Rebuild the Greyhound Pub Campaign #rebuildthegreyhound

[leenewham]

Are you a spokesman for Purelake, Ladyarce?

[Nigel]

Lardyarce,
you do realise you have posted the same stupid comment on both threads ?
We do need another good pub in (not " on" ) the high street thank you very much , and we will get it - this is Sydenham and we don't cave in to sheisters like Purelake as you will see . Your post reminds me of that mad lady that posted strange conspiracy theories about the very agreeable Lemon Tree restaurant - at least she managed a different order of words in both posts.

Good evening
Nigel

[Rachael]

Knock the greyhound down. we don't need it on the high street.
put some greenery there to brighten the place up

Quite frankly I would have found this first-time post more credible if you had tried to sell me a cut-price kitchen.

My guess is that most of the people who support demolishing the greyhound have no idea of the shenanigans that have gone on behind the scenes.

It has been reported again (in the press coverage of last week's council meeting) that Purelake's defence of the demolition is that the structure was rendered unsafe by fire. I don't know if that's ever been proved, but even if true, it doesn't explain why they started to rebuild with an illegal mezzanine floor. Have they ever explained that?

[sydeman]

I don't see a problem with someone proposing as an alternative that the Greyhound should be knocked down; do we live in a fascist society where someone dares to speak differently is shot down?. The pub is of no specific architectural value other than its an oldish building; there are far greater historical buildings elsewhere in the borough. I for one would relish the opportunity of knocking the pub down and creating a larger vibrant civic square with a smaller possibly modern glazed cafe in one corner. The square then would be larger and be usable for better civic events. The existing pub building is tightly crammed into one small space surrounded by a modern development. It doesn't work spatially and it doesn't work commercially. I would much rather have a good quality modern smaller development which would entice people in.

I know i will be shot down for this observation but frankly that's fair enough. We all have our opinions. I prefer to try and be abit imaginative with my ideas rather than just follow the Sydenham piper.

[Rachael]

I can see that my comment looked unduly cynical. However, there was context for it, namely the fact that the same poster dug out a very old thread on the Greyhound and posted exactly the same comment.

In any case, I'm not trying to shout down people who want the building demolished. Personally I think a pub or restaurant there, partly hiding the austere flats, would look great as you round the corner from Westwood Hill or Kirkdale. We're told there are businesses keen to use a rebuilt Greyhound. So it must be commercially viable. If it was the choice between an empty building and a new public space, I'd chose the latter. But if it's a choice between an occupied building and a public space, I'll take the building.

[mosy]

As I understand it, it's the finances that will dictate what the outcome will be, not public opinion. Meaning that owning a piece of land paved over as a public square brings in no return, whereas a building can either be sold or leased out. So it seems to me that something will end up being built, eventually, for a use as yet to be agreed (new planning application due to be submitted "after the 15th" IIRC). Currently it seems to be a cross between a time loop (groundhog day) and a time loop (groundhog day) Thankfully Sydenham Society and others are trying to break the loop.

[JRobinson]

as far as I know, Purelake are legally bound to rebuild the pub, and they say that they intend to, however, this will cost them money. If they were unscrupulous, and I'm not saying that they are, then they might stall things, in a legal way, and not go on site, and leave the building to deteriorate to such a state so that they then can say that the building is in such a poor state that the only safe option would be to knock it down, and rebuild, at which point they'd put in a different planning application for something that is more appealing to someone wanting to use the space, and likely to make them more money. Hopefully they are honourable and will rebuild, as per their agreed planning application, and legaly binding contract. They've already built the flats (and presumably already made money from them) - now they should honour the second part of the agreement which is to rebuild the pub.
I feel like I'm repeating what I've previously said in other greyhound related threads.
personally I think that whoever is holding this up should be liable for any costs associated with the delayed reconstruction - and I believe that there is a deed of variation that hasn't been signed off by someone who is neither Purelake, nor LB Lewisham.

[biscuitman1978]

as far as I know, Purelake are legally bound to rebuild the pub

Purelake aren't legally bound to rebuild the pub, and that's part of the problem.

Lewisham Council is currently considering whether it should take further legal action, as News Shopper recently reported - see http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/11511 ... emolition/

[Eagle]

If Purelake not legally bound to rebuild then we could be in for a long haul, and the area will be an eyesore for years.

I realise the vast majority on this forum want the building rebuilt and to offer another view is not permitted.

I know from many contacts that many locals do want it pulled down. Oh dear insults will follow.

I do appreciate all the good intentions of those who want a re build , but they seem to deny that anyone bar Purelake would have another view.
Has any independent survey been done.

[admin]

I realise the vast majority on this forum want the building rebuilt and to offer another view is not permitted.

Maybe spreading disinformation should not be permitted 'cos while I am Admin any honestly held view is permitted here provided it is expressed politely and is on topic.

Admin

[blakewho]

Eagle,

Alternative viewpoints are welcome of course, but given the active campaign and strongly supported petition for the rebuilding of the greyhound and the absence of anything more than a few isolated forum posts in favour of demolishing it, it would be difficult to conclude anything other than that the majority of Sydenham residents would rather like their pub back.

If you, or others here, feel strongly that what remains of the pub should be demolished in favour of an alternative use of the space then I recommend you get yourselves organised in a similar manner to the campaign for rebuilding.

[Ghlpc]

Well said blakewho.

I applaud the passionate people involved in the current campaign and admire their enthusiasm.

Keep it up guys, I for one will be glad to buy you all a drink in the new Greyhound.

[Eagle]

Blake

You say the vast majority of forum posters. Yes , I agree , but how many in reality are they ? How many live in the locality ? What percentage of total population is that ?

I can assure you there are many out there who do not agree with this point of view.

I am a supporter of decent pubs. Whilst in my lifetime it was never a decent pub , I accept that could change in a new building. However the building is now an utter disgrace . I have seem far worse bomb sites after the war.

If it would be properly rebuilt and open in say 9 month or 12 months max , then I would be for it. I do honestly hope this occurs, although I am not remotely optimistic it will happen.

If in 2 years time there is no change , will all you persons still believe as you do.

I would indeed welcome a new decent pub , hopefully Antic and there are many other potential sites./

[admin]

I can assure you there are many out there who do not agree with this point of view.

The one thing that surely unites us all is that the current semi-demolished pub is not acceptable. Not only is it an eye-sore but it is blighting Sydenham economically - from the shops not being able to be let and the impact on existing businesses and future investment.

Almost anything is better than the current state. You can believe a 35' bronze statue of yourself might look better but it isn't going to happen. The rebuild of The Greyhound is not going to happen unless we can pressurise somebody into coming up with a solution. The pub has most support and it has extant planning permission. Anything else is taking a step backwards and are we not already on the back step?

That's why I am supporting the campaign because it is the best achievable solution we have on the table. Even if you don't drink and enjoy wide open piazzas.

Or do you have an achievable alternative solution that can gain at least a thousand signatures? Go get 'em and feel free to use STF to find 'em!

Admin

[Eagle]

Admin

We are indeed in agreement over a lot. The difference seems to be how to sort the area out.

I do welcome the new push and wish it every success. I would be very happy to be proved wrong.

As you say one thing we do need is the bomb site sorted out quickly.

If there is an Antic Pub in 12 months time there I will congratulate everyone involved.

[Manwithaview1]

Could - I'm just throwing an idea here - the Greyhound be rebuilt in the units under the flats with exact tiles and features etc and have a cool garden out front for patrons?

Then you would have the units filled, eyesore in its present state removed and a garden.

Just an idea off the top of my head.

[Eagle]

MWAV

I cannot believe I am saying this but you may have a possible idea !!!!!

[Annie.]

MWAV, for once (or more) I agree with you, what an idea! If all the features could be kept with the lovely tiles etc even the mural on the inside would be great,a lovely bit of green outside with a surround of some sort, seating, tables. It would be quite exciting.

[mosy]

I'm sure the units are spoken for, subject to terms to be agreed, which again IIRC are that what is good for the goose (units) should be good for the gander (Greyhound) equally, being the contention about what is preventing Purelake and the other commercial interest from signing the variation and moving forward.

Also such a plan of utilising the units as the pub overlooks that it "loses" a money-income building altogether, which'll never fly.

Plus it'd mean that the nondescript flats would in effect be the entrance to Syd high street.

I don't understand how the pub could be separated effectively from the flats (for them to be completed) but can't be from the units. Anyway,, hopefully we'll hear more before and the 22nd.

[nasaroc]

Mosy - you are correct.

No reason whatsoever why anyone shouldn't come up with their own idea of what they'd like to do with the site. But these ideas have to be tested against reality.

If I were to contact all the residents in Venner Road and tell them that I intended to knock down all their homes and build a public square/park all without any financial compensation, the police (or maybe even an ambulance) would be summoned.

So why is it any different with the Greyhound site?

Just like Venner Road, the pub and the commercial space to the rear and side are privately owned (by separate entities) and both spaces have tenants ready and eager to move in.

I simply cannot think of any conditions in which either of the owners would therefore give up the ability to earn money from property that they own and where planning permission exists for commercial use.

Nor would I want them to. We are eager for a pub and shops to operate on the site.

Of course it's frustrating - but I'm confident that we are moving towards a settlement of this issue.

Barry Milton