It is probably anachronistic to explain Louise House in terms of either feminism or socialism. There was much activity in the late 19th and early 20th century aimed at improving the lot of unfortunate children. Efforts were often based on residential and institutional care models, which do not figure in contemporary social work thinking in anglo-saxon countries, though may still be more alive in continental Europe.

You may be right that there is a case to memorialise one of those movements by the preservation of Louise House, but do not imagine that it is without consequences for the services which it is possible to provide for children and adults alive today. For a variety of reasons, retaining Louise House will make it extremely difficult if not impossible to have a leisure centre on this site which will be able to offer a wide range of facilities to all groups of the population. There would certainly be no capacity to modify the centre to meet changing needs. I really wonder what the original promoters of Louise House would say if they were alive today! They were radical innovators, and I think they would find it hard to believe that people wished to reduce the level of current services to preserve an averagely nice building as a memorial.

If you doubt that the listing causes a problem, I suggest you visit some of the successful leisure centres in south London. For a start I would recommend the Spa in Beckenham, East Dulwich and the Arches in Greenwich. I would also suggest a discussion with some of the people running those places about how they built up their activities over a period of years.

The logical solution to the listing of Louise House is, I am afraid, a centre on Willow Way, with the existing site used for housing.