But Tim, that Poll was created and largely voted on before the detailed plans were published - and before the timescales/cost implications of the Options were given.
I wonder if the same voting preference would be apparent if the SE23.com voters knew that Option 2 would not be started until at least 2012 and aiming for 2015, and even then only if appropriate subsidies from new housing stock can be realised - so this Option may not be feasible at all?
I also think that the vote on SE23.com is fatally flawed as it is solely asking those with the most self-interest to vote. It does not take into account the wider picture of those wishing for there to be a pool (asap) at the site or nearby, nor of the larger Lewisham populace who may well end up subsidising the pool by increased Council Tax.
I personally want to keep the frontage buildings and to have a pool asap. I am not at all confident that Option 2 can be realised and so Option 3 is still the best for me.
Forest Hill Pools consultation
Gaz - the timescales and cost options of all three projects were very clear before people voted on SE23. The officer's report on which people voted was available before the start of the poll (with links from SE23) and the report very clearly states what these options are. The entire debate on SE23 is full of details of the time and cost factors involved in all three projects.
People very clearly knew what they were voting for.
Of course the vote on SE23 is by no means comprehensive or without some inherent bias. But only 5% of the total want Option 3, whilst 80% want Option 2.
I am absolutely and fully confident that in a wider consultation, Option 3 would vanish without trace and Option 2 would come out on top. (I live in SE26 by the way).
People very clearly knew what they were voting for.
Of course the vote on SE23 is by no means comprehensive or without some inherent bias. But only 5% of the total want Option 3, whilst 80% want Option 2.
I am absolutely and fully confident that in a wider consultation, Option 3 would vanish without trace and Option 2 would come out on top. (I live in SE26 by the way).
Nasoroc - thank you for replying.
Although IMO it is not worth getting into any kind of protracted argument about the poll results, as the important discussion should be on the 'options'; I still maintain that when the poll was set-up - with the link to the stakeholders document in the poll's opening post* - it was not widely known at that time (and is stated nowhere in the above document) the delivery times for Options 1 & 2. Only the delivery time for Option 3 is disclosed and when I first reviewed this document, I did so under the impression that all 3 options would be looking at the same timescale. Indeed I was not aware of the recommendation that Option 2, if selected, should be parked until 2012 to be reviewed at that later time until this was posted by Michael on 17 Feb.
As I've said, I do like Option 2 - and if this is deliverable in a timely manner without adding to my Council Tax I would have no problem backing it. However, if it is choice between waiting until 2012 only to go through all this rigamarole again with the real risk of the new pool never being built against an Option 3 that looks like it can be delivered in a reasonable timeframe and within 'budget', then I'd have to back Option 3. I would not go for Option 1 as I backed the retention of Louise House and the Pools facade and still believe this is the right thing to do.
Gaz
*http://www2.lewisham.gov.uk/lbl/documen ... 050209.pdf
Although IMO it is not worth getting into any kind of protracted argument about the poll results, as the important discussion should be on the 'options'; I still maintain that when the poll was set-up - with the link to the stakeholders document in the poll's opening post* - it was not widely known at that time (and is stated nowhere in the above document) the delivery times for Options 1 & 2. Only the delivery time for Option 3 is disclosed and when I first reviewed this document, I did so under the impression that all 3 options would be looking at the same timescale. Indeed I was not aware of the recommendation that Option 2, if selected, should be parked until 2012 to be reviewed at that later time until this was posted by Michael on 17 Feb.
As I've said, I do like Option 2 - and if this is deliverable in a timely manner without adding to my Council Tax I would have no problem backing it. However, if it is choice between waiting until 2012 only to go through all this rigamarole again with the real risk of the new pool never being built against an Option 3 that looks like it can be delivered in a reasonable timeframe and within 'budget', then I'd have to back Option 3. I would not go for Option 1 as I backed the retention of Louise House and the Pools facade and still believe this is the right thing to do.
Gaz
*http://www2.lewisham.gov.uk/lbl/documen ... 050209.pdf
Gaz - I take your points, although I still believe that very, very few people want the pools moved from the current site even when they know all of the cost and time implications. Moving the pool is wrong for FH and Dartmouth Road and it's wrong for the site itself.
We can both agree that all the options are now fully explained - so why aren't people flocking behind Option 3? You are virtually it's only defender.
In part, I voted for Option 2 because I am persuaded by members of the stakeholders group (three of whom are architects working in this field) that they could close the cost gap very considerably in Option 2 without compromising facilities.
Whether they will be allowed by LBL to put these ideas to the test is another matter.
We can both agree that all the options are now fully explained - so why aren't people flocking behind Option 3? You are virtually it's only defender.
In part, I voted for Option 2 because I am persuaded by members of the stakeholders group (three of whom are architects working in this field) that they could close the cost gap very considerably in Option 2 without compromising facilities.
Whether they will be allowed by LBL to put these ideas to the test is another matter.
Its probably apropos of nothing but – speaking as a graphic designer the Allies & Morrison (Option 2) designer's feasibility study thing is much the best designed!
Though I do like the pools design of Pollard Thomas Edwards' Option 3 from a superficial point of view, their feasibility study brochure is a bit brash compared to the classy Allies & Morrison one.
Though I do like the pools design of Pollard Thomas Edwards' Option 3 from a superficial point of view, their feasibility study brochure is a bit brash compared to the classy Allies & Morrison one.
Juwlz - please excuse me but I'm getting dizzy trying to figure out exactly which option you favour.
Here is your tally to date:
10 Feb "Number 3 gets my vote, I think"
11 Feb ".. I'm definitely now keener on 2"
18 Feb ".... it's got to be Option 3"
Are we to take it from the above posting that you are now veering (maybe? perhaps?) back to Option 2 again?
I'd hate to be with you when you are choosing a dress!
Here is your tally to date:
10 Feb "Number 3 gets my vote, I think"
11 Feb ".. I'm definitely now keener on 2"
18 Feb ".... it's got to be Option 3"
Are we to take it from the above posting that you are now veering (maybe? perhaps?) back to Option 2 again?
I'd hate to be with you when you are choosing a dress!
Haha, I used to be indecisive but now I'm not so sure!
It's impossible to make an informed decision without all the info, and I think correct and true information on this is seriously lacking.
Now I'm being told that Option 3 is not a valid option because not enough people would support it. And that Option 2 wouldn't take as long as its claimed because the public support would be behind it.
On the other hand I'm told its all politics anyway.
I reserve my right to be indecisive until someone fully convinces me one way or another!
It's impossible to make an informed decision without all the info, and I think correct and true information on this is seriously lacking.
Now I'm being told that Option 3 is not a valid option because not enough people would support it. And that Option 2 wouldn't take as long as its claimed because the public support would be behind it.
On the other hand I'm told its all politics anyway.
I reserve my right to be indecisive until someone fully convinces me one way or another!
-
Chris Best
- Posts: 439
- Joined: 6 May 2005 11:37
- Location: Sydenham
The decision taken by Sir Steve Bullock are that a public consultation should be conducted on two options emerging and that the report and results should return to a future meeting of the Mayor and Cabinet for a final decision in the summer of 2009.
The two options to be consulted on are:
To postpone the project until 2012, at which point a decision can be made as to the allocation of additional resources from the Council’s capital programme. If sufficient additional resources are available at that time, and market conditions are appropriate, then a decision would be made to proceed with feasibility option 2, to be completed by 2015.
To proceed now with feasibility option 3 providing a new leisure centre on Willow Way, cross-subsidised by a housing development on the current pools site on Dartmouth Road. The leisure centre in this option could be completed by late 2011.
I look forward to the next Stakeholder Group meeting when we can discuss how to carry out the public consultation.
The two options to be consulted on are:
To postpone the project until 2012, at which point a decision can be made as to the allocation of additional resources from the Council’s capital programme. If sufficient additional resources are available at that time, and market conditions are appropriate, then a decision would be made to proceed with feasibility option 2, to be completed by 2015.
To proceed now with feasibility option 3 providing a new leisure centre on Willow Way, cross-subsidised by a housing development on the current pools site on Dartmouth Road. The leisure centre in this option could be completed by late 2011.
I look forward to the next Stakeholder Group meeting when we can discuss how to carry out the public consultation.
Does this mean there is definitely no possibility of option 2 being delivered before 2015 with a bit of creative thinking by people in the council?
I think a lot of local people will be disappointed if this is not an option in the consultation.
Has any analysis been done of the wider implications of the two options on local businesses and Forest Hill town centre? There is a strong argument that building a leisure centre on an employment area will result in significantly fewer jobs in Forest Hill town centre. While building live/work in Willow Way and a pool on the Dartmouth Road site, would result in higher levels of employment than any other option.
Finally, without the pool frontage being listed is there any protection for it in option 3 when the site is sold off to a developer?
I think a lot of local people will be disappointed if this is not an option in the consultation.
Has any analysis been done of the wider implications of the two options on local businesses and Forest Hill town centre? There is a strong argument that building a leisure centre on an employment area will result in significantly fewer jobs in Forest Hill town centre. While building live/work in Willow Way and a pool on the Dartmouth Road site, would result in higher levels of employment than any other option.
Finally, without the pool frontage being listed is there any protection for it in option 3 when the site is sold off to a developer?
-
Pat Trembath
- Posts: 613
- Joined: 2 Oct 2004 10:54
According to the recent report to Mayor and Cabinet the review of the Forest Hill Conservation Area is due to be reported upon later this year and it is likely that this will recommend the extension of the CA to take in the listed buildings along Dartmouth Road - Louise House, the Library and Holy Trinity School.
The review has been known for about 6 months - Forest Hill Society reported this in their newsletter last June - and was also one of the reasons given for the reason why Option 1 was not likely to happen
If the CA area is extended then the pools frontage buildings will be included. This would provide considerable protection but, of course, it would be up to the owners of the building, Lewisham, to ensure that there was ongoing maintenance until such time as the future use of the building is determined.
The review has been known for about 6 months - Forest Hill Society reported this in their newsletter last June - and was also one of the reasons given for the reason why Option 1 was not likely to happen
If the CA area is extended then the pools frontage buildings will be included. This would provide considerable protection but, of course, it would be up to the owners of the building, Lewisham, to ensure that there was ongoing maintenance until such time as the future use of the building is determined.
Online consultation on swimming
Hmmm - just spotted this on se23.com.
It seems that Lewisham Council are doing some sort of consultation on the provision and adequacy of swimming facilities in Lewisham area. No idea if the results will influence the Pools decision; however, there is an option to say why you think the swimming provision does not meet your needs (erm - cos they shut our local pool and it still hasn't been replaced!
).
http://www.consultationfinder.com/lewis ... m=Lewisham
It seems that Lewisham Council are doing some sort of consultation on the provision and adequacy of swimming facilities in Lewisham area. No idea if the results will influence the Pools decision; however, there is an option to say why you think the swimming provision does not meet your needs (erm - cos they shut our local pool and it still hasn't been replaced!
).http://www.consultationfinder.com/lewis ... m=Lewisham
Perhaps they should have a consultation to see if they should have a consultaion on swimming provision.
Then they will probably have a consultation to see if they need a consultation to see if the need a consultation on the consultation that they consulted on in the first place...
Delaying tactics. They did to me before. It's another waste of our tax.
Then they will probably have a consultation to see if they need a consultation to see if the need a consultation on the consultation that they consulted on in the first place...
Delaying tactics. They did to me before. It's another waste of our tax.
These ideas are really good and surprising coming from Lewisham Council, i think its good to knock down the old Forest Hill pools building as Lewisham Council are rubbish and always have been at looking after the older listed buildings in the borough as well as everything else, Forest Hill Library next door is a good example. The older swimming baths will not last longer than the new ones, Lewisham have said in older proposals for Forest Hill Pools that the older buildings wont have as long life span and it costs more to maintain and run them, most swimming pools infact make a £2000 loss per week, a new development is far more efficient.
I think option 3 is the best, love the idea of the padestrianised area outside, it would give Dartmouth Road a focal point, something that stands out and makes people see that there 'is' life between Sydenham and Forest Hill town centres. Reminds me of the modernised Sainsbury's in Forest Hill, the look that the area is 'up and coming', not downtrodden with council flats everywhere along Dartmouth Road (Forest Hill end).
I think option 3 is the best, love the idea of the padestrianised area outside, it would give Dartmouth Road a focal point, something that stands out and makes people see that there 'is' life between Sydenham and Forest Hill town centres. Reminds me of the modernised Sainsbury's in Forest Hill, the look that the area is 'up and coming', not downtrodden with council flats everywhere along Dartmouth Road (Forest Hill end).
Just saw this on se23.com. Fingers crossed that we may finally see some progress on returning pools to the area..!
The stakeholders group was informed of the consultation results on Thursday. I am checking that the details can be made public, but I know that there should be some information coming out at the ward assembly this Wednesday.
The results were very close but overall came out slightly in favour of the option that offered early swimming (at Willow Way). I will be posting as much information as I can as soon as I know that I can share the presentation from the stakeholders group
We expect the mayor to make a decision on how to proceed on 15th July at the town hall in Catford, where the public can attend to hear the decision.
Only me..! 
The consultation paper is in:
http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/LeisureAndCu ... tation.htm
I posted this on the se23.com site earlier on my initial take on the paper:
Interesting results - which unfortunately doesn't give a clear preference either way!
I think that the online application does skew the results though and would be very wary relying on the online forms as the consensus over those received by phone or post.
To qualify the above, for example, I believe it was advertised on here that every member of the family could fill in the online application, whereas those who sent in the postal jobbie probably wouldn't have bothered to photocopy and complete multiple forms.
I would also hope that the Mayor gives more weight to the opinions and reasons raised rather than just the pure statistical numbers - afterall would those who said they would be 'very unlikely' to use WW (as they favoured DR) really cut of their noses if WW was actually built just up the road?
The consultation paper is in:
http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/LeisureAndCu ... tation.htm
I posted this on the se23.com site earlier on my initial take on the paper:
Interesting results - which unfortunately doesn't give a clear preference either way!
I think that the online application does skew the results though and would be very wary relying on the online forms as the consensus over those received by phone or post.
To qualify the above, for example, I believe it was advertised on here that every member of the family could fill in the online application, whereas those who sent in the postal jobbie probably wouldn't have bothered to photocopy and complete multiple forms.
I would also hope that the Mayor gives more weight to the opinions and reasons raised rather than just the pure statistical numbers - afterall would those who said they would be 'very unlikely' to use WW (as they favoured DR) really cut of their noses if WW was actually built just up the road?
Gosh - you ARE desperate to get swimming at Willow Way Gaz!
So your advice to the Mayor would be simple. Having twisted the questions to favour Willow Way and still not having got the result he wants, the Mayor should now simply ignore any of the consultation results which don't favour this option.
Why not rerun the consultation, this time offering £50 to each voter who favours Willow Way? Maybe even make Willow Way the only option?
These results are yet another dead end. And another £120,000 of taxpayer's money down the drain.
So your advice to the Mayor would be simple. Having twisted the questions to favour Willow Way and still not having got the result he wants, the Mayor should now simply ignore any of the consultation results which don't favour this option.
Why not rerun the consultation, this time offering £50 to each voter who favours Willow Way? Maybe even make Willow Way the only option?
These results are yet another dead end. And another £120,000 of taxpayer's money down the drain.
Not at all Nasaroc. I don't mind whether it's built at DR or WW -- although I am very keen to be able to swim locally again as soon as possible what with being without the pools for over 3 years now.nasaroc wrote:Gosh - you ARE desperate to get swimming at Willow Way Gaz!
I thought that the statistical responses marginally favoured the WW site (51% to 49%?) so maybe the Mayor has got the answer he allegedly seeks. Although cynically, one could say that by accepting the DR option, the Mayor never needs to build the thing - instead letting the next consultation in 2012 deem it not worhwhile.nasaroc wrote:So your advice to the Mayor would be simple. Having twisted the questions to favour Willow Way and still not having got the result he wants, the Mayor should now simply ignore any of the consultation results which don't favour this option.
Why not rerun the consultation, this time offering £50 to each voter who favours Willow Way? Maybe even make Willow Way the only option?
Anyhow, ignoring your facetiousness remarks, my concern is that internet voting is notoriously unreliable. On the online-survey all you had to do was supply a post-code to validate the response and there was nothing to stop an individual repeatedly submitting the same survey responses - how else would you explain the marked difference in voting responses to all the other methods? It would be interesting to see if the online responses remain so spiked if it was limited to one per IP address.
Unfortunately, the survey does not give a clear answer to which option should proceed. IMO, this is not really surprising considering how the questions were phrased. I would like the Mayor to unequivocally announce which option we are going for (either way); my fear is that this will just drag on for longer and will eventually just be put on the backburner for a further consultation in 2012 with a real danger of the FH Pools buildings falling into a state beyond repair - and of course, no guarantee that any pools will be built.nasaroc wrote:These results are yet another dead end. And another £120,000 of taxpayer's money down the drain.
It's pretty clear looking at the results that the online poll has been picked up predominantly by people with a strong preference for a pool on the current site.
If you want a perspective on what the local community thinks overall, the telephone survey is likely to be the most representative, given the way it was conducted.
What is interesting about the results of the telephone survey is that whilst there is a fairly strong preference for the Willow Way option as presented, fewer people say they would actually USE a pool at this site.
So, overall, it would appear that the preference is down to people voting for "jam today" rather than a specific preference for Willow Way over the FH site.
If you want a perspective on what the local community thinks overall, the telephone survey is likely to be the most representative, given the way it was conducted.
What is interesting about the results of the telephone survey is that whilst there is a fairly strong preference for the Willow Way option as presented, fewer people say they would actually USE a pool at this site.
So, overall, it would appear that the preference is down to people voting for "jam today" rather than a specific preference for Willow Way over the FH site.