Mayor Sir Steve Bullock

I understand that many people are interested in the future of swimming in Forest Hill - I also know that there is some innaccurate information around about the latest position.  I wrote recently in response to an open letter from two local residenst and thought it might help if I published the text of that letter in full here.

It is my unshakeable belief that the people of Forest Hill and the surrounding area, particularly the young people, are entitled to first class, modern leisure facilities.  Where these can be delivered using existing buildings of architectural merit it is right to do so.  The recent refurbishment of Forest Hill Library that improved both the fabric of the building and the facilities in the library is a good example of this. 

My personal preference would almost always be to retain and refurbish old buildings rather than build new – however good the quality of design.  However my job as mayor is not to impose my personal preferences on the borough regardless of cost or consequence – my job is to secure the services and facilities that the people of the borough require in as timely and economical way as is consistent with good practice and the law.

In the case of Forest Hill Pools I allowed my personal preferences to influence my decision making up to the point where the weight of evidence dictated an alternative course must be taken.  The survey work undertaken during 2007 with the aim of finding a way to refurbish the building and pools was at my insistence.  It can be argued that by so doing I delayed the re-provision of leisure facilities and while I cannot avoid this charge I can claim that I was listening to those who argued for both the historical and architectural merit of Forest Hill Pool.  Like them I wanted the building to survive.

The outcome of those surveys was, however, clear – it was neither technically sensible nor economical to attempt a refurbishment.  To have continued at that point and committed a very large sum of public funding to a project that had little or no chance of success would have been a dereliction of duty.

I therefore put in place a process of consultation with the intention of pressing ahead with a new build Leisure centre on the site of Forest Hill Pools and the redundant Louise House.  Within that context I sought to rule as little as possible in or out and asked that the option of providing housing on part of the site to generate further funding that could be ploughed back into better facilities also be examined.

That consultation has now concluded and it is essential that progress is made on developing an affordable and financially viable scheme as quickly as possible.  I believe that we could have seen a building that contained good facilities including two pools and of good quality design open within a couple of years.  The impact of the credit crunch would have had to be addressed but the current problems in the London housing market will not last forever and the demand for housing will not disappear.

I now come to the listing of Louise House.  Let me be clear that I consider the decision by English Heritage to list this building to be misguided.  I cannot comment on the way in which they reached the decision, as they did not have to courtesy to speak to me about it at any point.  I intend to instruct council officers to move as quickly as possible to work up ways of delivering the leisure facilities on the rest of the site within the financial resources already earmarked for the project. 

The consequences of the listing of Louise House all appear negative.  It may undermine the financial viability of any scheme completely or at best limit the facilities that can be provided.  The council has no use for the building and it is unlikely that it can be incorporated economically into the development even if the problems caused by the listing could be overcome.  There is a very high risk that any development will be delayed and also that the ability to put up an attractive modern building will be compromised by the continuing presence of Louise House.

No amount of wishing, hoping or tilting at windmills will change the facts and I do not intend to be responsible for further delays in giving local people the leisure facilities they want at a price they can afford.  I have complete confidence in the councillors and officials who are dealing with this matter.  The Stakeholder Group, chaired by Cllr Chris Best, will continue to meet to discuss the arrangements for the leisure facilities on the site. I cannot see how involving myself in a meeting with just one interested party will assist in meeting that objective and I therefore must decline your request for a meeting. Neither am I prepared to give the specific undertakings you request not least because they would tend to pre-empt the proper process of decision making which I have to undertake. Neither will I rule out a scheme that retains some or all of the frontage providing it is practical and affordable and architecturally appropriate.

Finally I should make clear however I am prepared to meet anyone who has both positive proposals about what can be done with Louise House and the resources to effect those proposals. 

The future of Lewisham Hospital is being debated as part of a major review of Hopsital services in South London.  The consultation  is called "A Picture of Health" and it has its own website here http://www.apictureofhealth.nhs.uk

I am very concerned that some of the proposals will make the services we need here in Lewisham worse not better and I have been working with your Local Labour MPs Bridget Prentice, Jim Dowd and Joan Ruddock to make sure that Lewisham does not lose out.

One of our main concerns is that all the Picture of Health” proposals are based on the assumption that the future of services in Lewisham should be planned in the context of what has been referred to as Outer South East London. We believe it is a serious mistake to see Lewisham Hospital as being in outer London and that the future of hospital care in Lewisham must involve looking west and north to St. Thomas’s and Kings. 

We are urging all Lewisham residents to respond to the consultation and make your views known

Improving the quality of education for Lewisham’s children is one of the most important things that we can do – but often the decisions that we face in pursuing this prove to be both difficult and controversial. 

I have recently faced one such decision about whether to agree to Monson Primary School joining the Haberdashers Aske’s Hatcham College (HAHC).  Monson is located north of the A2 in New Cross – older readers will locate it exactly when I say it is adjacent to where the old Millwall Ground used to be.  The school is in an area with high levels of deprivation and has been struggling for a number of years to make the difference to the lives of its students that they deserve.   

HAHC is a popular and successful secondary school located close by at the top of Telegraph Hill.  It is an Academy sponsored by Haberdashers Aske’s which is a charity that has been involved in providing education in our borough for a century or more.  In recent years it has been responsible for transforming Mallory secondary in Downham from a failing school into the successful Knights Academy.   

Because of its popularity HAHC is a difficult school to get in to and at present many of the places are allocated by a lottery.  What has been proposed is to join Monson and HAHC together with students at Monson being guaranteed places at HAHC.  In addition HAHC will change the way it admits other students to give precedence to those living near to the school. 

This new arrangement would have real benefits for students attending Monson and also increase over time the number of Lewisham based students attending HAHC overall.  However the proposal has generated a great deal of opposition. 

Some of that opposition has been based on the fact that a community school will be joining an academy – it has even been described as privatisation!  I make no apologies for being a supporter of Academies – up and down the country they are make a real difference to the quality of education and HAHC has been an important part of the Lewisham scene for many years. 

Others have been concerned that children from other local primary schools will lose out in their efforts to get into HAHC.  Any parent will want to help their children get into the best school for them and it would be surprising if they were not concerned in this way.  HAHC is heavily over subscribed every year by something like 10 to 1 and the changes that are proposed will have a small impact in the next few years of making it a little harder for students from other local schools to get in although overall more Lewisham students will get in.  But after 2011 the numbers of students from all Lewisham schools getting in will rise year on year. 

The difficult choice I faced was how to balance the great things that HAHC could do for the kids at Monson with the risk that some other kids over the next three years might lose out on a place at that school.  They are all Lewisham kids, of course, but the loudest voices I heard were on the side of leaving things as they are now.  But there were also some voices arguing that both the long terms interests of Lewisham’s kids and the immediate life chances of kids at Monson would be improved by going ahead with the proposal. 

I have listened and read and talked about this issue for a long time and in the end reached the conclusion that the overall benefits to young people in our borough had to be the thing that weighed most heavily with me.  I therefore decided to agree to the two schools joining together.