Going over old ground - The Hound that is Grey

Tim Lund · Post by **Tim Lund** » 27 Aug 2013 18:15

sparticus wrote:It's not contradictory, the business model for micro-pubs depends on them both being small and having low overheads. Generally, they depend on sales of beer at below average pub prices and are staffed by the Landlord and a couple of helpers at the most. They don't have sales of high margin items like soft drinks and food. They are often, though not always, in converted retail premises though a couple are in old pubs. They don't generate sufficient turnover to pay huge rents and business rates, let alone premiums to owners and investors. The whole point is that they are low volume, depend exclusively on the sale of interesting and well-kept beer, are intimate and cosy. Places where strangers are encouraged to join in the conversation! In other words, the antithesis of places like The Dolphin.

Let's not split hairs - we can agree that there should be a level of rent which would allow such a pub to work. What we want now is someone to put it to Purelake and a reason why they will agree. I suspect they'd be happy for someone to take it off their hands if it would draw a line under this project for them.

Tim Lund · Post by **Tim Lund** » 27 Aug 2013 20:13

Tim Lund wrote:I don't know how much difference discussions such as these make, although I suspect they matter a bit. If so, it's best if people are clear about what is happening, which is why I think Bisuitman1978's input is so valuable. It would be good, also, if those arguing for the Greyhound as a part of Sydenham's future, could get together and develop a business plan for it. I don't think it helps to criticise Portas Partnerships here, any more than it does to have a go at Purelake; it is Purelake with whom any deal will have to be done, and people involved with our local Portas Pilot scheme, SEE3, such as Chris Best and the Sydenham Society, are part of the local political context.

I also wonder how much difference the Sydenham Society newsletter makes, in the latest edition of which Pat Trembath expresses her annoyance at Purelake. Understandable, of course, but I'm not sure how helpful. On the same page, in an article on Kirkdale, Mary writes that 'good builders and developers should be nurtured and supported'. Are there any examples or case histories which could illustrate this?

JRobinson · Post by **JRobinson** » 5 Sep 2013 09:31

I've had a reply in the post from Jim Dowd.
He apologises for the delay in replying - I'd have prefered him to send me an email to be honest, then I could have copy and pasted it into this reply easier, ... anyway, I won't type out the whole thing but will paraphrase what his reply said.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Mr Robinson
Apologies for delay in responce to email re: Greyhound pub.
I am aware of the difficulties, and the manner in which LC Planning Dept have chosen to deal with it.
I am not, and have not been involved - I play no part in the process of planning or enforcement.

I have contacted the head of planning for the latest on this, on behalf of another constituent, when I get a reply I'll copy you in. I also hope that the issue is resolved quickly and to everyone's mutual benefit.

JD
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

we shall wait and see how this progresses.

biscuitman1978 · Post by **biscuitman1978** » 5 Sep 2013 12:51

Thanks, JR.

I've noted in previous posts that the planning permission to allow rebuilding of the Greyhound cannot be formally issued until a deed of variation to the legal agreement imposed on the previous permission in May 2010 is completed.

I also noted that that deed of variation is in the hands of the Council's legal team and that I had emailed the Head of Law at Lewisham Council seeking an update on progress. I've had no response (despite cc'ing Cllr Best) and so I emailed again over the weekend (again cc'ing Cllr Best). Still no response. I will keep trying.

As an aside, I've just noticed that Sainsbury's have recently(ish) submitted a new application for advertisement consent (i.e. for their signage), albeit they can't move into the unit behind the Greyhound until the Greyhound is rebuilt. You can view the application by going to http://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online-applications/, then searching 'DC/13/83707' (without quotation marks). Click on 'Documents' if you want to see what the proposed signage looks like.

Eagle · Post by **Eagle** » 5 Sep 2013 15:32

I know the majority on this site want to retain the Pub . However I have asked many locals and their opinions are we would be better of pulling it down.

Purelake seem able to be able to string this out for months or years. Is it really worth the mess.

Why not put a lovely flower bed instead,.

G-Man · Post by **G-Man** » 5 Sep 2013 15:58

Eagle wrote:I know the majority on this site want to retain the Pub . However I have asked many locals and their opinions are we would be better of pulling it down.

Purelake seem able to be able to string this out for months or years. Is it really worth the mess.

Why not put a lovely flower bed instead,.

The reason is most are just bored of seeing a crumbled old building. If it was rebuilt and became a thriving pub people will be glad it wasn't torn down. Fact.

G-Man

dickp · Post by **dickp** » 5 Sep 2013 16:13

If it's taken over by Antic, I will be one of their first customers. Me and the dog (antic pubs are mutt friendly).

leenewham · Post by **leenewham** » 5 Sep 2013 16:15

Because we need a pub.
Because it wont be a lovely flower bed will it, it will be a public square with Sainsbury's in it.
Because it will probably be a haven for street drinkers. Sainsbury's sell cheap alcohol.
Because the building behind is dull and boring. Is that really what we want to show off as our gateway. Purelakes buildings?

I'd rather the potential for a great pub than no potential.

A camden bars or Antic place would be great. before anyone says that not possible, not long ago people were saying that Sainsbury's had pulled out of the development, which was baseless and wrong.

I don't see the benefit of a small square that back onto a supermarket and possibly another un-inspirational shop (they are not fitted out so interesting, small businesses probably wont take them as a unit).

Be patient. It will pay off in the long run.

JRobinson · Post by **JRobinson** » 5 Sep 2013 17:08

If you stand outside a derelict pub, and ask everyone walking past "would this site look better if this shitty derelict eyesore was removed?" - you'd get lots of yes's - and you'd think that public consensus wanted it knocked down

If you stand around the corner where you can't see the pub, and ask the same people "Would you like to walk around the corner and see a beautiful old building, lovingly restored, housing an award winning pub, full of charm and character?" You'd get lots of yes's, and think that public concensus wanted it kept, done up, and opened as a pub.

ask the right question to the right people, and you can get any result you like.

Purelake entered into a legally binding contract, that allowed them to build the flats, but they had to restore/save the pub - they should not be allowed to get away with doing anything less. they should be held accountable untill they've done what they're legally obliged to do, they should not have been allowed to make profits from the flats first before the pub was saved. It's an absolute disgrace. In an ideal world they should have been forced to complete the renovation of the pub first before starting work on the flats - or at least not allowed to let any flats be sold until all associated works completed.

We all know what is likely to happen as has happened so often in the past - the developer agrees to keep the listed building/very old tree/ etc, builds the new thing, ignores the restrictions, makes a profit, ignores the restrictions, gets away with it on legal grounds that the council can't afford to fight, and moves onto the next one. If left long enough, purelake will claim that the building is now in such a bad state of repair that it's unsafe and will need to be pulled down for safety reasons - if this happens then they should be liable for complete rebuild of the pub! Grrrr! [rant over]

biscuitman1978 · Post by **biscuitman1978** » 5 Sep 2013 17:27

As Cllr Best has noted in another thread (see http://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9951), a planning officer(s) will be at the next meeting of the Sydenham Assembly and will provide an update on the Greyhound, among other things.

Annie. · Post by **Annie.** » 5 Sep 2013 17:58

Pull the flats down.
No pub, no flats,
They are an eyesore, and should never have been allowed.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Mr_Sheen · Post by **Mr_Sheen** » 5 Sep 2013 20:16

JRobinson wrote: If left long enough, purelake will claim that the building is now in such a bad state of repair that it's unsafe and will need to be pulled down for safety reasons - if this happens then they should be liable for complete rebuild of the pub! Grrrr! [rant over]

A state of repair that may also result from, say, accidentally taking the roof off and leaving it open to the elements or leaving the site insecure and inadvertently allowing someone in who may set fire to it? The sort of unrelated actions that may unintentionally lead to there being NO pub there? Leaving a vacant plot of land?

Steveofsyd · Post by **Steveofsyd** » 5 Sep 2013 21:05

Well with Winter coming that is more and more likely.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Nigel · Post by **Nigel** » 5 Sep 2013 21:52

I got the same manifesto of apathetic not-my-fault claptrap as JRobinson.
That is to say apologies for doing nothing later when Mr Dowd should have done nothing , immediately .

So far not one of the partners of Purelake have responded to my emails and Purelake themselves have ignored three consecutive requests for an update .

I fully respect the views if those that don't support the completion of the Greyhound as pub but utterly reject the complexity-mongers who seem to be saying we need to understand the housing-density / planning regulations / find our own publican to run the pub.
More than one poster has said that Purelake are greedy , ignorant and antisocial . Is it time for a show of force on the next convenient Saturday morning ? If nothing else it would be a nice get together and a chance to make a noise at Cobbs Corner .
Seriously , espresso and pastry of choice at Sugahill on me if anyone interested in some placard waving and a spot of " honk if you want the pub rebuilt ".
Any takers either PM me or post . I am serious and not interested in any more ifs and buts .
A very good evening
Nigel

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

JRobinson · Post by **JRobinson** » 6 Sep 2013 12:26

one of my bosses sayings is this:
"without information I can not act. With information I cannot fail but to act."

If you (re)build it, they will come. If you knock it down, they have no reason to come.

I'm well up for some placard waving, and peacful demonstrating!

hairybuddha · Post by **hairybuddha** » 6 Sep 2013 12:37

Good luck folks - I'm all in favour of a good bit of civil disobedience.

Out of interest, is there anywhere a precis of the history of the whole saga? From the pub going out of business, developers going bust etc etc? Would like to make sure I'm in possession of the full facts before I start making my placard

Post by **admin** » 6 Sep 2013 13:22

Some here: http://sydenham.org.uk/tag/greyhound/

Admin

JulietP · Post by **JulietP** » 6 Sep 2013 13:30

I'd happily come back for a bit of Greyhound-related civil disobedience.

hairybuddha · Post by **hairybuddha** » 6 Sep 2013 14:04

admin wrote:Some here: http://sydenham.org.uk/tag/greyhound/

Admin

Thanks!

Found this particularly interesting:

The old Greyhound was closed amongst great acrimony in August 2007. The developers intimated they intended to demolish and replace with flats. The Sydenham Society, the Mayor and others embarked on a ferocious campaign to stop it. The council stepped in and imposed a conservation order which froze any planned demolition. The developers threatened legal action and the ugly grey boarding looked to become a semi-permanent part of Sydenham’s gateway.

But cooler heads prevailed. The owners of the site took back management of the project and consulted pro-actively with the Council, Sydenham Society and others. As you can see the result is a very big change in the nature of the proposed development. Done well (and soon) this could be the real start of the regeneration of Sydenham Road & Kirkdale.

What happened to derail this apparent optimism?

This was also interesting:

...Wednesday 5th September 2007 the Mayor and cabinet declared a Conservation Area and added the pub to the local historic buildings list.

Ratified on Friday – The Greyhound is now legally protected from demolition.

A victory? Hardly. For Milford Group they now have a non-earning liability. They have future redevelopment constrained and complicated by rules they would not have wanted. For the community we have no pub and a horrible blot on the landscape for the forseeable future.

So the Council and The Mayor must take a degree of responsibility for the ensuing stalemate? Did they?

Sure this has all been hashed over many times but thanks for the background!

leenewham · Post by **leenewham** » 6 Sep 2013 16:05

I find it amazing that the original plans for the flats look so different to the finished building : http://sydenham.org.uk/greyhound-gets-going/

What happened to the staggered roof line?
Wasn't it supposed to be a white glazed brick initially, which would have made the pub stand out more? Why did it end up being London Stock brick?
What happened to the green roofs?
Why was the building on the corner built up by another couple of stories?
Why are the windows different?

All these things have taken away from what was originally an interesting development.

Sydenham Town Forum

The Community Voice for London SE26 since 2004