A volunteer (thank you) helping with No Demolition Without Designs stood outside Forest Hill Station today fro one hour. In that time they collected 125 signatures for the petition. They found people very willing to sign and said that if there had been three people doing it there would have been 300 signatures in the same time.
At the time of writing we have 480 signatures from Forest Hill Day, 105 on the online petition and another 125 singatures from Forest Hill station today. A total of 710 so far.
There really is widespread public support for our position: and it is a commonsense one.
Forest Hill Pools
Demolition unlikely before September
At the stakeholders meeting last night, it is clear that the Council has undertaken not to take a decision to demolish until there is a report to the Mayor and Cabinet which provides the results of the initial design and feasibility work on a new build pool/leisure centre. This meeting is unlikely to take place before September.
-
Tim Walder
- Posts: 28
- Joined: 4 Jun 2008 21:13
- Location: Forest Hill
I've heard on the grapevine that local residents will be "consulted" on just one modern scheme with three different housing options, all based on a similar design but with low, medium or high density housing to provide the funding to pay for additional leisure facilities (eg a community meeting room etc). The "high" density housing option appears to be the most popular with the Council as it would provide the local area with community facilities not available from the other options.
But high density housing would mean 60 housing units on the site. To achieve this, a 7-storey high building would be built on Dartmouth Road, the lower two floors forming part of the pools/leisure complex and the upper five storeys being used for private housing. This is described as a "Gateway" building. Some Gateway!
A further 5-storey residential block for social housing would also be built on the site.
Obviously the promised £7.5m funding from the council and £2m from housing cross-subsidies does not go far enough. Is anyone surprised?
So there we have it – to reach its housing targets Lewisham will be building more flats in Forest Hill, providing there are developers prepared to get involved. In return local residents would get a pool/leisure centre with community facilities.
My concern is that in the current economic downturn the much-loved Victorian streetscape will be demolished before a planning application is approved and before a developer commits to actually building all of this.
It you too are concerned, please let Lewisham Council know by signing the petition at http://www.gopetition/online/19745.html
But high density housing would mean 60 housing units on the site. To achieve this, a 7-storey high building would be built on Dartmouth Road, the lower two floors forming part of the pools/leisure complex and the upper five storeys being used for private housing. This is described as a "Gateway" building. Some Gateway!
A further 5-storey residential block for social housing would also be built on the site.
Obviously the promised £7.5m funding from the council and £2m from housing cross-subsidies does not go far enough. Is anyone surprised?
So there we have it – to reach its housing targets Lewisham will be building more flats in Forest Hill, providing there are developers prepared to get involved. In return local residents would get a pool/leisure centre with community facilities.
My concern is that in the current economic downturn the much-loved Victorian streetscape will be demolished before a planning application is approved and before a developer commits to actually building all of this.
It you too are concerned, please let Lewisham Council know by signing the petition at http://www.gopetition/online/19745.html
STAKEHOLDERS MEETING
Here is the text from se23.com from the stakeholders meeting.
11th June Pools Stakeholders Meeting
Below are notes taken by representatives from the Forest Hill Society and Sydenham Society at the recent stakeholders meeting regarding Forest Hill Pool:
Councillor Chris Best (Chair) opened the meeting addressing both Sydenham and Forest Hill Societies indicating Lewisham Council's displeasure at misinformation on both town websites and stating that Lewisham Council was committed to no decision to demolish present Victorian buildings until initial design work for a rebuild had been agreed by Mayor and Cabinet – at the end of the meeting it was agreed that the earliest likely decision would not be taken until the September Mayor and Cabinet meeting.
A representative from HLM architects was introduced and he ran through the process that HLM had used for designing a new pools/leisure centre at Forest Hill.
HLM’s intentions were to create a sense of place respecting the Library setting and the relationship any new building would have on the Library. This would be a high visibility site and sensitivity would be required. They were aware of the historic importance of the site.
The presentation of the three options began with a statement about commonality. The entrance of all options would face the Town centre, not Dartmouth Road and there would be an approach cut through the grass area in front of Salcombe House to form a green linear path. There would be a public amenity space/square in front of the entrance. The service strategy for the pools would be from Thorpewood Avenue.
Option 1
* one 25 m pool, no housing
* gym
* 2 fitness studios
* space for a cafe
Option 2
* 3000 sq m building, 2 storeys
* 25m pool plus additional training pool
* gym, 2 fitness studios, space for a cafe
* new square to station side of building (i.e. opposite side to library)
* new housing along line of Salcombe House: 25-30 units
* potential to expand parking underneath
This building would have the main entrance and foyer in the direction of the station, with a green approach and new public space. The frontage would sweep round to end in line with the library. The pools would be at the front of the building, with changing and access to dry facilities kept separate. Although two storeys, it would be low rise and not go above the lines of the existing housing behind in Derby Hill Crescent.
Option 3
* 3500-4000 sq m leisure/community/library space
* 25 m and training pools, plus maximum community space
* gym, 2 fitness studios, space for a cafe etc
* building form “respects” library
* “vibrant” public square
* feature building: "gateway" to Forest Hill
* potential for sustainable housing and/or mixed housing: 60 units
* pull-in bus parking along front on Dartmouth Road
This building would have a similar footprint to Option 2, but with several (up to 7) storeys of housing on the Dartmouth Road side over the foyer area. Also significantly increased community space over 2 storeys at the front, with the possibility of another entrance/access to the library at the corner where the two frontages meet.
Discussion:
Housing over the leisure centre foyer: 7 storeys could well be overpowering, the road is fairly narrow there so would impinge uopn the shops and residences opposite. Reply: is intended to be a bit narrow to make a “gateway”. Hilary: but if this is a gateway to Forest Hill it puts the library outside! The building seems to “turn its back” on the library. Other comment: why do we need a gateway? Architects like “iconic” buildings, and there was some discussion as to whether that was what the people of Forest Hill would want. Is 7 storyes too much? Would it make the leisure centre subservient to the residential aspects?
Use of the community space: the architects said they were deliberately being vage and nonprescrpitive about this. The space could contatin what we wanted. Pat Trembath mentioned the need for fairly large meetings rooms in FH. Chris Best agreed we need a room that would accommodate about 100. The studio space might be flexiable, and perhaps could be used for meetings too.
The development partner may want or demand parking, which is why the architects leave open the possibilty of underground parking. Hilary pointed out that this is very expensive, and would affect the finances and be likely to reduce the amount of cross subsidy money available for the leisure centre facilities.
The Tewkesbury Lodge representative said a survey of their residents emphasised the desire for leisure facilities in Forest Hill, we already have a lot of new residential buidlings. Cllr Best explained that building elsewhere in Forest Hill was by private developers, and the the Council needs receipts from building on this site to be able to afford anything more than a very basic building (i.e. Option 1).
Consultation
It was felt important that the recent history of the Pools be included in the information given including the results of the previous consultation, and the surveys. Drawings of the streetscape would need to be included to show how the facade might look, as many FH residents are unhappy about proposed changes to this. A leaflet to all residents explaining the history of the pools and the need to redevelop will be delivered to all households.
Timetable:
* July – consultation (probably exhibition in the library, public meetings)
* August – Stakeholder group meet again
* September – go to Mayor and cabinet – no demolition before this
11th June Pools Stakeholders Meeting
Below are notes taken by representatives from the Forest Hill Society and Sydenham Society at the recent stakeholders meeting regarding Forest Hill Pool:
Councillor Chris Best (Chair) opened the meeting addressing both Sydenham and Forest Hill Societies indicating Lewisham Council's displeasure at misinformation on both town websites and stating that Lewisham Council was committed to no decision to demolish present Victorian buildings until initial design work for a rebuild had been agreed by Mayor and Cabinet – at the end of the meeting it was agreed that the earliest likely decision would not be taken until the September Mayor and Cabinet meeting.
A representative from HLM architects was introduced and he ran through the process that HLM had used for designing a new pools/leisure centre at Forest Hill.
HLM’s intentions were to create a sense of place respecting the Library setting and the relationship any new building would have on the Library. This would be a high visibility site and sensitivity would be required. They were aware of the historic importance of the site.
The presentation of the three options began with a statement about commonality. The entrance of all options would face the Town centre, not Dartmouth Road and there would be an approach cut through the grass area in front of Salcombe House to form a green linear path. There would be a public amenity space/square in front of the entrance. The service strategy for the pools would be from Thorpewood Avenue.
Option 1
* one 25 m pool, no housing
* gym
* 2 fitness studios
* space for a cafe
Option 2
* 3000 sq m building, 2 storeys
* 25m pool plus additional training pool
* gym, 2 fitness studios, space for a cafe
* new square to station side of building (i.e. opposite side to library)
* new housing along line of Salcombe House: 25-30 units
* potential to expand parking underneath
This building would have the main entrance and foyer in the direction of the station, with a green approach and new public space. The frontage would sweep round to end in line with the library. The pools would be at the front of the building, with changing and access to dry facilities kept separate. Although two storeys, it would be low rise and not go above the lines of the existing housing behind in Derby Hill Crescent.
Option 3
* 3500-4000 sq m leisure/community/library space
* 25 m and training pools, plus maximum community space
* gym, 2 fitness studios, space for a cafe etc
* building form “respects” library
* “vibrant” public square
* feature building: "gateway" to Forest Hill
* potential for sustainable housing and/or mixed housing: 60 units
* pull-in bus parking along front on Dartmouth Road
This building would have a similar footprint to Option 2, but with several (up to 7) storeys of housing on the Dartmouth Road side over the foyer area. Also significantly increased community space over 2 storeys at the front, with the possibility of another entrance/access to the library at the corner where the two frontages meet.
Discussion:
Housing over the leisure centre foyer: 7 storeys could well be overpowering, the road is fairly narrow there so would impinge uopn the shops and residences opposite. Reply: is intended to be a bit narrow to make a “gateway”. Hilary: but if this is a gateway to Forest Hill it puts the library outside! The building seems to “turn its back” on the library. Other comment: why do we need a gateway? Architects like “iconic” buildings, and there was some discussion as to whether that was what the people of Forest Hill would want. Is 7 storyes too much? Would it make the leisure centre subservient to the residential aspects?
Use of the community space: the architects said they were deliberately being vage and nonprescrpitive about this. The space could contatin what we wanted. Pat Trembath mentioned the need for fairly large meetings rooms in FH. Chris Best agreed we need a room that would accommodate about 100. The studio space might be flexiable, and perhaps could be used for meetings too.
The development partner may want or demand parking, which is why the architects leave open the possibilty of underground parking. Hilary pointed out that this is very expensive, and would affect the finances and be likely to reduce the amount of cross subsidy money available for the leisure centre facilities.
The Tewkesbury Lodge representative said a survey of their residents emphasised the desire for leisure facilities in Forest Hill, we already have a lot of new residential buidlings. Cllr Best explained that building elsewhere in Forest Hill was by private developers, and the the Council needs receipts from building on this site to be able to afford anything more than a very basic building (i.e. Option 1).
Consultation
It was felt important that the recent history of the Pools be included in the information given including the results of the previous consultation, and the surveys. Drawings of the streetscape would need to be included to show how the facade might look, as many FH residents are unhappy about proposed changes to this. A leaflet to all residents explaining the history of the pools and the need to redevelop will be delivered to all households.
Timetable:
* July – consultation (probably exhibition in the library, public meetings)
* August – Stakeholder group meet again
* September – go to Mayor and cabinet – no demolition before this
POOLING TOGETHER
I'd also like to point people towards this website: http://poolingtogether.blogspot.com/
Tim Walder wrote:
Absolutely, and it makes the petition out of date. No longer 'No demolition with out design' - it should be 'No demolition without money on the table'. It's not just money from housing that will be squeezed - public sector spending is also going to suffer. Frankly, the way things are going, the most likely outcome is that the Victorian frontage gets knocked down, and then nothing happens for years.My concern is that in the current economic downturn the much-loved Victorian streetscape will be demolished before a planning application is approved and before a developer commits to actually building all of this.
The Sydenham Town website is dedicated to providing a comprehensive and (as far as it is possible) neutral view of local news. To this end we reported extensively and, I hope, fairly on the previous consultation.
Yet I was shocked to read of this important meeting of which I was unaware (and not invited). Was this deliberate, a mistake or is independent view of our community not qualify as a stakeholder?
All the news atm is coming from groups with an agenda. I have no problem with agendas, discussion or links to campaigning sites in the Forum. Its what the Forum is here for.
Yet I have yet to find a balanced independent report representing but not taking any side of what can be an emotional debate. If there is one please let me know.
Otherwise would all sides please help me produce one. Otherwise the website will continue to be silent on what is one of the more important issues of our community at the moment. Which must be baffling to others beside myself!
The PM button is just a click away ...
Admin
Yet I was shocked to read of this important meeting of which I was unaware (and not invited). Was this deliberate, a mistake or is independent view of our community not qualify as a stakeholder?
All the news atm is coming from groups with an agenda. I have no problem with agendas, discussion or links to campaigning sites in the Forum. Its what the Forum is here for.
Yet I have yet to find a balanced independent report representing but not taking any side of what can be an emotional debate. If there is one please let me know.
Otherwise would all sides please help me produce one. Otherwise the website will continue to be silent on what is one of the more important issues of our community at the moment. Which must be baffling to others beside myself!
The PM button is just a click away ...
Admin
-
Pat Trembath
- Posts: 613
- Joined: 2 Oct 2004 10:54
The Forest Hill/ Sydenham Society report on the meeting of the Stakeholders group on 11 June is impartial and has no slant on any agenda. It is neutral and factual and, to the best of our ability, it is an accurate record of proceedings.
I would like to clarify one point with regard to Option 2. The following is taken directly from my notes:
Option 2 had one pool and one learner pool, 2 studios and a fitness suite and its size was 3000sq m. There would be housing to the rear of the pocket park on a building line with Salcombe House, responding to housing needs/targets. A small housing unit would front Dartmouth Road, separate to the pools building. The housing to the rear of the site is social, housing onto Dartmouth Road would be private.
I would like to clarify one point with regard to Option 2. The following is taken directly from my notes:
Option 2 had one pool and one learner pool, 2 studios and a fitness suite and its size was 3000sq m. There would be housing to the rear of the pocket park on a building line with Salcombe House, responding to housing needs/targets. A small housing unit would front Dartmouth Road, separate to the pools building. The housing to the rear of the site is social, housing onto Dartmouth Road would be private.
Pat,
That's just the point. The report was written and published by parties who have campaigned for particular outcomes and against others. It may indeed be objective or objective in the eyes of a particular party. But how are others to judge?
That's why I was urging that at least some report should be done by an independent observer with no agenda. If you have the strongest case - that would probably make it stronger. It would also be more widely reported.
Private meetings can be good in sorting through the issues prior to public consultation. But here we have private meeting and the public campaigning ahead of consultation. I remember when you criticised (rightly IMHO) another community organisation for doing just that not a year ago.
I happen to trust you more than them. But that doesn't make it right.
Admin
That's just the point. The report was written and published by parties who have campaigned for particular outcomes and against others. It may indeed be objective or objective in the eyes of a particular party. But how are others to judge?
That's why I was urging that at least some report should be done by an independent observer with no agenda. If you have the strongest case - that would probably make it stronger. It would also be more widely reported.
Private meetings can be good in sorting through the issues prior to public consultation. But here we have private meeting and the public campaigning ahead of consultation. I remember when you criticised (rightly IMHO) another community organisation for doing just that not a year ago.
I happen to trust you more than them. But that doesn't make it right.
Admin
So in effect we're being asked to choose between a 7-storey block (option 3) and 2 blocks of unspecified height (option 2), both of which yield 2 pools - although one is described as a 'trainer' pool; option 1 has no blocks but minimal facilities. I can't understand why the Council can't go for an imaginative pools layout behind the current facades, converting the Victorian Louise House and the frontage block of the pool into attractive flats. In my opinion Forest Hill needs more blocks of 1 and 2-bed 'warehouse' type flats like a hole in the head - surely there's already a glut of them!
I went around a number of local Estate agents in Forest Hill and Sydenham.
They all said the same thing:
• Developers don't listen to them.
• The flats need to be 2 bed and under the 250,000 threshold.
• 1 Beds aren't selling.
• Most new developments are too expensive when 2 bed victorian conversions are much cheaper.
I agree with BB, why can't we keep the facades of the buildings AND have a pool.
You can vote on that here: www.poolingtogether.blogspot.com
They all said the same thing:
• Developers don't listen to them.
• The flats need to be 2 bed and under the 250,000 threshold.
• 1 Beds aren't selling.
• Most new developments are too expensive when 2 bed victorian conversions are much cheaper.
I agree with BB, why can't we keep the facades of the buildings AND have a pool.
You can vote on that here: www.poolingtogether.blogspot.com
-
Steve Grindlay
- Posts: 606
- Joined: 4 Oct 2004 05:07
- Location: Upper Sydenham
Despite Admin's misgivings I am prepared to accept that this quote, from the notes of the Stakeholders' Meeting, is accurate:
I then wondered whether it was perhaps connected with the demolition of the Pools and Louise House so I went to the Council's website to find the truth.
First I came across this:
However, I then found this:
But then the official minutes of the Stakeholders' Meeting state that:
My first though on reading this was if they felt "displeasure" why hadn't somebody offered to correct this "misinformation"?(Chair) opened the meeting addressing both Sydenham and Forest Hill Societies indicating Lewisham Council's displeasure at misinformation on both town websites...
I then wondered whether it was perhaps connected with the demolition of the Pools and Louise House so I went to the Council's website to find the truth.
First I came across this:
This means, as far as I can tell, that demolition will begin between 105 and 135 days from the start of the project (17 March 2008). Therefore it is due to start between 1st July and 31st July.Project Start Date 17th March 2008
4. Demolition: Demolish and Clear Site ... Elapsed Time (days) 105-135
However, I then found this:
As Autumn begins on 1st September this means that demolition will begin in early to mid September.Demolition of the site including Louise House, is scheduled for early Autumn.
But then the official minutes of the Stakeholders' Meeting state that:
Although this may not be "misinformation", three different dates for demolition does make one wonder how carefully thought out their plans for the site really are.demolition and site clearance will take place in August 2008
Steve - I noted what I saw as a defamatory remark on my stewardship of this website given without notice behind my back by Lewisham Council. Suffice to say a rather outraged note is wending its way Laurence Housewards.
If they will forgive my five minutes of less than emolient discourse I hope they and others will realise that the whole point of the ST website is to bring as complete and objective information to the community as possible. Its here to help everybody get their message across and try to draw some objective conclusions.
I always thought communication is about winning hearts and minds. Perhaps I have neither.
I shall be watching my inbox for a reply from two people I normally respect!
Admin
If they will forgive my five minutes of less than emolient discourse I hope they and others will realise that the whole point of the ST website is to bring as complete and objective information to the community as possible. Its here to help everybody get their message across and try to draw some objective conclusions.
I always thought communication is about winning hearts and minds. Perhaps I have neither.
I shall be watching my inbox for a reply from two people I normally respect!
Admin
Dates for Forest Hill Redevelopment Exhibition announced
Just sent to stakeholders:
An exhibition detailing the three development options for the Forest Hill Redevelopment will be held in Forest Hill Town Centre on Friday 18th July ( 3pm - 7pm) and Saturday 19th July ( 9am - 2pm)
This event will be staffed so that the public can discuss the designs in detail with the project team.
From 21st July - 8th August the exhibition will be at Forest Hill Library and feedback forms will be provided.
The plans and an opportunity to comment will also be available on line. www.lewisham.gov.uk/foresthillpools
A letter confirming these details will be distributed across the Forest Hill Sydenham and Perry Vale wards in the next few days
Throughout the period we will also be arranging for some focus groups with schools, businesses, local community organisations etc