 |
Pools closure Jan '06 |
Forest Hill Pools have been closed following the discovery of extensive rot in a beam that could cause the roof to fall in at any time. You can see the surveyor’s report which resulted in this decision at http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/NewsAndEvents/News/StructuralAppraisalOfMainRoofTrussDecay.htm . |
Community short changed? (association newsletter article December'05)
The shortcomings apparent in the proposals for Forest Hill Pools offered for public consultation were highlighted in our last news sheet. Option 1 was an expensive but limited refurbishment of the Pools that would do little to improve the attractiveness of the facility to users. Option 2 would demolish the existing building and replace it with a single pool and virtually no other facilities; as a result, it was widely rejected by those attending consultation meetings.The views of the 2500 respondents to the consultation should be known in mid-January.
Now, after the end of the consultation period, Lewisham has made available the full consultancy reports on which the options offered were based. This happened after one of our Westwood Park members, a solicitor, made a formal request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for full details of the options appraisal, including the costs of Capita, the external consultants appointed to undertake the process.
From the information published on the Council website, it is apparent that Capita considered eight options financially in some depth, although surveys to determine the true condition of the existing building were very limited. We will not comment on the financial analysis except to note that they have been extremely cautious in including large contingencies in any of the options that included refurbishment.
It is clear that as well as the limited refurbishment of the existing Pools offered to the public as option 1, Capita did consider a much more extensive refurbishment with better access to new changing facilities among the improvements considered. They noted the high quality of the building at the front of the Pools, and proposed two options (3 and 4) for the construction of one or two new pools on the site while retaining the front building. If two new pools were to be built, much of the existing character would be retained whilst offering better facilities. We feel sure that this would prove attractive to local people. It was, however, the most expensive of the options considered. Other
options included building one or two completely new pools on the existing site with associated leisure facilities; and building new pools on the site of Louise House, keeping the existing Pools open until work was completed. This latter option had to be rejected because the Louise House site is not big enough.
In summarising the options considered in their report of 15 August, the consultants were very clear about the limitations imposed by any single pool solution, and favoured building two new pools if the budget was available. They felt that options involving refurbishment of the Pools were risky and could never produce a satisfactory solution, although building new pools behind the existing façade would enable a much improved facility to be produced - albeit with some risks relating to the state of the existing building.
Evidently, even the cheapest of these options was too expensive. Capita was instructed to look at ways of reducing costs. They pared room sizes to the minimum; they reduced building quality to (but not below) that which they felt was the minimum practical threshold. Some options that would have had two storeys to provide the desired facilities were reduced to a single storey, thus eliminating virtually all additional leisure facilities. The final option created by the consultants was based on their option 9, described as "a simple building which provides basic swimming facilities in a six lane, 25 metre pool with associated minimum pool surround. The only additional elements that are included are those that provide essential support to the pool hall". To create the option 2 offered for public consultation, a 20 station fitness suite was added with associated changing facilities. This compared with the 30 or 40 station fitness suite included in the majority of other options considered. So we were offered the absolute barest minimum facility that was to be built to the lowest practical standard!
We were told in the public consultation paper that this facility would meet modern standards. However, in their report to the Council the consultants did not hide the disadvantages of this option.
These were:
- water area - 325m2 (58% of existing pools);
- flexibility of pool programming - poorer than at present, as only one pool;
- privacy for lane swimming - none when complex in use;
- potential for school use - some limitations, as potential conflict with public use with a single pool;
- potential for teaching - fair, as again potential conflict with public swimming with a single pool;
- privacy for lessons - none when complex in use by public;
- safety of pupils - compromised, as lessons would be in pool with deep water area;
- provision of aerobics room / crèche / community room - none provided;
- provision of party room - none, except limited provision in part of foyer.
Few of these disadvantages were made clear in the glossy consultation document...
The Pools have served the local community for 120 years. We are only likely to replace them once in the next 100 years. We feel that the leisure facility we leave to our children and grandchildren should be one they are proud of - not the meanest facility that can be built to meet a Council undertaking to retain swimming in Forest Hill.
We do not feel that funding options for the replacement of the Pools have been fully investigated, nor do we believe that they have been considered in association with the future of Louise House. If the money to replace them with a decent facility is not available at present, then keeping the existing Pools going until the money can be found would seem to be the only practicable solution.
The consultation documents can be viewed at: http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/LeisureAndCulture/SportAndLeisure/NewDevelopments/ForestHillPools/ForestHillPoolsOptionsReports.htm .
The shortcomings apparent in the proposals for Forest Hill Pools offered for public consultation were highlighted in our last news sheet. Option 1 was an expensive but limited refurbishment of the Pools that would do little to improve the attractiveness of the facility to users. Option 2 would demolish the existing building and replace it with a single pool and virtually no other facilities; as a result, it was widely rejected by those attending consultation meetings.The views of the 2500 respondents to the consultation should be known in mid-January.
Now, after the end of the consultation period, Lewisham has made available the full consultancy reports on which the options offered were based. This happened after one of our Westwood Park members, a solicitor, made a formal request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for full details of the options appraisal, including the costs of Capita, the external consultants appointed to undertake the process.
From the information published on the Council website, it is apparent that Capita considered eight options financially in some depth, although surveys to determine the true condition of the existing building were very limited. We will not comment on the financial analysis except to note that they have been extremely cautious in including large contingencies in any of the options that included refurbishment.
It is clear that as well as the limited refurbishment of the existing Pools offered to the public as option 1, Capita did consider a much more extensive refurbishment with better access to new changing facilities among the improvements considered. They noted the high quality of the building at the front of the Pools, and proposed two options (3 and 4) for the construction of one or two new pools on the site while retaining the front building. If two new pools were to be built, much of the existing character would be retained whilst offering better facilities. We feel sure that this would prove attractive to local people. It was, however, the most expensive of the options considered. Other
options included building one or two completely new pools on the existing site with associated leisure facilities; and building new pools on the site of Louise House, keeping the existing Pools open until work was completed. This latter option had to be rejected because the Louise House site is not big enough.
In summarising the options considered in their report of 15 August, the consultants were very clear about the limitations imposed by any single pool solution, and favoured building two new pools if the budget was available. They felt that options involving refurbishment of the Pools were risky and could never produce a satisfactory solution, although building new pools behind the existing façade would enable a much improved facility to be produced - albeit with some risks relating to the state of the existing building.
Evidently, even the cheapest of these options was too expensive. Capita was instructed to look at ways of reducing costs. They pared room sizes to the minimum; they reduced building quality to (but not below) that which they felt was the minimum practical threshold. Some options that would have had two storeys to provide the desired facilities were reduced to a single storey, thus eliminating virtually all additional leisure facilities. The final option created by the consultants was based on their option 9, described as "a simple building which provides basic swimming facilities in a six lane, 25 metre pool with associated minimum pool surround. The only additional elements that are included are those that provide essential support to the pool hall". To create the option 2 offered for public consultation, a 20 station fitness suite was added with associated changing facilities. This compared with the 30 or 40 station fitness suite included in the majority of other options considered. So we were offered the absolute barest minimum facility that was to be built to the lowest practical standard!
We were told in the public consultation paper that this facility would meet modern standards. However, in their report to the Council the consultants did not hide the disadvantages of this option.
These were:
- water area - 325m2 (58% of existing pools);
- flexibility of pool programming - poorer than at present, as only one pool;
- privacy for lane swimming - none when complex in use;
- potential for school use - some limitations, as potential conflict with public use with a single pool;
- potential for teaching - fair, as again potential conflict with public swimming with a single pool;
- privacy for lessons - none when complex in use by public;
- safety of pupils - compromised, as lessons would be in pool with deep water area;
- provision of aerobics room / crèche / community room - none provided;
- provision of party room - none, except limited provision in part of foyer.
Few of these disadvantages were made clear in the glossy consultation document...
The Pools have served the local community for 120 years. We are only likely to replace them once in the next 100 years. We feel that the leisure facility we leave to our children and grandchildren should be one they are proud of - not the meanest facility that can be built to meet a Council undertaking to retain swimming in Forest Hill.
We do not feel that funding options for the replacement of the Pools have been fully investigated, nor do we believe that they have been considered in association with the future of Louise House. If the money to replace them with a decent facility is not available at present, then keeping the existing Pools going until the money can be found would seem to be the only practicable solution.
The consultation documents can be viewed at: http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/LeisureAndCulture/SportAndLeisure/NewDevelopments/ForestHillPools/ForestHillPoolsOptionsReports.htm .