Here are the views of the mayor and two of our local councillors on the sudden and indefinite closure of Forest Hill Pools. The views expressed are those of elected political party members and do not represent those of the association. We have published them as part of the debate on the future of Forest Hill Pools.

ex-councillor David Whiting (Lab) (not re-elected in May 2006)

Forest Hill Pools

First some context. For decades, Lewisham suffered from severe underfunding relative to comparable authorities, as the formulae used by Government to distribute grant aid did not fully reflect the Borough's needs. To make matters worse, for much of this period, stringent government controls on local authority capital investment sometimes prevented the Council even spending the little money it actually had. It is this history of short funding which accounts for the poor state of many of the boroughs assets, including Forest Hill Pools.

Despite the difficulties, the Council managed to keep the Pools open, undertaking essential repairs, but never being able to improve the facilities. A significant step towards assuring the future of   the Pools was the decision in 2001 that they would be included in the Leisure contract (like most local authorities, Lewisham uses a specialist contractor to manage its leisure centres). The contractor was unwilling to invest the sums required to bring them up to standard, and so took on only the day-to-day management of the facility.   Nonetheless, this assured that the pools would remain open for at least five years.   .

Two factors in recent years have greatly improved the borough's financial situation. Firstly, public sector investment generally has increased significantly, benefiting all local authorities. Our capital programme has almost doubled in five years, and we have more choice about how to spend the money. Secondly, a couple of years ago, the formula by which government grant is distributed was changed, with the result that Lewisham' revenue grant aid increased by about £20m per year, while most London boroughs saw their grant levels fall. Though the Borough has no bottomless pit of money, we have enough   to make a reasonable job of improving services. We can now   contemplate projects such as the renovation of the Pools - though perhaps not   do everything on the site that might be desirable if money were no object.

Recently, the Mayor again rejected officer proposals to eliminate swimming from the site and run it as a 'dry side' only facility. The Mayor made a commitment to the retention of swimming and undertook a consultation on whether this should be achieved by new build or refurbishment.

The results of this exercise were close, and the Mayor of Lewisham has committed to the refurbishment of the Pools, rather than rebuild, and preliminary design and planning work is in hand.   There has been some disappointment that the plans are so far restricted to the Pools site and do not include Louise House and the nursery behind. The fact is that Mayor Steve Bullock has made an honest attempt to share a difficult decision with the local community by presenting two 'real world' options. While the Council's financial position is   better than it has been for years, we are still faced with heavy demands on our capital resources.

Responses to this exercise have included suggestions firstly that the consultation was biased towards new build, and secondly that if only he had looked a bit harder, the Mayor could have found outside funding to do the extra things that we would all like to see. I will deal with these points in turn:

1. Bias.

I have spoken to some of the people who would prefer new build. They believe the consultation was biased towards refurbishment, as the new build option included few facilities, in particular, no meeting rooms or dance studio!  

Much has also been made of so-called 'alarmist' statements that the costs of refurbishment are less certain than those of rebuild. These statements are realistic and honest rather than alarmist. In refurbishing a building of this age, unexpected problems emerge. Camden are in the process of refurbishing Kentish Town Pools, a not dissimilar building to Forest Hill, where costs have risen to over £20million.

2. Outside funding.

It has been suggested that Lewisham should have sought additional funding from either English Heritage, Sports England (the Sports Council), the National Lottery Fund and so on. In fact, Lewisham has a good record in seeking outside funding. In the last three years, we have pulled in nearly £3million of lottery funding including £817,000 for the Forest Hill School Sports Hall from the New Opportunities Fund (aimed exclusively at schools based projects). The new community leisure centre at Bellingham, which, though supported by the Council, is not a Council facility, also received Sports England money for premises for a gymnastics club.

However, there is, to my knowledge, not a single Council pool in London which has received funding for restoration from Sports England or English Heritage (though Sports England has contributed to a few large scale new build centres). It would be convenient if additional funding emerged from elsewhere - but 'convenient' is not the same as 'realistically probable'.

Some people have approached English Heritage to seek the listing of Forest Hill Pools, mistakenly believing that this will make it easier to obtain outside funding. English Heritage were not prepared to fund the Kentish Town refurbishment, even though that building is already listed, However, listed status would certainly increase the costs of refurbishment, and there would be much less flexibility for the Council (and for local residents) in the refurbishment. Listing of the Pools would make the task of bringing them into line with modern expectations much more difficult.

It has also been suggested that a contractor might be willing to invest in the Pools. This was certainly not the Council's experience in letting the current leisure contract. A leisure contractor, whether a private company, or one of the not-for-profit organisations who are increasingly important in this field, will only invest in a leisure facility if they foresee sufficient future income to cover their costs. This means a mix of activities including dry side activities which generate cash, and swimming which builds visitor numbers. It is hard to see how this could be achieved on the Forest Hill site while retaining two pools.   (A similar issue arose with the Kentish Town Pools.)

It has also been suggested that   it might be better to wait until we can afford a scheme covering the whole site including Louise House. I can see the logic of that position, particularly, as leisure facilities across Lewisham are going through something of a transformation, with, among other things, two major new leisure centres on the way, a total of five new swimming pools (not including Forest Hill), a new sports hall across the railway at Forest Hill School, and just across the Borough boundary, a new National Sports Centre at Crystal Palace. It is quite difficult at the moment to predict the exact impact of these developments on usage levels at our local Pools. However, the trouble is that we have been delaying decisions for years. The Pools are in a poor state, and if we are to enjoy   them long term, we need to do something now (I would add that I am not certain that we will have more money in future years - no one ever has enough money in this world).

Doing something now does not preclude doing something more later. So far as the Louise House site is concerned, I believe we should ensure that the Pools refurbishment is designed so that it can be linked to any later new development on the Louise House site. Growing usage levels of a refurbished Pools would provide real information about what extra facilities are really needed, and make it more likely that the right decisions will be taken about the Louise House site. Phased development of leisure facilities is nothing new. Those of you who know the Spa in Beckenham, which is now a large modern facility, may recall that its development took well over 20 years, starting with the addition of   a sports hall to a set of Victorian Pools. While this scale of development is not appropriate to Forest Hill Pools, the concept of phased development would be relevant.