The main pool is currently closed due to a technical problem, engineers are currently working on the problem and we will keep you updated, thank you for your patience

Hi all, main pool is now back open, thank you for your pateince

I see there are proposals afoot which are likely to mean higher charges and reduced services at the pools - see http://www.se23.com/forum/showthread.php...#pid70612. Is there any chance of somebody - the Forest Hill Society? - taking an active lead in ensuring that the voice of the users is properly coordinated and adequately represented to the council?

While I feel that Fusion's monopoly of South Londons leisure centres is poorly deserved as they don't seem particularly well managed,
I am disturbed to think that the free swimming for kids and over 60's may be abolished.
Also as a non member I can still afford to attend classes and swimming at Lewisham pools HOWEVER in nearby east dulwich pools also run by Fusion but under Southwark council I find myself unable to attend any of the classes on offer (of which there are more than at FHP) because it costs over £8 for a non member.
I like to excersise twice a week but at those kind of prices it truly is Unaffordable.

I see on p. 180 of the document to which Philip posted a link it says: 'NB – a separate savings proposal within Public Health suggests the ending of free swimming provision.' Can anyone advise us on the status of this proposal or point us to the appropriate document? On the council's website it says, 'Free swimming has been secured in the borough for 15 years.'

A deafening silence, I see. I have made enquiries of two Forest Hill/Sydenham councillors (who I will not yet name and shame) but have had neither acknowledgment nor response.

I got some more helpful information from a councillor I happen to know from another part of Lewisham: 'At the moment there are proposals in the budget papers but we are a long way from any decision which would be part of the budget which the council will pass in February.'

What I really want to know is whether users will be consulted and, if so, how and when.

Its so unfair that often we the users are so rarely truly consulted on the kind of matters which can greatly affect our quality of life.
it feels like dicisions are made by those in ivory towers merely looking at the 'bottom line' whilst not caring about the 'little people'.

I have just had another go at one of my ward councillors using this modern Twitter thingy, which I gather sometimes gets swift responses.

Thanks to Cllr Paul Upex for referring me to proposal A16 in the document entitled Lewisham Future Programme 2016/17 Draft Revenue Budget Savings Proposals for Scrutiny However, so far as I can see, the details of what is proposed under A16 are not set out in the main paper (8.7-8.12, pp. 8-9)- indeed, I can see no mention of swimming. There is a reference to appendix 1 of the paper, but the appendices do not seem to be available via this link.

I raised the issue at the recent meeting of the FH ward assembly. Cllr Maja Hilton said she would follow it up, but I haven't heard from her.

So we're still in the dark. Has this proposal been dropped? Or are we not supposed to know about it? Did it leak out accidentally?

I think we should be told, otherwise I (at least) will be getting paranoid and start raving on about conspiracies.

This post was last modified: 24-10-2015 07:53 PM by robin orton.

Robin can you PM me with who you are on Twitter so I can have a look or just find me, I'm easy to find.

Thanks for the offer, P1971 (may I call you P?), but I'd rather continue the discussion in an open forum if possible.

Hi Robin

No problem calling me P. Guess you saw I followed you on Twitter after I posted, you were easy to find and I love the pic :-)

I agree. Twitter is a great way to get quick messages across and to ask questions publicly but you can't go into detail.

Came across another Doc today about the library that's not well publicised so will try and find a way to get it on that thread.

Thanks again to Cllr Paul Upex. The details of the proposals to end free swimming are here - see particularly pp. 53 and 56, and the interesting data on take-up of free swimming at pp. 59-61. Paul tells me however that 'the proposal to reduce or remove free swimming for the elderly and disabled is currently on hold pending the outcome of the overall review of leisure provision.'

48% of children in Lewisham are non-swimmers is shocking! It's a life skill and schools should be providing this from the age of 5-11 with no breaks - parents aren't always capable of teaching their children to swim

I thought I would raise the point that the council is clearly facing some very difficult funding decisions as budgets are tight. I completely agree with all of the comments on another thread regarding potential cuts to Forest Hill Library as I think it would be terrible if book lending services which families rely on or IT services which people with no other access rely on are cut.

I hadn't realised council tax money was used on free swimming and I must confess to not understanding the reason for providing free swimming to over 60s (the proposal notes that this scheme is particularly underused by children). The provision of free swimming to over 60s feels to me like a scheme that was implemented by councils at a time when overall council funding was higher and over 60s income was lower relative to other age groups. It was initially funded by the government, but when this funding was removed most councils appear to have scrapped it.

According to research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF), the proportion of pensioners in poverty is at record low levels while young adults have become increasingly impoverished over the last decade. Perhaps this is therefore a sensible scheme to cut to enable the council to protect other, more worthwhile services.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog...r-over-65s

Thanks for this link Robin.

Finally I've managed to have a look at this properly though I must confess I've not had the time until this evening. As far as I know free swimming for Kids until the age of 16 may be in jeopardy but can only seem to find out limited information, so if anyone can point me to more info please do, as I expected from the amount of schools I see passing on a daily basis FH pools seems to have the most success rate in the whole borough so I think it would be a setback for the local kids if this were to end.

Here's my findings but please correct me if I'm wrong.

Non swimmers
FH - 25%
Other pools in the borough range from 47-64%

Able to swim 25m
FH - 48%
Other pools in the borough range from 15-43%

Local Schools make use of FH Pools at the following times
Mon
10-12 - main & learner
1.30-3 - main
Tues
9-12 - main
10-10.30 - learner
1.30-3 - main & learner
Wed
9-12 - main & learner
1.30-3 - learner
Thurs
9-12 - main & learner
1.30-3 - main & learner
Fri
9-12 - main
10.30-12 - learner
1.30-3 - main & learner

This shows me that this service is well used and makes a difference to the local kids in FH so it would be a great shame if this were to end!

The proposal specifically says it is 'underutilised, particularly by children'. It also states that 'for children this means they can only attend public and general swimming sessions that fall outside school hours or fall on weekends and school holidays'. Presumably this means that the school visits you mentioned would not be effected. They are probably partly funded by a separate initiative (link below).

I have also copied Robin's link again in case people wanted to read the proposal before commenting on it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-29903815

http://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/d...ON%20A.pdf

It would be interesting to determine whether the kids availing of free swimming are generally better off and also whether the pensioners tend to be the less well off ones.

I think research on swimming in schools generally shows that your ability to swim tends to reflect your socio-economic group or cultural background and so free swimming probably benefits these people more whereas spending money on lessons in primary schools will tend to benefit all and especially those children from less privileged backgrounds. I would say though there is a strong argument to keep it for the secondary school kids and perhaps link it to the zip card as these kids regardless of background should have the chance to swim or mess about in water which they won't get in school.

I must confess I'm really anti stopping free swimming for over 60's.
For so many old people Swimming is the only kind of Cardio they can do.
Its low impact and a great form of excersise.
Also it gives older people a chance to get out and socialise.
I still know a lot of pensioners for whom money is tight.And they certainly would not be able to afford their current daily swim if they had to pay for it.

I agree with nottinghillbilly. I am an old person with chronic back problems who finds walking long distances, and most other forms of exercise, increasingly tiring and sometimes painful. I have been advised by physiotherapists and osteopaths to swim twice a week. I don't enjoy it particularly, but I feel (and I appreciate there may not be conclusive empirical evidence for this) that it is helping to keep me out of a wheelchair for a few years yet, and also, by giving me a bit of a cardio-vascular workout, helping to postpone my first stroke.

I and my wife appreciate the dedicated over-60 swimming sessions at FH Pools. I realise that their existence may tend to irritate other pool users, but old people (many of whom are far more disabled than I) tend to swim slowly and unassertively, and we would prefer to avoid the prospect of getting in the way of the Greek gods and goddesses with gleaming skin, well-chiselled musculature, taut buttocks and skimpy trunks who like to charge up and down the pool at high speed.

We personally would be quite happy to pay a reasonable charge for the privilege of swimming, but I doubt whether all our fellow elderly swimmers, who presumably gain at least as big a health benefit as we do, would easily be able to afford to do so.