A News Shopper piece reports these proposals with work at Forest Hill Pools having already commenced.
”The Forest Hill Pools improvements will include a re-designed reception area, a brand-new soft play zone, a bigger gym with upgraded equipment, and a new fitness studio.”
https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/26247670.two-lewisham-leisure-centres-set-revamp-worth-nearly-3m/
All very exciting stuff - but has reporting and discussion of it slipped under the radar a little?
That’s very exciting. Indeed I had not heard anything about this at all, probably because the focus has largely been on Lewisham and Glass Mill, but it sounds like a good addition for Forest Hill
thanks for sharing
I agree, it does seem that discussion around these plans has slipped under the radar somewhat.
Investment in Forest Hill Pools and improved facilities is obviously welcome, but a bigger gym, new soft play area, and additional facilities are presumably intended to attract more users. For those living closest to the pools, that also means more pressure on already difficult parking, congestion, and pollution issues.
When the future of the pools was previously being discussed, there was understandably a lot of focus on keeping this important community facility in Forest Hill. However, some of the impact on the immediate neighbours seems to have been overlooked in that process.
As many of the affected residents are also members of the Forest Hill Society, it would be good for the Society to help reopen that conversation and look at how some of these issues can now be addressed.
It would also be interesting to hear from local Labour and Green representatives, as before the election both responded to questions circulated by the Society and recognised the need for improvements in this area. It would be good to understand what progress has been made against those commitments.
Hopefully this new investment can be an opportunity not just to improve the facilities, but also to support the community living around them.
I’m pleased to hear the gym equipment is being upgraded as its very old and tired and largely free weights focussed I hope they put in more cardio machines as at busy times its a long wait to get on one.
I really like some of the classes there but its soooooooo hard to get a space in most of them..one has to be very quick booking one.
Sadly since they stopped free gym and swim for over 60’s I’m unable to afford to go more than one class a week anyway…
It’s certainly great news to have this investment confirmed - but I appreciate @BottomOfTheHill’s point about consideration for the strain on infrastructure that additional visitors to the pools will bring with it.
I have been speaking recently with council officers about reviewing traffic management and parking policies on Dartmouth Road and adjoining roads, with particular consideration given to parking and congestion issues during peak times for the Pools and other local services. There were some consultations carried out in Forest Hill a few years ago as part of the council’s Sustainable Streets programme, but as far as I can tell very little actually came of them - there are plans to relaunch that programme locally, but I do not have an exact timeframe yet.
I’m also keen to explore ways in which we can encourage more people to make visits to the pools by bike, e-bike, and public transport (while making sure that there are sufficient dedicated e-bike parking facilities and enforcement measures in place to prevent bikes being left in inappropriate locations). I think this new round of investment in the facilities will help us make the case to the relevant council officers and cabinet members that these conversations need to be prioritised.
The underused Perry Vale car park has plenty of space. All we need is a footbridge over the railway, or is it too far to walk to the pool from there?
Thanks, @Fergus_NB , it is really positive to hear that these conversations with council officers are already happening.
I think the new investment in the pools provides a good opportunity to revisit the impact on the surrounding streets. The issue has never been about opposing the pools, they are a fantastic community facility but about making sure the immediate neighbours are considered as visitor numbers increase.
The Sustainable Streets consultations did raise expectations that some of these long-standing concerns around traffic, congestion, and parking pressure would be addressed, but very little seems to have changed on the ground.
Encouraging more visitors to walk, cycle, use e-bikes, and public transport is definitely part of the solution. It would also be useful to understand actual travel patterns and whether additional measures are needed, because realistically many families with young children or swimming equipment will still choose to drive.
I think it would be good to arrange a meeting between local residents, pool management, the Forest Hill Society, and council representatives, so that the impact of this investment can be considered alongside the improvements to the facility itself and we can look together at practical solutions.
@Forester
There are effectively three car parking options around Forest Hill: Sainsbury’s, Perry Vale, and unfortunately for residents, the unofficial “swimming pool car park” that Thorpewood Avenue, Derby Hill Crescent, and Derby Hill have become.
The issue is that they are not equally used. The streets closest to the swimming pool already experience very high parking stress, with surveys showing demand above available legal parking capacity, while Sainsbury’s is rarely full and you can see tumbleweed blowing across Perry Vale car park.
The idea of a bridge from Perry Vale has been suggested many times over the years. It would certainly improve connectivity, but with a realistic cost of millions, the obvious question remains — where does the money come from?
Perry Vale car park itself raises a question with an obvious answer. It generates limited benefit as an underused car park, while the land potentially has significant value and could provide much-needed housing with a smaller public car park retained underneath if demand remains.
A large underused piece of land next to a station in London is unlikely to remain just a car park indefinitely. I think the question is probably when it is developed, not if.
The same places as other publicly funded assets. Before the pandemic, no-one had a pandemic budget; before the Ukraine war no-one had a Ukraine war budget etc.
The job of politicians is to find a way to do what’s needed, not to display a wringing of hands.
The art of the possible.
No bridge!! (read in the voice of Edna)
Seriously though, what about a valet parking service?
The pool could employ (and insure) some trustworthy local young people who would let you drop off at the door, then take your car to the Perry Vale Car Park, and then fetch it for you when you are done. They’d get a job, plus the free fitness of running back and forth on your behalf so you, probably with kids and bags of wet clothes, can wait in comfort. All for a small charge, of course (so it pays for the service & parking and still encourages you to take public transport)
Then Lewisham might make Thorpewood & Derby Hill resident-only parking.
Just a heat-induced vision inspired by feeling like we are living in California and not the UK at the moment (that’s not a good thing, by the way)
Forest Hill has suffered from poor representation for decades. If the town were in a rural setting, it would have a bypass. That can’t happen; there’s really no alternative to a tunnel. Forest Hill is also intersected by a railway, and one or two foot bridges or underpasses are required.
Or we can just carry on as usual without a centre, and without easy ways around and without modern crossings etc.
Just pause and think. We have a huge underused car park, next to the station, but with no access to the station. Incredible. In most places this would not have been allowed to continue.
this is a separate discussion to the improvement of the pools, but I don’t generally disagree
There will be a lot of discussion on this topic (car park / station / access to town centre) in the very near future from the Forest Hill Society, but I would say that the solution is not a bridge - for a start the Perry Vale side is quite a bit lower than the Forest Hill side, making rising up to a safe level from anywhere other than the car park very tricky. If you’ve used the Sydenham (German Church) bridge, you will already know this issue.
If you don’t mind, I would like to keep this topic focused on the pools themselves
I stopped using Sainsbury’s car park when they changed to an app system. Perhaps that is why it’s rarely full.
I imagine that both the Sainsbury’s and Perry Vale car park are psychologically too far away for drivers who find walking too far an inconvenience.
I can’t see where you would put a bridge but I can’t see anyone wanting to be walking around Clyde Terrace then crossing a bridge at night especially in the darker winter months.
It’s only a few years since Lewisham Council tried to railroad a moneymaking scheme for street parking. I’m surprised if Thorpewood Avenue, Derby Hill Crescent, and Derby Hill residents did not vote for it if they are suffering from high parking stress.
Who owns the car park round the back of the pool? It might be cheaper to buy or rent some of that. Perhaps this is really more an inconvenience than a big issue.
I think we should have a dedicated thread on Parking issues in the Forest Hill area..
This thread is about the leisure centre revamp and it seems to have veered off into a parking thread.
I will add that the women who attend the same group classes I do all appear to either get a bus outside or walk after the class, I’m lucky in that I am able to walk the 15 mins it takes to get there
perhaps it would be an idea to have dedicated spots near the gym/pools for disabled parking so that those who are unable to park or find public transport hard to navigate don’t get discouraged from going
There are often vehicles parked on the gym forecourt where the notices say ‘No Parking Emergency Access’.