The Sydenham Society is an amenity society covering the SE26 area and areas of interest adjacent to SE26 with a current membership of approximately 1100. At a well attended AGM in April 2008 members made clear their overwhelming opposition to the demolition of Louise House and the frontage block of Forest Hill Pools (the Superintendent’s House). The Society accepts that the cost of maintaining the pool tanks presents an unquantifiable future cost but believes that a new pools complex could be built on the site whilst retaining the Superintendent’s House and Louise House.

The Sydenham Society believes that the decision taken by Mayor and Cabinet in February has excluded what is best for the community, viz rebuilt pools and retention of the current streetscape. Below we argue why we believe this. If the February decision is not to be reversed, the Society would prefer option 1, as the least damaging to the character of Dartmouth Road, and as carrying the least risk in that its construction is not dependent on the vagaries of the current housing market.

The Forest Hill Urban Development Framework

The Society objects to the proposed demolition Louise House and the Superintendent’s House; the loss of these historic buildings would be irreversible and would damage the unity of this important group of civic buildings. We believe that any redevelopment option which does not retain key elements of the streetscape of this part of Dartmouth Road flies in the face of the Council’s own policy as stated in the 2003 supplementary planning guidance.

The Forest Hill Urban Design Framework and Development Strategy was adopted as supplementary planning guidance in 2003. On page 12 of the document it states: "The Library and Pools complex need to be addressed in terms of celebrating these important buildings, creating a special place and providing an improved amenity for the local community".

On page 33 the development context of the Library, Louise House and the Pools is set out:

5.3.1 Development context

This area consists of the Forest Hill Library (Grade II listed), Louise House, the Forest Hill Pools and adjacent open space… This key site is independent of the others in terms of programme and use. However it is perceived as an important community centre and, within the conceptual framework of this study, an important activity node and gateway for Forest Hill. There are ongoing discussions about the uses for the buildings and how the buildings may be improved, combined and / or redeveloped. Feedback from the public consultations is that there is strong support for retaining community / leisure uses on the site. This is suitable as an adjacent use to the Library which will remain. However, decisions must be informed by technical appraisals and feasibility studies with ongoing public consultation.

5.3.2 Development principles

Any improvement or redevelopment should respond to the following urban design principles:

• The building facades fronting the street and public space should be of a high quality whether they are old or new.
• The space in front of the buildings should be quality public realm and not dominated by cars. It could be seen as an extension of the suggested landscaped green space along Dartmouth Road.
• The existing public park north of the Pools should have a more useful function. It provides the opportunity for additional development space and / or parking. If this opportunity is taken this green space should be re-provided in front of the buildings.
• Any new or re-developed buildings should form a positive relationship with the proposed linear green space and should address the longer distance direct from the station.

Inappropriate development

The Society’s view is that the three proposed options “turn their back” on the library and are neither respectful of this Grade II listed building nor do they complement it. Each of the options involves construction virtually to the edge of the building line thus losing the key concept of the proposed linear green space.

The Society objects to all three options as being inappropriate to the character of Dartmouth Road; in particular, options 2 and 3 (either a 5 or 7-storey building) appear completely at odds with most of the neighbouring buildings, with the exception of the 60s / 70s blocks of Salcombe and Kingswear Houses, which benefit from generous open space to the front. We understand that a review of the Forest Hill Conservation Area is currently taking place and that there is a possible recommendation that the conservation area should be extended along Dartmouth Road as far as the library. The demolition of the Superintendent’s House and Louise House would destroy the character of this part of Dartmouth Road.

Sustainability

The Society’s second plank of objection is on the grounds of aesthetics and sustainability. The architectural richness and civic scale of the existing Queen Anne-style buildings cannot be matched by any early 21st century building within a realistic construction budget. The London Plan supports the “recycling” of old buildings as a more environmentally-friendly approach to development. As English Heritage explain in their 2008 Heritage at Risk Register, this is due to the concept of “embodied energy”:

“In bringing [neglected structures] back to life we not only respect the craftspeople who created them… but also the planet from which they are made. Demolition and replacement means not only losing all of the resources embodied in the original building but also the investment of yet more energy for demolition, the creation and delivery of more building materials, the building process itself and the disposal of the resulting waste. Each year more than 100 million tonnes of construction and demolition materials and soil end up as landfill – roughly half of the UK’s total waste.”

The “heritage” view

As a group Holy Trinity School, the library, swimming pools and Louise House are four important civic buildings which lend a “sense of place” to Dartmouth Road. Built on glebe land gifted to the people of Sydenham and Forest Hill by the Vicar of St Barts, the younger son of the Earl of Dartmouth, they reflect the Victorians’ interest in education, health and social care. As a set of buildings they are unique – a fact recognised by English Heritage who have commented on their interest as a group. While Louise House and the Pools are not as embellished as the library they are striking and attractive buildings in the Queen Anne style. In the view of the Sydenham Society their demolition would be a matter for lasting regret and would represent a major loss to the history and built environment of Forest Hill and Sydenham. The craftsmanship that went into the construction of these two buildings cannot now be replicated and the materials from which they were built are too expensive for modern developers.

High-risk strategy

The Society is of the view that demolition of the heritage buildings and the financing of enhanced leisure facilities by means of high-density housing is a risky strategy in the current economic climate. Housebuilders are reporting major losses and development sites are currently being put on hold. Many commentators foresee a slump lasting from two to three years, with mortgage finance difficult to obtain – particularly for first-time buyers. Locally, this situation is exacerbated by the fact that a number of housing developments are currently under construction in Forest Hill – along with the Berkeley Homes development on Perry Vale a new block is going up at the rear of the Dartmouth Arms and the Print Works has recently been completed.

Funding the pools by means of the sale of flats in a new five or seven-storey building now seems an outdated financial model. It is our belief that in the current credit crunch a development which includes more appropriately scaled family housing, not dependent on sales to first-time buyers, carries less risk. As the Sydenham Society have suggested in its own “indicative” scheme, a mixed development which utilises Louise House and the Superintendent’s House and includes new townhouses and roomy flats would preserve the character of this part of Dartmouth Road and not carry the risk of a mothballed site.

Poor consultation process

The Sydenham Society believes that the consultation process, in not seeking residents’ views on demolition, is deeply flawed; the exhibition and displays of the proposed options give residents only the most generalised idea of what any of the options might look like when actually constructed.

Furthermore, the Society is highly critical of the way in which the consultation process has been carried out. In other recent consultations (eg the 2006 borough-wide consultation on Controlled Parking Zones) local people have received a brochure in the Lewisham “house style” setting out options in graphic form and with a tear-off sheet which could be posted back to the town hall. In contrast, the Forest Hill Pools redevelopment (one of the largest developments in this part of the borough and with great civic importance) has been publicised by a one-sided white A4 leaflet of the type that could easily be confused with junk mail. Rather than have a document that sets out the various options, residents either had to go online (how many residents have internet access?), visit one of two displays in the car park of Forest Hill Station or go to Forest Hill Library in a period when many families are on holiday. Furthermore, the graphic which illustrates option 3 contains a fundamental error – a line of arched windows is indicated in the eastern elevation of the library. These windows do not exist, and there is no plan to construct them if option 3 is chosen.

Architectural competition

The Sydenham Society believes that an architectural competition should be held to select the architects who will be commissioned to take on the project. The options on offer are indicative scenarios showing concept, bulk and massing. We believe that a fourth design brief should be tabled in which architects are required to preserve the Dartmouth Road streetscape and to respond more closely to the key precepts of the Urban Design Framework.

No demolition before planning permission

In our view Louise House and the Superintendent’s House should not be demolished until planning permission has been obtained as this will give further opportunity for any new scheme to be thoroughly tested by the planning process.