RebuildTheGreyhound - pub to be rebuilt by April 2015?

[biscuitman1978]

No mention of the conservatory. Is thai happening? It seems crazy if it isn't.

The conservatory is addressed at paragraphs 6.1.17 and 6.1.18 of the report. Those paragraphs confirm that planning permission has been granted. It's up to Purelake to decide whether to build it. My best guess is that they'll wait to see whether potential occupiers need/want it.

The illegal extra floor has been removed.

Paragraph 6.1.5 of the report confirms that the unauthorised mezzanine floor has been removed.

I couldn't work out what is going on about the back staircase and door.

The rear staircase is addressed at paragraphs 6.1.17 and 6.1.18. Those paragraphs confirm that planning permission has been granted. The pit for the staircase (and possibly the stairs themselves) already exists - it's currently covered by a wooden board. The planning permission allows for railings to be installed around the stairs.

The door was, I believe, approved in the original planning application.

[leenewham]

Thanks Biscuitman.

Fingers crossed for the conservatory. I thought it looked great on the plans.

[gillyjp]

If it isn't going to be a pub then I would love it to become a Real Greek restaurant (currently a small chain) - there are a few in London but not nearly enough IMHO. However looking at the position of their current establishments I doubt whether they would consider Sydenham a prime location. Would be great for raising Sydenham's profile though.

[Robin Orton]

Would be great for raising Sydenham's profile though.

I would prefer Sydenham to remain low-profile. Otherwise everyone will be wanting to come and live here and the prices of everything will go up.

[Parker1970]

I've never understood the mania in Britain for chains (even small chains). How about something truly wonderful, the model for which we have never encountered before?

Of course the high rents charged will probably preclude it, but it is so depressing hearing how many plasticized replications are on so many peoples' wishlists.

I dont have issue with smaller chains. For example, Steak & Co is probably the best steakhouse chain I have ever been to, they only have about half a dozen restaurants but all in Central London, if they branched out to Sydenham I would love it. Their food and wine is amazing and reasonable prices. It all really depends on the chain to be honest... if Garfunkels came I would facepalm hard

[simono]

Intersting how so many people have been so keen for Antic pubs to take over the building. Great pubs, great beer but without doubt a chain, a growing one and although London based no longer even that local.
t is about quality and if a chain can provide quality along with certainty of investment along with the financial capacity to support a venue through the good times and bad we should support it.

[robbieduncan]

Are Antic a chain? Or more of a collective? Different pubs seem to sell totally different food and beer

[parker]

Antic would have started off as an independent too, so what if they were successful and are now a chain, what would anyone expect them to do with a good business model, just stop...? Good luck to them, they're hardly carrying on like Tesco...

[leenewham]

I agree with you Rod, to a point.

There are different brands. Some are cookie cutter 'what you see and get in location a is what you get in location y' and then a mix up to Antic, which is far more nuanced.

It's a bit like the Dolphin, apparently it's owned or leased from Enterprise, but feels totally different from their other pubs (and indeed from

I have no problem with Antic, especially as their pubs all have a nice homely feel to them and are good quality. I would be happy with anyone running an exciting pub that looks and feels like a great place to be with great service, interesting ales/stout and food.

[SteveG85]

I agree with Lee. Surely the most important point is whether we end up with a great pub that people can enjoy, rather than whether potential new owners have the temerity to upset Rod by being successful in running more than one pub. I really don't understand that attitude

[Eagle]

I have always been impressed with Antic Pubs I have entered .

They seem to give a great latitude to each Pub .

[JRobinson]

does anyone who's seen plans know if it's going to be the kind of place that would do coffee during the day, and beers wines at night? room for childrens buggy's? a place that local parents of small/young children could meet on a weekday morning, but also enjoy a drink on a Friday night?

something not dissimilar to that place on Dartmouth Road, who's name escapes me at the moment, is it 'The Hill'? has a large piano, does good value sunday roast, serves coffee and cake and beers?

That kind of place would do well in The Greyhound.

[blakewho]

FWIW coming from the extremely rare political standpoint of secular distributism I completely understand Rod's point of view and would prefer the ownership of pubs - indeed all land and property - to be as widely distributed as possible. But we live in an imperfect world and the main thing I'm concerned about in this particular case is that this great building in its great location becomes the great pub that it should be and a real asset to Sydenham.

[Pally]

Agreed blakewho!

[monkeyarms]

does anyone who's seen plans know if it's going to be the kind of place that would do coffee during the day, and beers wines at night? room for childrens buggy's? a place that local parents of small/young children could meet on a weekday morning, but also enjoy a drink on a Friday night?

There's no guarantee that it'll be a pub.
I hope it will be. But I'm a pessimist and a cynic who has recently moved to Sydenham from a part of south london not far away where pubs were closed and converted into Tesco Metros with "luxury" flats above them on a weekly basis.

I am keeping my fingers crossed that my gut feeling will be proven wrong.

In fact, on that note, is there anything we, as interested Sydenham residents, can do in advance to influence the outcome? Or is it an un-influenceable decision entirely up to the freeholder?

[Rachael]

In fact, on that note, is there anything we, as interested Sydenham residents, can do in advance to influence the outcome? Or is it an un-influenceable decision entirely up to the freeholder?

In my experience the biggest obstacle to that is the apathy of the Sydenham people.

A few years ago we tried to stop a pub on Sydenham Road becoming a Tesco to an almost audible shrug. I'm willing to accept my own culpability in not stopping it, but, although there is a voluble community here, the vast majority have a laissez faire attitude to the high street, immersed as they are in their own lives.

How do you know it was 'apathy' that allowed that change to happen? For all we (a very, very, very small and unrepresentative sample of the local population) know, the majority of Sydenham residents may have actively welcomed the change from the pup to a Tesco. It's not a laissez faire attitude if inaction causes a change you actually welcome.

[_HB]

Well said Rachael. I supported the introduction of the Tesco and I'm glad I did. As I recall at the time, I counted opinion just on this forum as marginally in favour vs those opposed.

[stuart]

I hope nobody will doubt my personal enthusiasm for getting The Greyhound rebuilt. That festering mess was both a visual and economic blot on Sydenham. But I am might wary of even its most illustrious citizens 'choosing' the right sort of business for The Greyhound or anywhere else.

Trying to stop Inkwa Tattoos which satisfies the decorative needs of many people because they are apparently 'the wrong sort' or I don't need one was a poor show. I hope those that tried and failed feel somewhat chastened by its success on other artistic grounds. All, in all, an unplanned and unexpected asset.

The people who are willing to bet their livelihoods are the ones to choose (within the planning laws). Plenty have lost those livelihoods for getting it wrong. But I would take their bet as more likely to be successful against those that just want their type of outlet. When it comes to pubs the most successful is probably The Pavilion. I'm guessing I'm one of the few here who has been inside and it isn't a place I would choose to drink. But it is the pub of choice for far more than here. Long may it keep serving.

That's not to say there is nothing wrong with saying what sort of decor or ale you would prefer. They could choose mine. But on past form they would be lucky to see me more than once or twice a month so unless they can assemble many hundreds (thousands?) like me it means nothing and best ignored.

Yes I would like it as a pub. But if it becomes a Nandos or Paddy Power and is a success then who am I to complain?

Stuart

[stuart]

Only in Britain could a bunch of people fight so hard to save a pub from unscrupulous developers and then fall back on laissez faire with a kind of who me? It's now another chicken shop!

Well yes, I would rate Nando's as a step down from your average Chicken Jerk except it would be me who was spit roasted by some family members.

Laissez faire? Yes you have it. In a micro sense that may be the best way to run retail land. The ability to innovate or copy is left to the market to drive. Putting money across a counter should count for far more than stuff said at Sydenham Assembly. One of the most successful 'shops' in Sydenham is the old filling station just past The Alfred. I've watched it grow bit by bit adding and displaying an incredible amount of stuff. An unplanned, indeed undesigned, emporium.

Planning is important. Creating a marketplace is important. As long as they are enabling and not restrictive. But in the end it is up to a retailer to choose to make an offer and of us to accept it or not. So fighting for The Greyhound aka 'showing a lack of apathy' is a good thing. But now is the time to stand back and let any allowed business in. We have created a heavy cost for Purelake. That should drive them to find a tenant. If they fail then, well, I might let my apathy fall away again.

Stuart

[biscuitman1978]

My understanding is that the building must, initially at least, be used for A3/A4 use. A3 is cafe/restaurant; A4 is pub/bar.

The reason for this, and I hope people will forgive the tedious planning law lecture, is that:

- In planning terms the Greyhound building is a ‘new’ building (which reflects the fact that the 2010 planning permission allowed for substantial remodelling, including demolition of extensions, so that it looks rather like it does now)

- The 2010 planning permission allows the ‘new’ building to be used for A3/A4 purposes

- Planning case law tells us that a new building must be used for the purpose for which for permission was granted (for an undefined ‘reasonable period’), in this case A3/A4, before anyone may take advantage of ‘permitted development rights’ (which allow a change from one use to another without planning permission in a limited range of circumstances)