all i'm saying is just don't be surprised if overwhelming public opinion is ignored.
nasaroc's only having a joke about me being an immigrant!
Forest Hill Pools
Forest Hill Pools
As many of you obviously are fans of these buildings could I suggest that planners have a look at Dulwich Leisure Centre on East Dulwich Road?
I used this regularly in the past, even before its upgrade six or seven years ago. They converted a pretty uninspiring hall (a bit like a church hall) into a lovely gym, with a fitness studio at the back). They have retained some of the orginal features inside and it's lovely and bright and spacious - much nicer than the Spa gym, which I think is really pokey - it's so small you feel like the beef cakes pumping iron are going to squirt sweat on you!
As far as I know the Dulwich centre still haven't sorted the very old pool facilities out and I had to attend yoga in a room which was in a very bad state of repair. But it could give planners some ideas...
I used this regularly in the past, even before its upgrade six or seven years ago. They converted a pretty uninspiring hall (a bit like a church hall) into a lovely gym, with a fitness studio at the back). They have retained some of the orginal features inside and it's lovely and bright and spacious - much nicer than the Spa gym, which I think is really pokey - it's so small you feel like the beef cakes pumping iron are going to squirt sweat on you!
As far as I know the Dulwich centre still haven't sorted the very old pool facilities out and I had to attend yoga in a room which was in a very bad state of repair. But it could give planners some ideas...
I haven't read the detail of the proposals but I think I'd prefer that the frontage was retained if possible, although I'm open to the idea of a complete re-build.
I'd echo what dickp said that I would much prefer a modern building than a Victorian pastiche though - keep what is there or build in contemporary style, but don't attempt to re-create the past.
I'd echo what dickp said that I would much prefer a modern building than a Victorian pastiche though - keep what is there or build in contemporary style, but don't attempt to re-create the past.
Below is an brilliant resume of where we stand on FH pools by Penny Jarrett of the the Forest Hill Society posted on Se23.com. I know Penny won't mind this being recycled here:
As a long time user of Forest Hill Pools (as a Sydenham School pupil we had lessons there), I attended the consultation meetings held in October 2005. Capita Consulting produced a document looking at 6 different options, but the discussion was limited to refurbishment (keep two pools) or rebuild (one 25m pool and a fitness suite). The results of the written surveys returned to the Council were 726 for refurbish, 1079 for rebuild. However, owing to the strength of feeling expressed by those at the meetings and in focus groups (actually the minority of respondents, but vocal) which was emphatically in favour of refurbish, the Mayor decided in favour of this in March 2006. In May 2006, an application to English Heritage to have the building listed was not granted.
In March 2006, the pools were closed owing to concerns about decay in the roof trusses. Pinnacle ESP consulting carried out an intrusive survey, which reported in November 2006 that extensive repair and replacement of most of the plant and fittings would be required to bring it up to modern standards, but they felt the building fabric retained its structural integrity, so refurbishment was still an option. At the Area Forum in February 2007 it was clear the Council still planned to proceed with this. They did not actually do so, as they say they were getting the Downham and Wavelengths (Deptford) pool projects to fruition (both now open I believe).
It now seems the intrusive survey was not intrusive enough, as a detailed feasibility assessment, available on the website location given by Cllr Chris Best, states that the two pool tanks are subject to severe cracking across their entire width in three places, and are leaking water at 3627m3 per annum. Apparently, trial pits show that the pool slabs are not entirely resting on clay as they should be, but there is a void underneath. This obviously makes refurbishment considerably more difficult and expensive, with higher risk of costs spiralling ever higher. The report considers 4 options: 1) refurbish 2) new build (25m pool, learner pool and fitness suite) behind existing frontage 3) Demolish whole complex and complete new build (25m pool, learner pool and fitness suite) and 4) Demolish whole complex and provide dry leisure and adult learning. From Chris Best's posting, they would actually seem to favour option 3 with additionally demolishing Louise House, and and provide dry leisure and adult learning, and build on the pocket park.
Everyone seems to agree that we want Pools on the site a.s.a.p. New build is undoubtedly the surest way of getting this. As a sentimental old thing, I would mourn the loss of some of the most historic and noteworthy building in Forest Hill. It is part of our heritage, and I think I am not alone in feeling this. However, it seems to me that this can be mitigated. The Sydenham Society have suggested requiring the any new build should be required to actually incorporate stonework from the frontage of the old buildings e.g. lettering, decorative work, foundation stones. I would further suggest a proper architectural survey and recording of what is there, with plans and photographs, of both Louise House and the Pools. I don't know if local libraries or Horniman's would be able to house any of the laundry artefacts from the basement. Perhaps someone (Steve Grindley??) could be commissioned to write a history of the site?
The Council meeting is on 13th February.
.
As a long time user of Forest Hill Pools (as a Sydenham School pupil we had lessons there), I attended the consultation meetings held in October 2005. Capita Consulting produced a document looking at 6 different options, but the discussion was limited to refurbishment (keep two pools) or rebuild (one 25m pool and a fitness suite). The results of the written surveys returned to the Council were 726 for refurbish, 1079 for rebuild. However, owing to the strength of feeling expressed by those at the meetings and in focus groups (actually the minority of respondents, but vocal) which was emphatically in favour of refurbish, the Mayor decided in favour of this in March 2006. In May 2006, an application to English Heritage to have the building listed was not granted.
In March 2006, the pools were closed owing to concerns about decay in the roof trusses. Pinnacle ESP consulting carried out an intrusive survey, which reported in November 2006 that extensive repair and replacement of most of the plant and fittings would be required to bring it up to modern standards, but they felt the building fabric retained its structural integrity, so refurbishment was still an option. At the Area Forum in February 2007 it was clear the Council still planned to proceed with this. They did not actually do so, as they say they were getting the Downham and Wavelengths (Deptford) pool projects to fruition (both now open I believe).
It now seems the intrusive survey was not intrusive enough, as a detailed feasibility assessment, available on the website location given by Cllr Chris Best, states that the two pool tanks are subject to severe cracking across their entire width in three places, and are leaking water at 3627m3 per annum. Apparently, trial pits show that the pool slabs are not entirely resting on clay as they should be, but there is a void underneath. This obviously makes refurbishment considerably more difficult and expensive, with higher risk of costs spiralling ever higher. The report considers 4 options: 1) refurbish 2) new build (25m pool, learner pool and fitness suite) behind existing frontage 3) Demolish whole complex and complete new build (25m pool, learner pool and fitness suite) and 4) Demolish whole complex and provide dry leisure and adult learning. From Chris Best's posting, they would actually seem to favour option 3 with additionally demolishing Louise House, and and provide dry leisure and adult learning, and build on the pocket park.
Everyone seems to agree that we want Pools on the site a.s.a.p. New build is undoubtedly the surest way of getting this. As a sentimental old thing, I would mourn the loss of some of the most historic and noteworthy building in Forest Hill. It is part of our heritage, and I think I am not alone in feeling this. However, it seems to me that this can be mitigated. The Sydenham Society have suggested requiring the any new build should be required to actually incorporate stonework from the frontage of the old buildings e.g. lettering, decorative work, foundation stones. I would further suggest a proper architectural survey and recording of what is there, with plans and photographs, of both Louise House and the Pools. I don't know if local libraries or Horniman's would be able to house any of the laundry artefacts from the basement. Perhaps someone (Steve Grindley??) could be commissioned to write a history of the site?
The Council meeting is on 13th February.
.
Be someone for refurb or new build what seemed to unite people was a desire for 2 pools, which was not an option with the new build. The Mayor's approval to use the Louise House site and the parkland was suggested by the public in October 2005 as a way to provide solutions be it refurb or new build.
The council would not comment when asked about the future of Louise House. Officers of the council told the public building on open space was not allowed, despite the Mayor (who was in the room) having approved such a scheme in Deptford.
I have just found the 8 options considered by Capita in August 2005 and options 7 & 8 were to demolish Louise House and replace it with the pools. This was dropped as the site was too small. Why should Capita consider this an option unless the officers had given an indication it was a possibility.
Then there's the matter of the 12-18 month delay of the risk assessment resulting in £250,000 being paid to Parkward Leisure and £1-2m being added to the cost of the new pools.
I know that's in the past but those people are still around and now proposing within 10 months to negotiate the sale of the parkland, consult with the public, produce a suitable design, obtain planning permission and sign up a contractor. On a site which many feel the archictectual style is extremely important.
It could be the council already has designs up it sleeves which could speed the process along.
I suppose I'm saying how can the public be sure the information they are provided with are the full facts known to the officers and elected representives.
I know people are concerned with the new pools but keep an eye on the residential development required to partly fund the new pools. Will the strip of parkland be enough for a developer, how many homes will be built, what will be the height of the building and its style?
The council would not comment when asked about the future of Louise House. Officers of the council told the public building on open space was not allowed, despite the Mayor (who was in the room) having approved such a scheme in Deptford.
I have just found the 8 options considered by Capita in August 2005 and options 7 & 8 were to demolish Louise House and replace it with the pools. This was dropped as the site was too small. Why should Capita consider this an option unless the officers had given an indication it was a possibility.
Then there's the matter of the 12-18 month delay of the risk assessment resulting in £250,000 being paid to Parkward Leisure and £1-2m being added to the cost of the new pools.
I know that's in the past but those people are still around and now proposing within 10 months to negotiate the sale of the parkland, consult with the public, produce a suitable design, obtain planning permission and sign up a contractor. On a site which many feel the archictectual style is extremely important.
It could be the council already has designs up it sleeves which could speed the process along.
I suppose I'm saying how can the public be sure the information they are provided with are the full facts known to the officers and elected representives.
I know people are concerned with the new pools but keep an eye on the residential development required to partly fund the new pools. Will the strip of parkland be enough for a developer, how many homes will be built, what will be the height of the building and its style?
At the mayor and cabinet earlier this week the Mayor and Cabinet agreed with the recommendation to demolish the existing buildings and build a new two pool facility on the site of the pool and Louise House.
Cabinet member, Chris Best specifically mentioned the STF and the views of people posting on this site. The Cabinet agreed to integrate some of the features of the existing pools building into the new design. There was also a commitment to consult with local groups and residents regarding the design and to open the new pool in the summer of 2010.
Work will begin at the beginning of 2009 after the design and tender process.
This is extremely good news or locals.
It is a very specific commitment to have new pools up and running by 2010. I don't quite know why, in the face of this good news, people like Sid and Ham want to drag back through a history of this entire project.
We should rejoice that a decision has been made, be willing to take part in consultation on the new design and look forward to the opening of this fantastic new facility in just over two years time.
Cabinet member, Chris Best specifically mentioned the STF and the views of people posting on this site. The Cabinet agreed to integrate some of the features of the existing pools building into the new design. There was also a commitment to consult with local groups and residents regarding the design and to open the new pool in the summer of 2010.
Work will begin at the beginning of 2009 after the design and tender process.
This is extremely good news or locals.
It is a very specific commitment to have new pools up and running by 2010. I don't quite know why, in the face of this good news, people like Sid and Ham want to drag back through a history of this entire project.
We should rejoice that a decision has been made, be willing to take part in consultation on the new design and look forward to the opening of this fantastic new facility in just over two years time.
Good News ............a decision at last. Now some actionnasaroc wrote:At the mayor and cabinet earlier this week the Mayor and Cabinet agreed with the recommendation to demolish the existing buildings and build a new two pool facility on the site of the pool and Louise House.
Lets hope this consulting with local groups etc will not delay the opening of the pool(s) in the summer of 2010nasaroc wrote: There was also a commitment to consult with local groups and residents regarding the design and to open the new pool in the summer of 2010.
Hey, that's my home town and I wouldn't be surprised if this is true.Juwlz wrote:I'm sure I read once (in a newspaper) that there are more swimming pools in the city of Melbourne, Australia, than there are in the whole of England. Can anyone corroborate this?
My high school had an olympic sized pool right next to it, with a waterslide...and this was a rough state school I went to.
I have done a bit of research and I found an article in the Sun which mentioned:Juwlz wrote:I'm sure I read once (in a newspaper) that there are more swimming pools in the city of Melbourne, Australia, than there are in the whole of England. Can anyone corroborate this?
Corroborating evidence is provided on http://www.prstubbs.btinternet.co.uk/olympic.htmThe Sun, 2 May 2006 wrote:GREGOR TAIT, the Scottish swimmer who brought back two Commonwealth gold medals, depressed me on Sunday morning.
Appearing on Andrew Marr's TV show, he said that the city of Melbourne alone has more 50-metre swimming pools than the whole of the UK.
Which tells us that England had fifteen 50m pools in 2003, compared to 47 in Australia. With 17% of the Australian population living in Melbourne, and the city being fanatical about swimming since hosting the 1956 Olympics, it is easy to imagine that they have just over fifteen 50m pools.
So for Olympic pools / 50m pools the evidence suggests they have more than England. Assuming that they are not counting outdoor pools (which have been left out of the British figures).
For total number of pools it is easy to imagine that Melbourne has more pools in back gardens than in England. The climate is warming and the cost of land cheaper, nobody should be surprise that this is the case.
Most public pools in England are not 50m pools (Crystal Palace size), they are 25m pools (Forest Hill sized). This allows for better provision of facilities if combined with a separate learner pool, but they are not so popular with Olympic swimmers. Forest Hill does not really need a 50m pool for training for Olympic swimmers, but a two pool leisure centre as we have had for the last 130 years, significantly older I suspect than any of the pools in Melbourne.
If I'm not mistaken, two former swimming champions were born and grew up in Sydenham / Forest Hill - Linda Ludgrove and Zara Long. Linda Ludgrove's record below is taken from Wikipedia:
Linda Ludgrove was an English backstroke swimmer (born September 3, 1947). Raised in Sydenham, Linda won individual gold medals at 110 Yards Backstroke and 220 Yards Backstroke in both the 1962 and 1966 Commonwealth Games. As part of the England team she won silver in the 1962 4 x 110 Yards Medley Relay and gold in the 1966 relay. She competed in the 1964 Tokyo Olympics in the 4*100M Freestyle Relay and the 100m Backstroke, placed 6th in the latter. Obtained silver in the 100M Backstroke at the 1966 European Championships. She was 3rd in the 1962 BBC Sports Personality of the Year. She held seven world records. Retired from swimming in 1967.
Presumably she trained at Forest Hill, as the Crystal Palace pool was not built until the mid 60s - after her career highlights.
Linda Ludgrove was an English backstroke swimmer (born September 3, 1947). Raised in Sydenham, Linda won individual gold medals at 110 Yards Backstroke and 220 Yards Backstroke in both the 1962 and 1966 Commonwealth Games. As part of the England team she won silver in the 1962 4 x 110 Yards Medley Relay and gold in the 1966 relay. She competed in the 1964 Tokyo Olympics in the 4*100M Freestyle Relay and the 100m Backstroke, placed 6th in the latter. Obtained silver in the 100M Backstroke at the 1966 European Championships. She was 3rd in the 1962 BBC Sports Personality of the Year. She held seven world records. Retired from swimming in 1967.
Presumably she trained at Forest Hill, as the Crystal Palace pool was not built until the mid 60s - after her career highlights.
-
LivesNearby
- Posts: 47
- Joined: 21 Feb 2008 11:44
- Location: Forest Hill
Re: Forest Hill Pools
I second that emotionpoppy wrote:We really need a decent leisure centre in this part of the borough and that could be the perfect spot.
There are so few sporting facilities around here and the provision of both wet and dry leisure facilities in one location, near to local schools is too good an opportunity to be missed. I would really like to see a facility combining a pool you can swim laps in, learner pool, multi-use indoor sports arena (for badminton, tennis, soccer and basketball) and gymnasium in one location. If you could include some form of youth centre, so much the better.I'm slightly concerned by the plan to raise £2.5m by selling land for housing (Reducing the £10m budget to £7.5m). How much will be left from the combined Louise House / Pool / Park site for leisure activities?
Also, the report said that 18 months was required for the current saturated land to dry out before repairs to the existing pool could start. This will still be required as the clay will shrink considerably as it dries out. After that a new pool will to take 18 months to build. I don't see this new pool opening much before 2012
Last edited by LivesNearby on 21 Feb 2008 16:42, edited 1 time in total.
For a local authority to stick their neck out and say that they will have a two pool replacement up and running at FH by 2010 needs quite a bit of nerve. Yes, there are question to be asked about the cost of the project, what it looks like, the engineering problems etc etc but these are matters that can be taken care of once we see a full plan of what is proposed.
The real danger, however, is that we start to pile all our desires for better sporting and leisure facilities in the area onto this project and then declare it a failure if it fails to come up with them.
Lives Nearby has posted a well-written contribution above. Of course we need more sports/leisure facilities locally. But to demand a "multi-use indoor sports arena" (and a youth club!) on this site is barmy.
We're going to get two new swimming pools, a gym and hopefully some sort of replacement for Louise House plus housing on the site.
There simply isn't enough room to include a sports arena!
(remember that the area designated for housing takes up a very narrow strip along the side of the site and without the housing scheme, the project would become financially difficult).
The real danger, however, is that we start to pile all our desires for better sporting and leisure facilities in the area onto this project and then declare it a failure if it fails to come up with them.
Lives Nearby has posted a well-written contribution above. Of course we need more sports/leisure facilities locally. But to demand a "multi-use indoor sports arena" (and a youth club!) on this site is barmy.
We're going to get two new swimming pools, a gym and hopefully some sort of replacement for Louise House plus housing on the site.
There simply isn't enough room to include a sports arena!
(remember that the area designated for housing takes up a very narrow strip along the side of the site and without the housing scheme, the project would become financially difficult).
Hi nasaroc,
The council must have a lot of nerve as they have frequently made commitments that have not been met...
The council said in the 1990's the pool at Downham would be ready by 2000. In 2002 the Mayor pledged it would open in 2004, in April 2005 it was said it would open in 2006. The contract to build and manage was not signed till the latter part of 2005 and the pool eventually opened in March 2007.
The proposed flagship pool at Loampit Vale is another commitment made but not fullfilled. The Mayor produced a document that it would have 2 full sized pools, that it would have a large sports hall for badminton etc. When it came to a consultation presentation one of pools had been reduced in size and the sports hall had gone completely.
The Mayor now says those facilities are not required, meanwhile a council officer and a consultant both said it is not possible have those facilities because the site is not big enough.
Oh and I have a letter sent out in 2000 saying the town centre facility would be ready by 2005 at the latest.
Returning to Forest Hill pools, as I understand it a risk and feasabilty study needs to be undertaken, a developer chosen, a design agreed, consultation and a planning application made and approved. All this on a rather sensitive site with regard to the library.
Now it could be the council already have designs etc lined up and ready to go, if so all well and good. But I think no one wants a rushed project.
The council must have a lot of nerve as they have frequently made commitments that have not been met...
The council said in the 1990's the pool at Downham would be ready by 2000. In 2002 the Mayor pledged it would open in 2004, in April 2005 it was said it would open in 2006. The contract to build and manage was not signed till the latter part of 2005 and the pool eventually opened in March 2007.
The proposed flagship pool at Loampit Vale is another commitment made but not fullfilled. The Mayor produced a document that it would have 2 full sized pools, that it would have a large sports hall for badminton etc. When it came to a consultation presentation one of pools had been reduced in size and the sports hall had gone completely.
The Mayor now says those facilities are not required, meanwhile a council officer and a consultant both said it is not possible have those facilities because the site is not big enough.
Oh and I have a letter sent out in 2000 saying the town centre facility would be ready by 2005 at the latest.
Returning to Forest Hill pools, as I understand it a risk and feasabilty study needs to be undertaken, a developer chosen, a design agreed, consultation and a planning application made and approved. All this on a rather sensitive site with regard to the library.
Now it could be the council already have designs etc lined up and ready to go, if so all well and good. But I think no one wants a rushed project.
Last edited by Sid & Ham on 21 Feb 2008 17:31, edited 2 times in total.
-
LivesNearby
- Posts: 47
- Joined: 21 Feb 2008 11:44
- Location: Forest Hill
Re: Forest Hill Pools
I wasn't demanding anything, merely responding to Cllr Best's invitation to
A four court hall (18mx33m) would provide a facility for volley ball, indoor hockey, five-a-side football, basketball and 4 badminton or short tennis courts according to this document and could be useful for private events. The only private venues around here at the moment are the Crystal Halls and Horniman.
It could be possible to stage this development; if that were to happen, I would build the pool nearer the proposed housing in order to minimise the risk of planning objections at a later date.
I don't know if there is space for a sports hall, but it would provide an additional revenue stream, at minimal cost. The estimates all predict a subsidy of £250,000pa to run the pools; they will not make a profit. A multi-purpose hall which could be rented out could help offset these costs and sustain the venue long term.Chris Best wrote:engag[e] with representatives of the local community as well as users of the pool to develop the design and feasibility work.
We have funding for a new 25m pool, a learner pool, fitness suite and community facilities. We plan to cross subsidise the cost with new housing on the pocket park next to the pool and replacing the park with extensive landscaping from the library across the new frontage.
...
I would be pleased to hear your views on a new leisure facility.
A four court hall (18mx33m) would provide a facility for volley ball, indoor hockey, five-a-side football, basketball and 4 badminton or short tennis courts according to this document and could be useful for private events. The only private venues around here at the moment are the Crystal Halls and Horniman.
It could be possible to stage this development; if that were to happen, I would build the pool nearer the proposed housing in order to minimise the risk of planning objections at a later date.
Hello LivesNearby,
The site isn't big enough for what you desire.
I feel the public are being duped into thinking they are getting something more for their money, which they are not.
In 2005 the public were offered a new build with 1 pool and a gym having 20 fitness stations for £4.7m
The scheme approved by the Mayor (Option 6) was among 16 options developed and costed by Capita in August 2005. This scheme was costed at £6.7m and designed to fit the existing pools footprint. Now that Louise House is to be demolished and the open space used the site has doubled in size.
Note the costs, take a possible land sale away of £2m and option 6 with 40 fitness stations, a party room, aerobics room, small cafe, wet & dry changing romms, creche and solarium comes in at £4.7m. The same price as one pool and just 20 stations and little else.
But unfortunately with the passage of time and inflation the cost has risen from £6.7m to £9.5m at today's prices.
I can't see the new build being any bigger than originally planned unless the Mayor pumps in more money or the design is radically changed or Capita got its sums wrong.
I don't know how the site will be carved up but could it be the pool slides towards the library leaving the remaining half for a developer?
The site isn't big enough for what you desire.
I feel the public are being duped into thinking they are getting something more for their money, which they are not.
In 2005 the public were offered a new build with 1 pool and a gym having 20 fitness stations for £4.7m
The scheme approved by the Mayor (Option 6) was among 16 options developed and costed by Capita in August 2005. This scheme was costed at £6.7m and designed to fit the existing pools footprint. Now that Louise House is to be demolished and the open space used the site has doubled in size.
Note the costs, take a possible land sale away of £2m and option 6 with 40 fitness stations, a party room, aerobics room, small cafe, wet & dry changing romms, creche and solarium comes in at £4.7m. The same price as one pool and just 20 stations and little else.
But unfortunately with the passage of time and inflation the cost has risen from £6.7m to £9.5m at today's prices.
I can't see the new build being any bigger than originally planned unless the Mayor pumps in more money or the design is radically changed or Capita got its sums wrong.
I don't know how the site will be carved up but could it be the pool slides towards the library leaving the remaining half for a developer?