RebuildTheGreyhound - pub to be rebuilt by April 2015?

[sydres]

Assuming that the Schedule 10 works were signed off at the end of last month, I find it hard to believe that a meeting is still required to go through 'structural issues'. If the structural issues are so severe as to put workmen at risk then why was this not addressed earlier in the original application and the necessary remedial work carried out prior to starting on site?

As Biscuitman quite rightly states, Purelake have now had 3 - 4 weeks to fully mobilise and there should be nothing stopping them from starting on site.

[JRobinson]

If there are 'structural issues' then I'd bet any amount of money that they're due to the fact that the building was left roofless, and open to the elements over winter, and for the past several years - clearly this is the fault of Purelake who should have made th building weatherproof when they left site. Of course a synic might suggest that this is exactly what they wanted, and if the building is too dangerous, it might be the only option is to demolish, and make good, which is what they originally wanted, as that's far less expensive for them. If this does happen, then Lewisham should throw the book at them with everything they've got, as this is completely unaceptable. There should be severe repurcusions for companies doing stuff like this, and not just a rap on the knuckles and a nominal fine.

[parklife]

This is not looking good !

[I hammer]

I've always though that Purelake were using dirty tricks to NEVER rebuild this pub.
Now we have structural issues, well blow me, this may give good reason to demolish, or sell to another developer.
How depressing.

[Rachael]

There is so little left that they are practically re-building it from the ground up anyway. If they have to CAREFULLY demolish what is left and rebuild it brick-by-brick, that is what they must me made to do.

If the council don't enforce legal action on Monday, as they said they would, I think the Save the Greyhound Campaign needs to go picket their offices again.

[Gaddison]

I agree with Rachel and push for this. I have not had a reply from Cllr Best as yet, not sure if anyone else has had any success in getting any more clear information from council on what they intend to do

[Psi]

There is a council in Surrey where a residents association party often wins the election, perhaps Sydenham needs this to get these Labour types who have been so useless out, and scare the rest of the council into action.

[owlwise]

I just hope that the lovely Greyhound mural does not get damaged once works begin. It's beyond me why it was put up on the site in the first place...

[Steveofsyd]

Would anyone on this site know how to organise a legal action against Purelake on behalf of the Residents and Retailers of Sydenhan. Is this Feasible.
What could we or the retailers cite? This has surely impacted the overall character and trade as well as put off investment in the area....
I'm no expert so it's a question im putting out there for the "illuminati", as the Council is beyond incompetent, to have let this carry on for so many years
I'm willing to chip in a few quid to fundraising, if this is a realistic option....just because as a 15+ year resident it makes me very...very angry.

[Steveofsyd]

We are past "Carbuncle", way beyond Gangrene, and now in the realms of the Rotting Zombie, right on our doorstep!

[Tim Lund]

Would anyone on this site know how to organise a legal action against Purelake on behalf of the Residents and Retailers of Sydenhan. Is this Feasible.
What could we or the retailers cite? This has surely impacted the overall character and trade as well as put off investment in the area....
I'm no expert so it's a question im putting out there for the "illuminati", as the Council is beyond incompetent, to have let this carry on for so many years
I'm willing to chip in a few quid to fundraising, if this is a realistic option....just because as a 15+ year resident it makes me very...very angry.

Admin posted some film of a recent Mayor & Cabinet meeting about the Greyhound, and towards the end someone - I assume Kath Nicholson, Lewisham's Head of Law, made some remark about the legal issues being complex - but without going into why. Since this is someone with the legal fire power to take on Jeremy Hunt and win, I suspect she knows what she's talking about.

Admin - where's that film?

[admin]

Admin posted some film of a recent Mayor & Cabinet meeting about the Greyhound, and towards the end someone - I assume Kath Nicholson, Lewisham's Head of Law, made some remark about the legal issues being complex - but without going into why. Since this is someone with the legal fire power to take on Jeremy Hunt and win, I suspect she knows what she's talking about.

Admin - where's that film?

The first is the meeting last October when at the end Kath "puts the pedal down"
https://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic ... nd#p103789

The second this year ends with a discussion of legal options.
https://sydenham.org.uk/rebuildthegreyh ... rt-update/

I'm guessing some of the complexity is who is responsible to do what. The planning application pre-dates Purelake. Currently Purelake may be merely the contractor. The building is believed to be now owned by a vehicle for the benefit but not necessarily in official control of two people who also happen to be directors of Purelake. Other parties are also involved since retail occupation is dependent on restoration of the pub.

This begs the question of which jelly is Lewisham supposed to nail to which wobbly wall?

Admin

[Steveofsyd]

Sorry, but I'm not convinced that any amount of legal jelly concerning this tiny planning issue (put into perspective in Greater London) should take approx. 10 years to sort out!
It's an absolute and shameful disgrace.
Every time there seems to be light (very dim light mind you) Purelake change the plans...when is someone going to say No More!

[Steveofsyd]

Wonder if one of the TV programmes might be interested in taking this up? Is it "Cowboy Builders"?
That would make my day, month, year......

[Tim Lund]

The second this year ends with a discussion of legal options.
https://sydenham.org.uk/rebuildthegreyh ... rt-update/

I'm guessing some of the complexity is who is responsible to do what. The planning application pre-dates Purelake. Currently Purelake may be merely the contractor. The building is believed to be now owned by a vehicle for the benefit but not necessarily in official control of two people who also happen to be directors of Purelake. Other parties are also involved since retail occupation is dependent on restoration of the pub.

This begs the question of which jelly is Lewisham supposed to nail to which wobbly wall?

Admin

Thanks. I misremembered - the word Kath Nicholsom used was 'controversial', not 'complex', and at 9.00 Steve Bullock queries this, suggesting the issues are simple, to which she replies 'You may say so' and gets a round of knowing laughter. Perhaps some of those in the know would share what was so funny.

On the matter of some other vehicle being being the legal owner - this is the first I've heard of it, but I've not been following this with as much attention as others. Was this generally known? Is it all just too complex for ordinary people to understand?

For a generalised rant about transparency, I started another thread.

[Robin Orton]

I'm sure this is nothing new. If I remember rightly, we were told some time ago on this thread that the site is owned by some sort of pension fund for the Purelake directors.

[Tim Lund]

I'm sure this is nothing new. If I remember rightly, we were told some time ago on this thread that the site is owned by some sort of pension fund for the Purelake directors.

You're quite right - you picked this up yourself with reference to a report to Mayor & Cabinet here

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.


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?

So, what are the implications? Anyone in the know prepared to say? Anyone prepared to hazard a guess?

I can see why this might make matters more complex, but in what way more controversial, unless the general ability to wrap business affairs up in such complexity is in itself controversial?

[biscuitman1978]

News this afternoon

Purelake’s Planning Consultant advises that Purelake will be meeting Building Control on site on 30 April and intend to start works shortly thereafter. In terms of the planning application for the conservatory and stairs, this will be with Lewisham by next Monday.

Further enquiries with regard to reasons for yet a further delay have elicited the response that the Planning Consultant’s
understanding is that the meeting between Purelake and Building Control could not happen sooner and is important to ensure structural issues with the existing building are addressed.

Pat Trembath tells me that Lewisham Council's building control team was prepared to meet well before 30 April; it is Purelake who have delayed the meeting until 30 April.

My personal view is that once that meeting has taken place there are two courses of action:

- If there are genuine 'structural issues' of which neither Purelake nor the Council were aware and which need to be addressed then fine, but let's get on and sort them, and quickly

- If it is clear that this is a delaying tactic by Purelake, or that they are looking to cut corners, it's time for the Council to put its money where its mouth is and start legal proceedings

[The Commander]

Totally with biscuitman1978 on this. Time for the council to stop pussy footing around the developer and take legal proceedings. It really does not matter who owns the site as the agreement runs with the land and therefore whoever owns it.It's not difficult to find out.

These are deliberate developer stalling tactics. The officer's report is crystal clear:

http://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/ ... update.pdf

7.1.10 Should the Owner fail to start the works within the timeframe agreed with the
applicant as a reasonable period for commencing such works as set out in
paragraph 6.1.7 of this report, then the Council can consider whether or not to
commence proceedings against the owner for breach of the provisions of the
Section 106 Agreement and to seek an order for compliance with the relevant
provisions of the Agreement and/or such other remedy as may be
appropriate.

The other remedy could include the council rebuilding it and claiming the costs back.

[Steveofsyd]

A rather namby pamby clause. Too many vague statements an example of which is "may consider". just another get out for the council NOT to be decisive and take action.
Replace it with "will" and I might be convinced....
Honestly there cannot be one person here that feels we have been well served by our Council and planners.
They are equally to blame for this going on so long.