Contrary Mary, dont insult the Tories by associating them with the potty ramblings of davhel52!! Quite frankly I take my hat off to all those who worked hard from all politcal backgrounds, to get the Mayor and who ever else held the purse strings to come up with the right decision.

Oh completely - To clarify: I only meant (what with all the recent talk of Machiavelli & dark, shadowy skullduggery...), that if the Tories (or anyone else for that matter) were of a mind to try and discredit specifically Labour on this issue, then posting anonymous "potty ramblings" (you really are too polite, gingernuts!) of the davhel52-type in the pretence that they come from a Labour supporter would be one way to do it - and would explain the "pottiness" far better than any attempt to understand what he/she is on about!

All hypothetical cynicism - no serious accusation intended... unlike davhel52. Who really needs to drop this whole "my Party right or wrong" thing, because it has no relevance here.

In case you were not there ...



It's not just Forest Hill Pools that are saved, but a Council own goal. Whatever the frustrations of this whole process, the Council did eventually listen, did get a proper consultation done, learn what people really did think, realised the logic of the arguments for keeping the pools in the Forest Hill town centre, and it seems from Councillor Heidi Alexander, make an effort to find the extra money needed from central government.

The campaigners came from across the political spectrum, but we managed to keep the campaign non party political. Much of the delay and general angst, I would suggest, came from when various people outside the campaign tried to frame it in party political terms. Let's hope everyone - campaigners, councillors and officers can work together now on getting a good for the community use for Louise House.

Sounds to me like you are the one doing the Raving.

Its not the pools that I object to.It was the way that the decision was reached and the associated ramifications.

The Labour party has been done no harm in this affair in fact as far as I can see the Party has been conspicuous in its lack of balanced opinion and therefore no one can possibly complain.

Ranting and raving I believe you said.Hardly. Had I wanted to do that you would have used a much more direct tone.

Sour grapes.Not at all.That is an expression that is always wheeled out
when someone dose not agree with a general consensus( as is their right).

In the long run the Mayor made a decision and so be it.He could not possibly satisfy everyone.All I hope now is that the Mayors fund is not hi-Jacked for Louise House and that certainly looks to be on the cards.Once again I may be proved right where this matter is concerned.We could end up with more about turns than on a 50 square yard parade ground.
Anyway if I have offended any ones precious susceptibilities regarding this matter I humbly apologise.I dont believe that the last has been heard regarding the pools fiasco and that not everyone will emerge from this matter smelling of roses.

Davehel52, I haven't the first clue what you are talking about, and I sincerely hope that the mystique continues for some time, as ignorance in this case is probably bliss.

I wish I undstood what davhel52 was going on about If he has a point, I'd like to understand it!

Brilliant news. Congratulations to all involved. I think it sounds like agreat solution to all involved.

One thing though, just what is the building behind the facade going to look like? I haven't seen any pictures.

P.S. Love davhel52's comments too. It's like a forum version of the office. Hilarious!

Davehel52:

Disagreement is, as you say, your right. That's fine. Slander is not.

No more of this "cloak-and-dagger" insinuation. If you have evidence of corruption, then let's have it, plainly and in black-and-white - in the name of the public interest.

If you do not have evidence, then do us all a favour and move on.

These are fantastic news ! If the development of Louise House is as successfull the residents of Forest Hill will have the priviledge of two great community venues as opposed to just one. And I am sorry that the people of Sydenham who had hoped to gain a pool are disappointed..the pool was in Forest Hill town centre and there should it remain.

Sydenhamcentral

None of us know exactly what it will be like but the closest we have is the Allies and Morrison proposals undertaken earlier in the year. This is what the option 1 and option 3 schemes and costs in the Mayor and Cabinet Report were based on as far as we know.

Slide 14 onwards (in other words Option 2) of the stakeholder report from February has some of the drawings. Find it at http://tinyurl.com/lunalw

What happens now is the Council will most probably have to go through the European procurement process (commonly know as OJEU) to appoint an architect. They will then use this work as a base for developing the scheme up to a planning application. This process could take 3-6 months.

I couldn't be bothered to trawl through the 61 odd pages, but I recall many months ago someone stating that the pools would have to be demolished due to 'potential' foundation problems caused by the leaking pools. In fact this was cited by Lewisham as one of the drivers for demolition and rebuild when they first announced the new pools proposal

Maybe i've missed the findings of a new investigation/assessment, but how come the FH pools building is now fit for use?

What did i miss? (either pm me or post on the board)

Thanks Satchers.

Shame about the procurement. Procurement is great for buying paperclips but not for engaging the services of a creative agency whether it be design, architecture or whatever. Why can't human beings make decisions any more rather than going through some convoluted set of rational and form filling?

Anyway...
Looking back I think the council need to seriously look at how they make decisions.

First there was a feasability study. I seem to recall this included some drawings and recommendations.

Then there were some initial consultations with possible concepts that were were supposed to make a judgement on, despite the fact that the images of the designs would never see the light of day.

Then these were adapted and again these wouldn't see the light of day.

Then after all the consultations etc, still no firm of architects can be engaged as it has to go through procurement!

Despite people asking for a design competition, it was considered too expensive (although we were never told why or by how much). Apparently it is more expensive to pay architecture firms for consultations than to get architecture firms to send in their designs for free. The architects in my office are working on a design competition at the moment and think the whole process involved in the FH pools is crazy. I'm of the opinion that architecture should be left to architects.

In this instance I think we can count ourselves lucky. It only took a couple of years! Look at the pools in Lewisham, or Ladywell. Or the Lewisham 2000 (renamed when 2000 came and went to Lewisham Gateway) which is still on hold.

Perhaps things will be different in the future. Perhaps lessons will be learned.

Not forgetting that for months the Council's planning department knew about the application to English Heritage for the listing of Louise House yet this made no impression on the Council officers who were simultaneously drawing up the 2008 plan for swimming pools/housing which would involve the demolition of Louise House. Nor did these officers and their selected architects take any account of the fact that the library is a listed building. Indeed the evidence is that these officers were entirely ignorant of planning matters.

This same ignorance, shared by the Mayor and councillors, was evident again in the Willow Way proposal where the Council's own planning policy strongly precludes any development that is not fully in accordance with the employment designation of WW, eg a leisure centre.

All of these people misguidedly believed that what was important was the market research as to what local people wanted. No. What was important were the planning considerations and the Mayor conceded as much on 15th August when he rejected the cheaper option of a Willow Way leisure complex.

So a great deal of taxpayers' money and much time have been wasted because of the ignorance of the officers charged with building swimming pools as well as the ignorance of councillors and the Mayor about planning issues and planning policy. It is not acceptable that such ignorance is so prevalent in the Council and it is certainly not acceptable in someone in the powerful position of being a directly elected mayor.

Look, do you want the pools in Dartmouth Road or not? The Mayor apparently by making the decision that people really wanted is now being slammed for it. Perhaps you would be happier and feel more vindicated if he reversed the decision back to Willow Way. At least then the last few years activities and the consultation would have been justified and you could enjoy complaining about how the Mayor never listens.
It seems a peculiar aspect of the British personality that people seem to complain when they get what they have strived for. You've got the several million extra that makes the difference, for heavens sake stop whinging.

Roz

Do you see a point and then totally disregard it? Or do you fail to see a point? Either way your reply is nonsense.

I don't see your point at all, Sniffer. Public spending decisions of this magnitude are rarely straightforward and almost never in the straight line which you seem to expect. Perhaps you are just more optimistic than I am. I have worked in and with local authorities as development partners and this sort of thing just seems the norm to me.
I just don't understand how people now have the energy and inclination to start complaining about the process when it has in fact delivered, extremely surprisingly, what people seemed to want. The focus of the community surely now needs to be on getting a decent facility and a sustainable future for Louise House.

I'd just like to add that I am very happy that this Option 3 became available and that this option was chosen by the mayor.

My chief concern (as I suspect many of the advocates for WW were), was that I wanted a return of swimming in FH asap (and that I didn't have much faith that a future consultation would produce it!).

To be able to retain the frontage, start work 'immediately' and for them to be retained at DR seems to satisfy us all (as long as the designs don't change much from Option 1). So well done all involved in responding the questionnaires and applying pressure to get to this outcome.

So well done all involved in responding the questionnaires and applying pressure to get to this outcome.

Indeed. However, in addition to the FHS and the Face Off Forest Hill peeps, every group/political party in Forest Hill and their offspring seems to be claiming credit for the result so thats an awful lot of people to be thanked. Received my Labour Party update at the weekend where Jim Dowd MP reminded us how hard he worked for the reinstatement of the Pools in DR, as well as of course our esteemed Mayor, now the Lib Dem circular advising the same of our local councillors. I'm given to understand that the London Road Big Issue sellers also had a pivotal role. I'm still waiting for the Tory leaflet but suspect that will arrive any moment.....

Roz said: "....so thats an awful lot of people to be thanked".

Well, yes. That's because there are.

But whatever is said in whoever's leaflets, I'm sure we are all smart enough to credit those individuals who actually deserve it (on all the political sides involved), and to recognise any others who are trying to grab onto their coat-tails.

Far more important now to keep an eye on the design process and to make sure something decent is done with Louise House. Let's not, everyone, get distracted by getting into a graceless scuffle about who should have how many slices of the current glory.

Thousands signed the petition to keep swimming in Forest hill and no doubt quite a few of these were active in campaigning. Only a couple of people on this board have been critical. So let's put this into perspective!

On the other hand I dont remember Jim Dowd being very vocal in support of the pools, when the Libdems were leafletting - or did I miss this?