It does make the place look much much betterpoppy wrote:Love the art work on the hoardings, by the way. Does anyone know who is responsible?
Hope they stay like that and don't get covered in flyposters etc.Greyhound Pub
The Grey Hounds are by local art student William Stacey (and friends) as a taster of what's to come in July's Sydenham Arts Festival.
Congratulations to the group who worked hard over the weekend to create this terrific piece of public art.
The more I hear about SAF, the better it becomes. Can't wait until July!
Congratulations to the group who worked hard over the weekend to create this terrific piece of public art.
The more I hear about SAF, the better it becomes. Can't wait until July!
-
reality Czech
- Posts: 11
- Joined: 19 Dec 2007 20:12
- Location: se26
greyhound
A nice cobbled area surrounding the pub with victorian style gas lantern lamp posts, delicatessen/cafe/gallery.Flower stalls, weekend farmers market. Would really bring a lift to the area me thinks.
Inside the pub, exposed brickwork, big rustic fire place, chandeliers, baroque furniture.Free newspapers,coffee.Colonial Jazz/Classical music playing on Sunday mornings.Great traditional British food/ roasts etc possible mediterranean slant.
No fruit machines,pool tables or sky sports. There's plenty of that already around here.
Think the Palmerstone, Mansion House, Bridgehouse tavern etc...
Nice.
Inside the pub, exposed brickwork, big rustic fire place, chandeliers, baroque furniture.Free newspapers,coffee.Colonial Jazz/Classical music playing on Sunday mornings.Great traditional British food/ roasts etc possible mediterranean slant.
No fruit machines,pool tables or sky sports. There's plenty of that already around here.
Think the Palmerstone, Mansion House, Bridgehouse tavern etc...
Nice.
There has been a lot of discussion about the proposed flats etc on the Greyhound site, but does anyone know what exactly is planned for the existing building and former pub? Could it become a pub again?
Reality, your vision sounds very attractive!!! If only..... Could any of the above named pubs be contacted to see if they would be interested, maybe? The Dartmouth arms team have opened, I think, three pubs now, maybe someone else with a successful pub could be persuaded to consider the site....The Herne on Peckham Rye is also quite nice, the Plough on Lordship Lane is good I believe....
Reality, your vision sounds very attractive!!! If only..... Could any of the above named pubs be contacted to see if they would be interested, maybe? The Dartmouth arms team have opened, I think, three pubs now, maybe someone else with a successful pub could be persuaded to consider the site....The Herne on Peckham Rye is also quite nice, the Plough on Lordship Lane is good I believe....
Nasaroc, why do you always have to twist things? I dont think Poppy has been opposed to the development of this site - just expressed genuine concerns, as many of us have, especially those with homes in close proximity to it, to this particular proposal.
Quite honestly I think you are whipping up some sort of unnecessary concerns that somehow, if this proposed development isn't accepted, then we will never get another chance of anything else on this site for years. I really think it is irresponsible of you and it makes me wonder at your motives for doing this.
Quite honestly I think you are whipping up some sort of unnecessary concerns that somehow, if this proposed development isn't accepted, then we will never get another chance of anything else on this site for years. I really think it is irresponsible of you and it makes me wonder at your motives for doing this.
Merely expressing my own view. My motives are none other than wishing to see Sydenham Road improved and the site developed. I believe that the current plan is a good one.
Let me repeat my previous statement - if this plan is rejected then the site will remain in its present state for many years. I am not "whipping up..unnecessary concern". If the proposal is rejected locals should not be suprised if nothing arrives in its place. This isn't a "pick and mix" situation in which vital elements of the scheme can be removed without the proposal as a whole becoming untenable.
The current plan envisages the Greyhound as a pub downstairs and a restaurant upstairs. There is every reason to believe that it could be developed to be similar to one of the local gastropubs described by Reality Czech above.
But if the current proposal is rejected, this simply won't happen. Apart from anything else, the Greyhound building is in such a poor state it will not survive another winter.
Let me repeat my previous statement - if this plan is rejected then the site will remain in its present state for many years. I am not "whipping up..unnecessary concern". If the proposal is rejected locals should not be suprised if nothing arrives in its place. This isn't a "pick and mix" situation in which vital elements of the scheme can be removed without the proposal as a whole becoming untenable.
The current plan envisages the Greyhound as a pub downstairs and a restaurant upstairs. There is every reason to believe that it could be developed to be similar to one of the local gastropubs described by Reality Czech above.
But if the current proposal is rejected, this simply won't happen. Apart from anything else, the Greyhound building is in such a poor state it will not survive another winter.
[quote="adrian"]I agree with gillyjp that residents of Peak Hill have a right to defend the quality of their environment and I highlighted the impact (which is a legal planning consideration) in terms of daylight and sunlight on their properties and gardens earlier and if I lived there I would be fighting the current design tooth and nail. Though it may just be erring to the right side of legal requirements I think from their point of view the block facing them is at least one storey too tall.
The developers are pushing to maximize the value of their investment and residents of Peak Hill have a right to do the same if they can find support in planning law.[quote="adrian"]
Well thank goodness that we have people such as Adrian (quoted above) who at least understands our concerns and backs our right to fight this development.
I do not agree that the site will stay derelict for years if this current proposal is turned down. Why so? Why can't there be dialogue to deliver a plan that takes into account the residents who live around the site rather than those who seek supposed improvement without considering or caring about the effect on others?
If this same development were proposed in spitting distance of Nasaroc's back garden and overlooking his bedroom window I am sure there would be objections and petitions left, right and centre!
The developers are pushing to maximize the value of their investment and residents of Peak Hill have a right to do the same if they can find support in planning law.[quote="adrian"]
Well thank goodness that we have people such as Adrian (quoted above) who at least understands our concerns and backs our right to fight this development.
I do not agree that the site will stay derelict for years if this current proposal is turned down. Why so? Why can't there be dialogue to deliver a plan that takes into account the residents who live around the site rather than those who seek supposed improvement without considering or caring about the effect on others?
If this same development were proposed in spitting distance of Nasaroc's back garden and overlooking his bedroom window I am sure there would be objections and petitions left, right and centre!
Im totally in agreement with your sentiments GillyJp, especially the last paragraph.
The statement that "if these plans are rejected nothing will happen for years", is complete rubbish. there are numerous Businesses uses more suited for the site than residential, which is not currently viablel, or likely to be implemented for years if it were.
I too wonder about narsaroc's devotion to the current scheme , including begging Simon to remove his on line pettition ? I am sure it is all well meant from a much admired supporter of Sydenham ! Albeit , perhaps, naive.
I know the property industry very well , I work for a Sussex Council ,and know that the current plans are not financialy viable, IMHO. If approved they will only set a footprint of scope and heights and massing for something different. lets face it plenty of Planning permissions never get implemented, so even the current plans were approved , that is no guarentee that the site will not ,stay as it is , dare I say it "for years".
The Historic Pub building should be kept, but contrary to comments on here, it is only localy listed and part of an, urgently extended conservation area; None of which , protects Fully from demolition in law.
Well intentioned folk like narsaroc, should be commeneded for there concern and efforts; but sometimes i think the saying goes " A little Knowledge can be dangerous "?
Any way, Que sera sera
The statement that "if these plans are rejected nothing will happen for years", is complete rubbish. there are numerous Businesses uses more suited for the site than residential, which is not currently viablel, or likely to be implemented for years if it were.
I too wonder about narsaroc's devotion to the current scheme , including begging Simon to remove his on line pettition ? I am sure it is all well meant from a much admired supporter of Sydenham ! Albeit , perhaps, naive.
I know the property industry very well , I work for a Sussex Council ,and know that the current plans are not financialy viable, IMHO. If approved they will only set a footprint of scope and heights and massing for something different. lets face it plenty of Planning permissions never get implemented, so even the current plans were approved , that is no guarentee that the site will not ,stay as it is , dare I say it "for years".
The Historic Pub building should be kept, but contrary to comments on here, it is only localy listed and part of an, urgently extended conservation area; None of which , protects Fully from demolition in law.
Well intentioned folk like narsaroc, should be commeneded for there concern and efforts; but sometimes i think the saying goes " A little Knowledge can be dangerous "?
Any way, Que sera sera
gillyjp - yes I do support residents of PHG if it is shown that the buildings create an unreasonable impact on the neighbouring residents. However objection would have to be a bit more detailed than it's a big block of modern flats which spoils the view from my window to have much impact on the planning process and would have to be a written objection by a resident relating to the effect of the development on their daylight/sunlight.
Nor do I support using this as a way of bringing the whole scheme down. If the objections are reasonable the planners can ask for an amended proposal which brings the scheme down slightly. I think that cutting out a few units at along the southern wing would do the trick.
Dorian - I think that nasaroc feels instinctively (as I do) that if this scheme is killed at planning stage it will take a long time before a developer commits to the investement in terms of professional fees and other risks to bring a new scheme to planning. A more likely outcome is that the site would be mothballed until the pub falls apart or the developer goes bankrupt or the planning policy environment changes.
I really question your interpretation of the financial viability. Apart from the fact that the current, market is flaky I would like to know your proposals for a development that would be more profitable. Cinema? Multi-storey restaurant? Nightclub? Offices? How much do you think the rent is for third floor office in outer Zone 3 compared to residential? Why do all light industrial buildings and offices get converted to resi whenever there is the opportunity? Given that the market will probably pick up eventually and there is an underlying undersupply of housing I can't imagine a more profitable use for a multi-storey development. Maybe I'm suffering from 'a little knowledge' but please enlighten us? How do they do things in Sussex?
What I find fustrating is that local residents seem to feel entitled to all the benefits that a development will provide them and in this case these are many - expanded and refurbished open public realm, refurbishment and re-use of a failing pub, increase in economic activity - yet somehow expect developers to offer this without any quid pro quo. In this case the trade-off is a relatively high density development.
Nor do I support using this as a way of bringing the whole scheme down. If the objections are reasonable the planners can ask for an amended proposal which brings the scheme down slightly. I think that cutting out a few units at along the southern wing would do the trick.
Dorian - I think that nasaroc feels instinctively (as I do) that if this scheme is killed at planning stage it will take a long time before a developer commits to the investement in terms of professional fees and other risks to bring a new scheme to planning. A more likely outcome is that the site would be mothballed until the pub falls apart or the developer goes bankrupt or the planning policy environment changes.
I really question your interpretation of the financial viability. Apart from the fact that the current, market is flaky I would like to know your proposals for a development that would be more profitable. Cinema? Multi-storey restaurant? Nightclub? Offices? How much do you think the rent is for third floor office in outer Zone 3 compared to residential? Why do all light industrial buildings and offices get converted to resi whenever there is the opportunity? Given that the market will probably pick up eventually and there is an underlying undersupply of housing I can't imagine a more profitable use for a multi-storey development. Maybe I'm suffering from 'a little knowledge' but please enlighten us? How do they do things in Sussex?
What I find fustrating is that local residents seem to feel entitled to all the benefits that a development will provide them and in this case these are many - expanded and refurbished open public realm, refurbishment and re-use of a failing pub, increase in economic activity - yet somehow expect developers to offer this without any quid pro quo. In this case the trade-off is a relatively high density development.
Eagle
It seems that in the age of X Factor and Big Brother everyone expects that any consultation excercise a) gives the public total power to choose what they want and b) any objections and opinions are potentially valid irrespective of planning policy and law.
Any private entity has the right to put forward a development proposal (singular) and for that proposal to be determined based on current planning legislation. This is the rule of law, not the rule of whoever sends in the most objection letters and says 'naah, don't fancy housing' just because it would mean a few more people encroaching on what they feel to be their territory.
A reasonably sensible developer will approach the council and ask to see planning policy relating to their site, i.e. allowed uses and whether it will take relatively high density. It is national policy to encourage high density given a housing shortage in sites with good (ish in this case) public transport. Therefore they put forward a proposal that they think should not be rejected on the basis of planning policy.
Consultation has two purposes - to allow people to object and where these objections raise matters of policy these should have weight e.g. the PHG issue. Also, where comments show a strong preference for an alternative (irrespective of policy) the planners will seek to direct the developer towards that alternative if they are willing to do so. They will not usually if it means a cut in their profit.
The planning committee will then make a very difficult decision based on all the material considerations. In cases where the committee does not make a balanced decision based on policy rather than subjective opinion, they may have their decision overturned on appeal.
PS I know that for FH pools numerous options have been proposed but this is a public building for the public good where an elected body is trying to do (or appear to do) what the public want. In a private development the developer gets to do what they want unless it falls foul of planning policy.
It seems that in the age of X Factor and Big Brother everyone expects that any consultation excercise a) gives the public total power to choose what they want and b) any objections and opinions are potentially valid irrespective of planning policy and law.
Any private entity has the right to put forward a development proposal (singular) and for that proposal to be determined based on current planning legislation. This is the rule of law, not the rule of whoever sends in the most objection letters and says 'naah, don't fancy housing' just because it would mean a few more people encroaching on what they feel to be their territory.
A reasonably sensible developer will approach the council and ask to see planning policy relating to their site, i.e. allowed uses and whether it will take relatively high density. It is national policy to encourage high density given a housing shortage in sites with good (ish in this case) public transport. Therefore they put forward a proposal that they think should not be rejected on the basis of planning policy.
Consultation has two purposes - to allow people to object and where these objections raise matters of policy these should have weight e.g. the PHG issue. Also, where comments show a strong preference for an alternative (irrespective of policy) the planners will seek to direct the developer towards that alternative if they are willing to do so. They will not usually if it means a cut in their profit.
The planning committee will then make a very difficult decision based on all the material considerations. In cases where the committee does not make a balanced decision based on policy rather than subjective opinion, they may have their decision overturned on appeal.
PS I know that for FH pools numerous options have been proposed but this is a public building for the public good where an elected body is trying to do (or appear to do) what the public want. In a private development the developer gets to do what they want unless it falls foul of planning policy.
Adrian - thanks for that. However we are clearly well aware of the need to present a strong case in our opposition of this proposal. The petition and the objection letter that accompanied it addressed a number of issues and we will be expanding this at the forthcoming Committee meeting.adrian wrote:gillyjp - yes I do support residents of PHG if it is shown that the buildings create an unreasonable impact on the neighbouring residents. However objection would have to be a bit more detailed than it's a big block of modern flats which spoils the view from my window to have much impact on the planning process and would have to be a written objection by a resident relating to the effect of the development on their daylight/sunlight.
Nor do I support using this as a way of bringing the whole scheme down. If the objections are reasonable the planners can ask for an amended proposal which brings the scheme down slightly. I think that cutting out a few units at along the southern wing would do the trick.
I can assure you that it is not just 'the development spoiling the view from my flat' and we will be preparing a strong case.
I dont know how many times I have to repeat this on this site, but we are not objecting to the development of this site - but we need to have the dialogue with the planners to ensure our concerns are taken on board and that the developers consider amendments to make the scheme viable.