in SE26, but Forest Hill ward is probably about 1/3 in SE26. For people in SE26 they will be either be closer to the new site, about the same, or well within 20 minutes walk of either site. The same is not true for the majority of people in SE23, some of whom will be well outside the 20 minute walking distance (London regional recommendations for the maximum distance to a pool).

So yes, I think it is worth understanding better how people affected in different ways voted. This is not just a numbers game with a binary option, it is about motivation, needs, and likely use.

I have asked again for a breakdown by postcode, but the report to mayor and cabinet should be out this week, so we should be able to read the full report from the consultants.

Thanks Michael

This has the potential to ruin Forest Hill if we are not careful.

Endless and pointless surveys that tell you everything and yet nothing are just a delaying tactic. As I see it, the Council are determined to sell off the DR site and have no desire to retain the Victorian frontage. If this happens, Forest Hill will end up with little charm and character, current Victorian heritage will be lost in the stampeed to develop cheap, tacky and densely populated one bed flats. Who, with any money, will want to live in these? People bang on about Lordship Lane's qualities - well, much of this is due to the local housing stock and the type of people that live there. Majority of roads leading off LL consist of converted Victorian flats and houses which are very popular amoung the young middle classes and families. Who's going to want to live in Forest Hill if it becomes a large and unattractive housing estate?

Even if WW is accepted as the option to go forward, the redevelopment of the DR site will no doubt commence almost immediately - Council will probably sell the land off too cheaply and excuse this as the ecomomic climate. Then the WW development will be delayed due to previously unknown costs and lack of funding - it will never get built - and then there'll be some pathetic excuse that the money is no longer available anyway due to some new fangled EU law on recycling or light bulbs that the Council had to legally fund. (Not to mention Councillors and the Mayor's expenses that have to be paid for- do we know what these are incidentially??) - So there you have it.

No pool
No Victorian heritage
Big housing estate that does nothing to improve Forest Hill and just puts off anyone with any dosh investing in the area. Happy days.

The report to Mayor and Cabinet will be on the website tomorrow, but in the meantime here is the news as I understand it at present.

In addition to the two options that we were consulted about, a third option has been found. This third option would provide additional funding so that the pool could be built on the Dartmouth Road site in the same timescale as a pool on Willow Way - in time for the Olympics!

The mayor still has to decide which option is best but this third option seems to be exactly what the Forest Hill Society, Keep Swimming in Forest Hill petition of 6,800 people and many other local people, groups and councillors have been calling for. Hopefully the mayor will opt for this third option which is the best option for Forest Hill, providing swimming at the earliest opportunity and in the best possible location in Forest Hill.

Wow. That's brilliant, Michael. Fingers crossed

that would be fantastic! I have gone up a dress size since the pools shut down and I can't run any more due to old aged knees - I love swimming and there is no where else in walking distance - will keep fingers crossed that this plan goes ahead

Well that's fantastic news Michael! So what was the point of the 2 option survey? Another example of the council wasting our money, while protesting that they dont have enough of it to build a pool.

Michael, are you suggesting that this third option will actually be in the report to Mayor and Cabinet?

Yes. It should be. Hopefully it will be on the website later today and you can see for yourself!