Melissa, I am so glad to read your post, put so much better than I could have done. I am glad the pools have finally come into being after so many years and with even more years of being open then shut, then open and shut again, which has been the case since the mid 80's. However I do feel angry at the compromise that proved necessary and yes I think everyone has made the best of the circumstances from a design and construction point of view however the history will always be a sore point with me as will the fact that there was an opportunity to get something a bit different and that has been lost. I am aware of the input of local people who have worked hard to get the result we have now and applaud them but still feel aggrieved at the pressure from others to retain the frontage which is as far as I am concerned downright ugly and really just looks silly. Retaining our heritage has its merits but commonsense needs to be applied and in some cases, as Melissa has pointed out, this was never a great example of Victorian architecture, so why retain it at the expense of something better. Comments have been made about the library however as far as I am aware no one ever contemplated knocking it down. Louise House needed to be knocked down and integrated into a wider pools development containing soft play, and all the other things that people expect and need of a modern day but land hungry leisure space.

The Syd Soc were behind the move to get Louise House listed which at the time had the potential to scupper the entire proposal as it reduced the funding package for the pools scheme. This is what led to moves to propose Willow Way as an alternative location for affordability reasons. A concerted local campaign brought the pools back to Dartmouth Road but throughout all of this the public sector cuts began to bite and therefore this was a considerable gamble. The fact that funding was retained and the pools built at all was the result of considerable effort of the Council, something which they seem to have got little credit for. We could well have been in the position right now of not having any due to the delay in the procurement. The only criticism I have of the Council is that it failed to differentiate between 'stakeholding ' groups. Not all groups are equal when it comes to local decision making especially when you have two different amenity societies exerting influence which often didnt concur. Thats what I mean about issues with democratic decision making. There needs to be a review of how stakeholding groups are made up and who exactly they represent. My view remains that the continuing interest of the Syd Soc in Forest Hill interests is no longer appropriate. This is the group of people who sat in a FHS AGM some years ago and argued to a member of a government body for the abolition of all parking in the Forest Hill station car park. Sorry, Syd Soc, what right do you think you have to do this? When I tried to intervene in the discussion, I as a Forest Hill resident for 25 years, was practically told to shut up.
So thats the inherent democracy of amenity societies for you. I dont think we should underestimate their power and influence; their actions suit most people most of the time but as in the example above, they can have the potential to exert some strange influences where they shouldnt be permitted to do so. The consequent 'bring the pools back to Dartmouth Road campaign ' was different as it widened the decison group. The decision to retain the pools frontage was the result of the influence of a much smaller group of people.
There needs to be an appropriate weighting and balancing of stakeholder interests, not allowing a group in another area to have by virtue of their long establishment and organisational capacity and slickness.

We now have a stakeholder group set up for Louise House which has far as I can see is made up of absolutely anyone who wants to express interest in it including businesses from some way away who claim to be potential bidders. It is not appropriate for potential bidders to claim stakeholder interest and influence. That is a clear conflict of interest. The Council seems incapable of addressing this but from a legal perspective, it must surely attempt to do so.
I am keen to see Louise House have a sustainable future but do not want the similar consultation problems that impacted on the pools impacting there also. This is a Forest Hill building and as a Forest Hil resident I expect the Council to prioritise the interests of a defined locality not open the debate to all comers so that the more vocal and experienced can exert greater influence.

The other fact is, there was never any question of the Council throwing up a 'shed'. The Council had made it clear for some time of its wish to set up and involve a stakeholder group- the same group that influenced the new build portion to the rear. So thats no argument therefore.