Windmill Victory

[KEVD]

The site just seems to be getting more run down every time I pass it. Would be good to know why it has been opposed?

[appletree]

Yes, I would like to know what was intended for the Windmill site and why it was opposed some kind of business needs to open here. It does not yave to be a pub. It needs to be not a run-down, ratty, closed building. Between this and the building to its left where it seems no businesses have ever been on the ground floor, this section of Kirkdale, which could ge pleasant and prosperous, is miserable and depressing. If the Sydenham Society has really opposed development, I would like to know why, and what plans they might have for improving this frankly unpleasant stretch of Kirkdale.

[Sydenham]

The Sydenham Society's approach to this property just completely baffles me. They seem to be objecting to any use of the property other than as a large pub, something which it seems quite obvious isn't going to happen. We've now waited 3.5 years for a pub operator to open a large pub on The Windmill site, how long do we have to wait before the Sydenham Society planning committee gives up on the idea?

Here's the link below to the Syd Soc objection to the latest Windmill development plans. I don't get the same view as SteveG85 of the basis for their objection. Please read and form your own ideas.

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

The site is deteriorating and looks awful - but I personally believe it's better to challenge now and get something realistic and sustainable in the end than to allow a developer to excessively exploit the site with inappropriate proposals. Developers must be allowed to develop and make money - but a balance is needed. Unfortunately the system means that we end up with this waiting game. The profits the developer believes they can make allows them to sit it out for a long time - low interest rates and increasing property asset values assist in this.

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

[appletree]

Thank you for providing links to these documents.

[Mayowthorpe]

This baffles me. The Sydenham Society causes far more problems than it claims to solve.

We have a shortage of housing, and the site looks like a tip. I can't see any issue with the current proposal.

What can be done about the Society? The board needs to change.

[prince]

The Sydenham Society's approach to this property just completely baffles me. They seem to be objecting to any use of the property other than as a large pub, something which it seems quite obvious isn't going to happen. We've now waited 3.5 years for a pub operator to open a large pub on The Windmill site, how long do we have to wait before the Sydenham Society planning committee gives up on the idea?

Here's the link below to the Syd Soc objection to the latest Windmill development plans. I don't get the same view as SteveG85 of the basis for their objection. Please read and form your own ideas.

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

The site is deteriorating and looks awful - but I personally believe it's better to challenge now and get something realistic and sustainable in the end than to allow a developer to excessively exploit the site with inappropriate proposals. Developers must be allowed to develop and make money - but a balance is needed. Unfortunately the system means that we end up with this waiting game. The profits the developer believes they can make allows them to sit it out for a long time - low interest rates and increasing property asset values assist in this.

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

It appears this application went to planning committee last week, with a recommendation to approve, subject to conditions. Does anyone know what the outcome was, for there is no decision on the Council's planning portal?

[Eagle]

Waited 3.5 years for a Pub. That is nothing for how long waited for the Greyhound. Is it 35 years ?

Surely good it should be a community Pub.

[appletree]

I have no particular desire for it to be a pub -- there are two pubs within spitting distance already -- but it should be something, and not empty and deteriorating.

[Kent House R]

I don't understand the obsession with pubs. They have their place, but we don't need as many as we did in the past because the ways in which people socialise has changed. If and when the Nando's opens, I speculate it will be very busy. Unlike some of the pubs....

[Pally]

[quote="Kent House R"]I don't understand the obsession with pubs. They have their place, but we don't need as many as we did in the past because the ways in which people socialise has changed. If and when the Nando's opens, I speculate it will be very busy. Unlike some of the pubs....[/quote)


Spot on Kent House

[prince]

Hi everyone. just to let you know Bernard Constructions plans for a mixed use development of residential on the upper stories and a pub at ground floor were granted planning permission last week. I personally think this is very good news.

[SteveG85]

Thanks for the update, Prince, I think that’s great news. I would have much preferred Antic’s proposal in 2015 to have been successful but this should be a significant improvement on the status quo.

@Sydenham - For what it’s worth the Society's objection to Antic, Sainsburys and the extracts I've copied below from the latest objection were what led me to think that the Society would object to any development other than a large pub.

The Society deplores the developer’s intention to demolish such a recently constructed building, which, with a small amount of cosmetic remodelling and a long overdue makeover, could continue to serve the community for many years to come. Whilst the Society recognises that the developer has included a new pub at the ground floor in the deposited proposals, the Society’s interpretation of the facilities shown is that it would lack ambience and be too small to continue to act as the multi-function venue that attracted a loyal clientele. The Society laments the fact that proposals to demolish the existing building have been put to Lewisham Council with no attempt by the new owner/applicant to either run the current venue themselves or to try to find a licensee to do so.
…
The compromises inflicted on the business by these proposals will affect the attractiveness, popularity and offer provided by this public house, jeopardising its long-term use and viability as a public house with the associated loss of this community facility.
…
Wetherspoons left The Windmill because it was too small for their purposes. With a little TLC and some ambition, the Society believes The Windmill can thrive once again. We would be delighted to share our ideas with the applicants and work with them to find a forward-looking licensee.

[leenewham]

For comparison:



One of the proposals



The latter looks rather dull at street level with little effort to make it look remotely like an inviting bar/pub, although the former isn't exactly attractive. Both could be far better.

There were many pubs in and around Kirkdale. Now there are few left. It would have been good if the SS had some proof or business case for a larger site. Many smaller pubs thrive, I'm not sure why a smaller pub would be an issue. There would be at least 3 pubs there if the Windmill reopened as a pub! Infact, the larger pubs seem to be struggling these days as their land value seems more attractive to Lidl or Aldi than 'Spoons, Toby or Fullers, Green King etc. How long has the Harvester been closed for on the south circular? Spoons are supposed to be pulling out of the Cinema in Forest Hill, which is a huge venue.

Let's hope what is proposed is good, is of value to the area, looks proud of where it is and provides employment and is sustainable.

[Pally]

Lee - has the top one been rejected ...or are both of these proposals to be considered?

[Eagle]

I am surprised with Wetherspoons do move out of Capitol , unless a lease issue.

Gets very crowded at times. They could easily increase the prices and still be a lot cheaper than competition.

Forest Hill meant to be moving up market so should charge more.

That will save it

[prince]

For comparison:



One of the proposals



The latter looks rather dull at street level with little effort to make it look remotely like an inviting bar/pub, although the former isn't exactly attractive. Both could be far better.

There were many pubs in and around Kirkdale. Now there are few left. It would have been good if the SS had some proof or business case for a larger site. Many smaller pubs thrive, I'm not sure why a smaller pub would be an issue. There would be at least 3 pubs there if the Windmill reopened as a pub! Infact, the larger pubs seem to be struggling these days as their land value seems more attractive to Lidl or Aldi than 'Spoons, Toby or Fullers, Green King etc. How long has the Harvester been closed for on the south circular? Spoons are supposed to be pulling out of the Cinema in Forest Hill, which is a huge venue.

Let's hope what is proposed is good, is of value to the area, looks proud of where it is and provides employment and is sustainable.

I agree I can see no basis for the claims made that a smaller pub would be less viable.

The existing Windmill is 402sqm and the new approved scheme will have a slightly smaller pub of 368sqm. In comparison the Greyhound is only 315sqm.

So where is the logic in some people's arguments? The Greyhound, a much smaller outfit than the new Windmill proposal, has been sold to a successful pub operator and we hope will be open soon. The new pub operator is obviously confident that it will be viable otherwise they wouldn't have bought it.

There are so many other examples of drinking establishments that operate from smaller venues. What about the highly successful and tiny 161 on Kirkdale or one of the many great bars in East Dulwich or Crystal Palace?

I fully appreciate people have a right to object however these need to be based on evidence and real planning considerations.

I am glad therefore that officers and planning committee weighed up all of these and decided to approve the most recent application.

[stuart]

Going back to aesthetics - and while the old design now looks dated - one can see some logic in the design. Putting a long rectangular building on a sloping site is difficult. The old design broke it into three parts. Hence the left and right 'pillars' although of different heights do balance and the perspective deceives the eye.

Whereas the new design ignores the slope and, worse still, emphasises the upper stories horizontal lines. Hence the street level looks peculiarly malformed bigger at one end than the other. Does this jar on other people's sensibilities? It begs the question - was an experienced architect involved in those drawings?

I doubt it. Sydenham deserves better. We have enough visual horrors in Kirkdale - like the white block with the blanked in street frontage - unsurprisingly as I couldn't imagine who would want to rent them at any cost.

Stuart

[mosy]

prince, thanks for posting. It's not clear to me (maybe I've missed it) who you are speaking for, i.e.yourself, Bernard Construction or the new owners. Can you clarify please as nice to know

I'm neutral generally, certainly until I know what I'm commenting on, so Is it possible to see the approved plans please, preferably with a front elevation shown? Maybe via the Lewisham portal with a reference no.? Or is it indeed the second one that leenewham posted?

I got the impression initially ages ago that the Sydenham Society was mostly keen on the idea of community use continuing in some form (which a pub is in my view) with suitable ease of access for less abled. In that regard, do you know if the new owners envisage anything community-ish, e.g. child-friendly during the daytime until evening say, and whether it will serve food and maybe daytime coffee? Hold events of any sort (e.g.quiz nights or whatever community pubs do) maybe?

Sorry for all the questions.

Naturally I hope the venture will be able to proceed smoothly since it's already been approved.

[mosy]

Going back to aesthetics - and while the old design now looks dated - one can see some logic in the design. Putting a long rectangular building on a sloping site is difficult. The old design broke it into three parts. Hence the left and right 'pillars' although of different heights do balance and the perspective deceives the eye.

Whereas the new design ignores the slope and, worse still, emphasises the upper stories horizontal lines. Hence the street level looks peculiarly malformed bigger at one end than the other. Does this jar on other people's sensibilities? It begs the question - was an experienced architect involved in those drawings?

I doubt it. Sydenham deserves better. We have enough visual horrors in Kirkdale - like the white block with the blanked in street frontage - unsurprisingly as I couldn't imagine who would want to rent them at any cost.

Stuart

My thought is that all stepped or sloped buildings look odd but in the new design in leenewham's post (if it is that one) it will probably be unnoticed as all the adjoining shops are odd in that respect. The upper floors, seemingly largely front-glazed look quite attractive by comparison with more solid types.

I don't like flat boxy shapes generally though and wish they'd add a cornice or finials of some sort to give at least a bit of character, but as the buildings along that stretch are hardly ornate, maybe it's better kept simple.

[prince]

Hello Mosy,

Speaking for myself as a local resident.

The drawings can be found on the council's planning portal ref: DC/16/099356.

Best