Going over old ground - The Hound that is Grey

[susan]

Purelake have very recently been fined £18000 for unauthorised demolition, and have agreed to re-build the Greyhound.

[Eagle]

Wunderbar as they say in Nicosia.

I will believe it when it is completed ( as it was ) and opened as a going concern.

Some would say less chance of this than a labour spokesperson not mentioning so called millionaires tax whatever they are talking about.

[gillyjp]

In defence if lewisham, I'm sure they would if they had infinite resources. But like all councils, staff are stretched. Especially planning. Purelake are at fault here.

Jilly, why do you think it will be a muggers paradise?

Last time I walked down the back of the greyhound it wasn't full if vomit or smelt anything like a toilet. It will have a lot of people walking past as its where sainsburys is going!

Why do you think the greyhound is too small?

Why do you think no-one wants it? It's not finished yet! Should we knock down all vacant buildings?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Lee - the reason the alleyway behind the Greyhound wasn't full of vomit, or other unmentionables when you last walked by was probably because I reported it as such to the 'Love Lewisham' site which I find responsive and efficient. Credit where credit is due and all that.

The agent to the Developer told us that the remaining site was simply too small for a commercial development, so it is effectively a white elephant. Shame.

I cannot wait for Sainsburys to take up occupation - at least they will have an incentive to keep the area clean and tidy. But when will that be?? We are given to understand that they will not be moving in until the Greyhound has been rebuilt.

I work for a London Council and indeed in the Planning & Environment Dept before I moved recently to another department. It doesn't take much for an officer to drive past a controversial site such as this one to keep an eye on developments.

Going back to 'muggers paradise' alley - only three weeks ago we drove past on our way home at about midnight and it was full of young people, the worse for drink, fighting. A couple of them were stripped to the waist. Not a policeman or community PCSO in sight. As I said - roll on the hot summer nights......

[Whiftoff]

If it look like it going to be an issue can’t we push to get some CCTV mounted?

[gillyjp]

If it look like it going to be an issue can’t we push to get some CCTV mounted?

Excellent idea Whiftoff - Cllr Best - over to you - are you able to take this forward with Lewisham given the antisocial stuff that is already happening in this alleyway?

[admin]

I have removed a diversionary post from this thread closely related to this: http://www.beckenhamtown.us/forum/topics/big-issue
Comment there if you wish and help keep this thread on topic.

TIA
Admin

[Robin Orton]

The smack of firm government. We shall all need to mind our step.

[The Clown]

only three weeks ago we drove past on our way home at about midnight and it was full of young people, the worse for drink, fighting. quote][/quote]

Great....not.

I have to agree ref: alley. I have only walked through there once at night and as I lone female it was incredibly intimidating - what were they thinking?

Ref: the pub. I can understand the £13K fine if there was some sort of order placed upon them to rebuild or restriction on what they can now do based on the desires of the community at large, but it is a paltry sum in proportion. The law is a bit of an ass in this respect though I suspect (deter rather than punish), so not altogether surprising.

I agree that as the site is soo small, it would be a bit of a weird pub now that I would be unlikely to frequent as it would be so overshadowed. What would its USP be? "Small pub, subject of much controversy in the midst of towering cheap housing stock, complete with dodgy alley". Not very convincing.

A green space would be much better, perhaps with a very small retail unit that could sell coffee / ice cream etc. etc. perhaps affiliated with one of our good existing coffee houses. I noted Beckenham has 2 no. new deli / coffee houses that have opened up side by side. Both seemed to be doing a roaring trade when I passed by - although that could be partly early opening fever and dedicated patronage by family/friends due to the competition.

The planners need to get a grip and should be sorting this for a quick resolution alongside the other Sydenham Road improvements or the impact of the whole affair will be wasted and value lost to any possible high street revival. Where's Mary.......

[biscuitman1978]

I'm intrigued to know how 'the planners' should be 'getting a grip'. A few points:

I have to agree ref: alley. I have only walked through there once at night and as I lone female it was incredibly intimidating - what were they thinking?

1. I must say that walking down what you regard an 'alley' on your own and at night is a strange choice, particularly when you could have walked in front of the pub on a main road and taken the same time to do so.

2. By 'they' I guess you mean the planners at the Council? I can't speak for them, but bear in mind that:
(a) The design of the development and, in particular, the width of the 'alley' is driven by two older buildings: the Greyhound and the building on the edge of the site on Spring Hill
(b) Whilst that doesn't automatically make the design of the 'alley' acceptable, once the rebuilding of the Greyhound building is complete it will be overlooked by a Sainsbury's Local store (which because of a legal agreement can only open once the Greyhound rebuilding is complete), which should discourage anti-social behaviour

Ref: the pub. I can understand the £13K fine if there was some sort of order placed upon them to rebuild or restriction on what they can now do based on the desires of the community at large, but it is a paltry sum in proportion. The law is a bit of an ass in this respect though I suspect (deter rather than punish), so not altogether surprising.

So if it's the law that's the ass, in what way have the planners failed to 'get a grip'?

I agree that as the site is soo small, it would be a bit of a weird pub now that I would be unlikely to frequent as it would be so overshadowed. What would its USP be? "Small pub, subject of much controversy in the midst of towering cheap housing stock, complete with dodgy alley". Not very convincing.

Dealing with each of these points in turn:
(a) It's too small - it's possible that the building may prove unattractive to pub operators because of its size, but the planning application before the Council is for the use of the rebuilt Greyhound as pub or restaurant. I see no reason why it shouldn't serve as the latter
(b) It's been the subject of much controversy - so what?
(c) It's in the midst of cheap housing stock - the flats look to be of perfectly decent quality to me
(d) It has a 'dodgy alley' - see above

A green space would be much better, perhaps with a very small retail unit that could sell coffee / ice cream etc. etc. perhaps affiliated with one of our good existing coffee houses. I noted Beckenham has 2 no. new deli / coffee houses that have opened up side by side. Both seemed to be doing a roaring trade when I passed by - although that could be partly early opening fever and dedicated patronage by family/friends due to the competition.

A section of the local community successfully campaigned to secure the local listing of the Greyhound and the designation of the area in which it lies as a conservation area. In addition, the Council has recently secured a conviction against the developer for substantially demolishing the pub. I have to say that (a) it would be absurd if we now forgot all that and allowed the complete demolition of the Greyhound when there are good prospects of it being rebuilt, and (b) there is hardly likely to be private or public money available for demolition of the Greyhound as it stands and provision of a green space.

The planners need to get a grip and should be sorting this for a quick resolution alongside the other Sydenham Road improvements or the impact of the whole affair will be wasted and value lost to any possible high street revival.

Only this month has the Council secured a conviction against the developer for unauthorised demolition. It's hardly surprising that little appears to have happened on the site while proceedings were ongoing. And in fact, the planning application for rebuilding of the Greyhound is due to be considered at committee 11 April 2013, which suggests that work has been going on behind the scenes while legal proceedings were ongoing. Hardly the sign of planners failing to get a grip. Let's not forget it was the developers who demolished the building without consent, not the planners.

[SIMONTREWIN]

if i was being massively cynical about this whole thing I would say that the developers planned every step of this process from the beginning but that would probably be libellous and that wouldnt be a good thing...

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Nigel]

Simon
I am inclined to agree - it is text book big business wreaking havoc and assuming a beleaguered local authority will not have the appetite or resources to fight.
I think Biscuitman put it very well - nobody was concerned about the size of the Greyhound before these Purelake oafs knocked it down . I think we owe a debt of gratitude to those that campaigned to save the pub and to Lewisham for making it happen.
The "alley" ( which could be defined as any space between two buildings) is no more likely to be subject to antisocial behaviour or other unpleasantness than elsewhere in Sydenham . I think we should focus on seeing the Greyhound restored to a successful venue and perhaps allow ourselves a small pat on the back for a quiet victory over ugliness and greed by which I mean , on this occasion, Purelake .
Good evening
Nigel

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Eagle]

Simon , unless I am mistaken I believe the small size of the pub was raised before it was partly demolished in error.

I would welcome its return as a Pub , but to be honest be surprised if any movement for many months.

[simon]

I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Biscuit, Simon and Nigel. I just want a pub called the Greyhound on Cobbs Corner. I used to use it regularly and would like do so again.

[Eagle]

Simon and others
As long as they serve decent real ale then I am in 100% agreement. For most of its last years in operation the Pub only served rubbish beers.
They did have the odd real ale but often not kept well. Shame.

Best wishes to the new Pub if and when it opens. Hopefully 2013 but would not put any money on it.
Are Ladbrooks offering odds ?

[susan]

QUICK! Anyone genuinely interested in the alleyway alongside and behind the Greyhound - pop along now; it's full of smashed bottles, squashed cans and empty plastic bags. (There were no loiterers though). I remember as a child shopping in Cobbs Corner Department Store. I can't believe this tiny area has denigrated into such squalid decay.

[Eagle]

Yes Susan. I to have fond memories of Cobb's . It is indeed a great shame to see how standards of some have fallen.

[Kate R Park]

Better a small pub than no pub. With the demise of The Two Half's, by my count we're down to three live drinkeries on the High Street (although was impressed by the quality of the (admittedly single) ale offering at The Albert down at Lower Syd recently).

To my mind, Lewisham should have obtained a re-building cost for the pub, and gone after Pure Lake for that (plus costs obviously). I checked for this thread today after I read a small article in the (Bromley) News Shopper about the court decision and fine - £5k, plus £13K costs (I guess we can work out who are the other winners there, besides PL). I fear that, as has been mooted by other, that PL will drag their heels until the building (or they) collapse. £18K from the profits from the development? Nice work if you can get it...........

[G-Man]

With so much worry and negativity about it never becoming a pub is there anything being done to make sure it is? Are the Sydenham Society fighting its corner? Is there anything we as a community can do to make sure we get the pub most of us want?

[Weeble]

On the issue of the size of the pub, bear in mind that that the rebuilding has replaced the previous small basement which wasn't tall enough to stand up in with one which can accomodate kitchens and toilets. And the new planning consent has forbidden the upper floor of the pub from being converted into flats. So we should have three floors dedicated to pub or restaurant use. Would-be investors will hopefully find the new building a more viable prospect than the original - a big silver lining on this whole demolition debacle.

[Tim Lund]

Can Biscuitman1978 give a view on these recent developments? We disagreed earlier on this thread about how reasonable it was for Purelake to think they could get away with not rebuilding the Greyhound. This recent news clearly makes it less reasonable for them to think this, and according to SydSoc, they told the judge that they did mean to rebuild it. I suspect Biscuitman1978 will say that makes it cut and dried, but unless an operator for the pub can now be found, I wonder if Purelake can be obliged to rebuild - it is planning permission, after all, not planning compulsion. How would things play out if Purelake fails to find an operator? Could they be compelled to fulfil their intentions as reported? Was the intention to rebuild - implicitly or explicitly - 'when we find an operator'? Is there a period of time after which, if they had not rebuild, would they would be in contempt of court? How would any efforts they make mitigate any future penalties for not getting on with it? Weeble also says that the new planning consent has forbidden the upper floor of the pub from being converted into flats, but I don't see how a consent can forbid anything - just not allow something for the time being. Purelake, or any future owner of the building, may hope somewhere down the line to be able to argue that the site can't pay its way as a pub (if this is the case), and so justify a new planning permission.

Whatever happens, it would be good to tone down the language on this. For those who are committed to the rebuilding of the Greyhound, there's absolutely no reason to think SydSoc hasn't been fighting their corner as vigorously as possible. Conversely, it makes no sense to portray Purelake as embodying all that is evil about business. They will not relish the bad publicity they are getting, and it does not make negotiating the deal which will unlock this mess any easier. Purelake may have reasonably thought that no pub was viable in this location - and may still do so - so these developments will be an unwelcome hit to their balance sheet. I'm sure they are big enough to absorb it, unlike Miford Homes, whose bankruptcy was part the result of the unexpected decision to make the site part of a conservation area, but it will reinforce the feeling that developers must have that Sydenham is a risky place in which to invest.

Biscuitman1978 did a lot of research earlier looking for possible operators. It would be good to know if he or someone else was now actually engaging with Purelake on this, or alternatively if Purelake were planning to draw a line under their involvement, by selling the site subject to its being redeveloped as they promised the judge. And if there are still no commercial takers, what happens then?