Rebuild the Greyhound Pub Campaign #rebuildthegreyhound

[Pally]

Nice idea!!

[JRobinson]

so a pertinant question then is who is it that is refusing/delaying the signing of the deed of variation and why?

and following that what can we do to persuade them to get on with it?

I believe that biscuitman usually has very informative and truthfull answers to this kind of question...

[mosy]

Rachael, I hope you're not implying that either I or Barry Milton, or Annabel McLaren for that matter would tell porkies. Only kidding as I'm sure you're not.

The devil is in the detail as to the units/Greyhound owners both being "happy" so over to biscuitman...

The council are trying to do all they can to bring the parties to the signing chair, which is why they plead innocence as it's not them holding it up, quite the contrary as you'll know from other steps including ascertaining whether any legal pressure that can be brought to bear (report to Mayor and Cabinet due 22nd). As I mentioned, Purelake are intending to submit a new/amended planning application (obviously one that would suit them), but the Sydenham Society has expressed openly that they will strongly object to extended class of use permissions requested.

I hope Annabel will update her post on here of 7 Oct in due course re:
quote
We met last week to discuss strategy and tomorrow afternoon we are meeting Lewisham's Chief Executive Barry Quirk and head of planning John Miller.
unquote

[biscuitman1978]

so a pertinant question then is who is it that is refusing/delaying the signing of the deed of variation and why?

and following that what can we do to persuade them to get on with it?

I believe that biscuitman usually has very informative and truthfull answers to this kind of question...

See admin's recent news article at http://sydenham.org.uk/zanzibar-good-ne ... -bad-news/. He writes:

The commercial head lease owner is refusing to sign the necessary Deed of Variation because they are reported to become liable for the rent with no confidence that the Greyhound will be rebuilt any time soon. A not unreasonable position!

Given that the prospect of the deed of variation being signed looks remote, the Council is now investigating what further legal action can be taken against Purelake - see the recent article in News Shopper at http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/11511 ... emolition/ and the minutes of the recent meeting of the Mayor and Cabinet at http://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/ ... 9&MId=3424

[jonekt]

Interesting article in the evening standard tonight where pubs could be banned from turning into betting shops, takeaways or supermarkets.

Seems like Wandsworth council are proposing new rules that pubs are assessed for historic value, being in a conservation area & adding value to the community.

Wonder if this is also rolled out in lewisham if this could help our cause against Purelake ?

[leenewham]

Cllr Liam curran has been working hard on this very thing.

[Tim Lund]

Pubs add the community as places where people can meet and socialise. So do gyms, cafés, places of worship, etc. Planning protection for such places should be based on a single use class - of community value. Privileging pubs, which are necessarily licensed premises, identifies the consumption of a drug which is a significant health risk for many as somehow special for a normal social life. It is not, and excludes many in our community - dare I say, even enforces a righteous sense of being an 'out group' among Muslims. The campaigning of Liam and others on this is deeply misguided.

[Annie.]

Goodness me Tim,
As a privileged "drinker" I totally disagree with you,as I'm sure you will expect.

If I went to a Muslin country to visit or live I would cover up or do whatever I felt is expected of me.
I am not saying that Muslims or for that matter any other non alcohol drinker should enter pubs or anywhere they don't want to, but I don't want to enter a mosque for example, does that mean the Muslim community should shut them down?
I don't think that will ever happen do you?

When in Rome old bean!

[Eagle]

I am with you Annie. Decent Pubs with decent real ale are the heart and soul of Britain. Too many have had to shut down.

It is my contention that most of the alcohol problems are caused by the increase in off sales. Back in 60's you could only buy alcohol in Pubs of odd licenses with strict hours. Seems we have an alcohol 24/7 due to off sales . These should be heavily taxed , not Pubs.

Not sure how Muslims entered into the argument. If the Saudi government had 10% of the tolerance to others as we have would be huge improvement.

[stuart]

Annie - a pleasure to agree with you for once. Tim is right out of order here. Forget Muslims - let's just stick to the equivalent of the Bishop of Southwark deciding unilaterally to close and demolish St Bart's.

Now I happen to think the 'drug' places of faith push is even more dangerous than alcohol (and you don't even have to consume alcohol in a pub). But, first, there are more laws to protect St Bart's than The Greyhound and you know he would never get away with it. I would be there out on the barricades - as would Liam, no doubt. Because it is a community asset. For better or worse it is where people do congregate for company.

You may choose not to go to the Greyhound - or to St Barts - but maintaining that choice of enjoying life and helping other people enjoy life is worth fighting for. Seeing it as an eyesore that blights investment in Sydenham and restoration appears to be the only way to sort it with the support of most involved. I have to say Tim has the right to suggest an alternative. I do, however, think he may be deeply misguided here in not seeing it as an opportunity to bring people together. Including those Muslims (and a few Baptists) who do drink.

Stuart

[leenewham]

I think Liam's crusade to keep pubs is a great one. Pubs have adapted anyway, some are places for families, some are places for a drink, some for something to eat, some have theatres, parties, social events and gatherings, business meetings, quiz nights, jazz nights, blues nights, sunday lunch, burns nights etc.

Pubs (as in all of them, not just some) are not just about drinking alcohol, and have never been just about just drinking alcohol. They are public houses, for the public, and the public is community. Isn't it? The clues in the name.

Good on Liam, carry on the good work. Sorry Tim, I think you are misguided on this one.

[Annie.]

Yes Lee, you are right it is a gathering place regardless if you drink alcohol or not, my husband actually drinks coffee in a pub, where I drink alcohol so the two can happily run alongside each other.

Good luck to Liam.

[Sydenham]

Off topic but to answer the question about whether one can simultaneously work in partnership whilst fighting a legal battle - this is common with large organisations: they often have multiple concurrent contracts covering different operations between themselves. At any one time they can be both a customer and a supplier. Not all jobs go 'to plan' and so sometimes legal proceedings commence. Quite common for these then to be sorted out by those 'at the top' before judgement is given.

Lots of scope for this in the private sector - maybe less so when publicly funded bodies are involved.

[Nigel]

Tim
Only you could introduce islam into pub conservation .
I don't swim but I supported Forest Hill Pools . You have to trust us little people to know when we've had enough .

There are thousands of people including isolated people that would wander into a pub for a quiet pint and a chat that would never set foot in a gym or advanced excel class for that matter .
I don't think anyone is saying lets let other community assets rot - just that for many of us pubs are special and part of our British culture - for better or worse .
A very good evening
Nigel

[Pally]

Tim I understand your concerns about the potential risks of alcohol. However I don't think pubs are necessarily the key issue in addressing those risks. 24 hour availability of very cheap booze and also the massive rise in alcopops that mimic "soft drinks" seem very relevant. I frequently sit in a pub with a soft drink, or just have one drink and I observe others do the same; that is a matter of choice despite availability. An alcoholic relative who has been dry since 2007 goes to pubs with me and with friends, and drinks large lime and soda or similar. His choice to go, his choice to drink what he drinks. If he couldn't deal with it, we would go elsewhere with him.

[nasaroc]

The officers' report on the Greyhound for the all-important Mayor and Cabinet meeting to be held on 22 October is now online.

http://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/ ... 9&MId=3425

[Robin Orton]

What an appallingly drafted document - rambling, repetitive and badly organised bureaucratic prose. When I was a civil servant, if I had submitted anything like this to a minister, my career prospects would have quickly crumbled. Is this typical of the policy papers which the Mayor and councillors have to read? If so, poor them.

Three things struck me.

5.5.3. says that the owners of the site include not Purelake itself but the Purelake New Homes Director's Pension Scheme. Any implications?

6.3.. explains why Purelake were allowed to let the flats before starting work on the pub. Sounds as if Purelake were able to pull a fast one over the council:

Officers were aware that Hexagon Housing had tenants ready to occupy the
40 residential units and that any delay would result in a significant housing
issue for the tenants concerned, Hexagon and the Council. The timely release
of the units for tenants who required accommodation was the primary
consideration in the application being granted permission.

There is, so far as I can see, no mention of Lee's mural (mosaic?) Where does that fit in to the wider scheme of things?

[leenewham]

It mentions the mural/mosaic a lot actually robin, but the whole document is written in 'yes minister' crap english, which means it uses as many words as possible to say very little.

Purelake had the design of the mural/mosaic before it was demolished.

[angela53]

From memory the tiles were beautiful and probably now worth a fortune. I used to visit the Greyhound regularly in the 1980`s

[mosy]

Thank you nasaroc

I was doing quite well reading this (relevant from Para 6 onwards mostly):
http://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/ ... 0House.pdf

But Para 7 leaves me befuddled, so quoted here in full:

7. Legal Implications
7.1 The legal advice received from leading counsel is summarised in paragraph
6.4 of this report.
7.2 The Local Authorities (Functions and Responsibilities)(England) Regulations
2000 specifies those functions that are not to be the responsibility of an
authority’s executive. This includes the function of determining whether, and in
what manner, to enforce—
(a) any failure to comply with an approval, consent, licence, permission or
registration granted as mentioned in paragraph (2)(a);
(b) any failure to comply with a condition, limitation or term to which any
such approval, consent, licence, permission or registration is subject; or
(c) any other contravention in relation to a matter with regard to which the
function of determining an application for approval, consent, licence,
permission or registration would not be the responsibility of an executive of
the authority,
.
Paragraph (2) (a) of those regulations includes the functions of imposing any
condition, limitation or other restriction on an approval, consent, licence,
permission or registration granted in the exercise of a function specified in
column (1) of Schedule 1. Schedule 1 encompasses the functions relating to
town and country planning and development control and in particular the
powers in relation to agreements under S106 and enforcement provisions.

[my bold] My second bold, since coloured blue, if meant to be a sticky, isn't for me.

So, does this say that the Mayor and Cabinet do have the authority to pursue legal paths?

Or that it's out of their hands and in some other body's - if so whose?
(I can't tell from the words and no "blue" column schedule to help interpret what's meant.

It worries me that actions so far are considered within budget, but would need further review before expensive legal action might be taken. That's fair enough considering what top counsels charge, so it would help to know who would decide that - i.e. as I asked, is it within the council's remit or not?

I note that new drawings haven't been submitted by Purelake yet, but IIRC they did say "after the 15th" (for some reason.
---

@ Robin Orton: Leenewham's mural - i.e. the tiled back wall - had to be design-agreed and installed as a prerequisite (along with interior drinking corridor tiles' positioning plans to be agreed) prior to residential occupation of the flats.. Para 6.3.1 refers. Edit: That explains no doubt why it's been installed with potential risk of damage way ahead of the actual building.