I wonder if Roz is a mouthpiece for Lewisham Council. If so, is this because she happens to agree or because she is part of it?

I do not take an entirely cynical view. The fact that Lewisham (publicly at least) remain committed to providing a swimming pool is a good thing.

I do disagree with Roz that we should just move on to talking about the design of the new pools. That glazes over too many questions. I do think the facade of the old pools should be incorporated, but even if it isn't, there are other questions about the current plans which are very unanswered:

1) Is it really necessary for Louise House to go too?
2) Why is there an assumption that part of the development must be funded by building private flats?
3) If it is funded in such a way, why is conversion of/addition to Louise House not an option?
4) Does anyone question the principle that blocks of publicly owned land should be split up in this way? At the moment Lewisham owns the library through to the pools in one sweep; sticking a private development in the middle of this plot will split it up and may have consequences int helong term future.
5) Does anyone care that the small park is to disappear?
6) Would this enabling development really raise ?2 million? This seems a bit hopeful, especially as the housing market is currently on a down turn, with a particular weakness in the flats sector. Forest Hill appears to have a lot of flats coming ready now.

I can see a Doomsday scenario where the pools and Louise House are demolished in a hurry to overcome opposition to the Council's plans. The enabling devlopment could then fall victim to a downturn in the housing market. Then Lewisham Council will say there is not enough money to build the new pools. Forest Hill would then be left with no pools at all, having destroyed its own heritage for nothing, and with a great big hole in the middle of Dartmouth Road. We would all look pretty daft then.