Erm, how about a little bit of perspective on this one please?
It's a bit of leaded glass that has been slung in a skip, not the Sistine Chapel.
IMO the frontage of Machray's was out of keeping with the rest of Sydenham Road anyway.
The old chemists next to the old HSBC
I blame the council for this mess. I wonder what happened to that original stained glass? Do you think it just got chucked?
There are loads of cafes in Sydenham, so unless its staying open in the evenings and doing something really special, I don't fancy its chances much.
They must be pretty ignorant to get rid of that shop front.
I don't have a problem with their new shop-front, but I do have a problem with them trashing the old one.
There are loads of cafes in Sydenham, so unless its staying open in the evenings and doing something really special, I don't fancy its chances much.
They must be pretty ignorant to get rid of that shop front.
I don't have a problem with their new shop-front, but I do have a problem with them trashing the old one.
-
Cheese Wotsits
- Posts: 35
- Joined: 6 Jun 2008 17:35
- Location: sydenham
user 100's post doesn't even merit a response.
However, a friend suggested we leaflet the area. I’m willing to contribute to the cost of printing and will put some time aside to distribute them if someone will create a document. I would suggest a pic of the old and the new and a brief description of why this business should be boycotted, or why the council should be held accountable. Anyone else have any thoughts.
However, a friend suggested we leaflet the area. I’m willing to contribute to the cost of printing and will put some time aside to distribute them if someone will create a document. I would suggest a pic of the old and the new and a brief description of why this business should be boycotted, or why the council should be held accountable. Anyone else have any thoughts.
I really hope that no one takes Coll up on his suggestion and that this all should stop.
Can you imagine what a new investor aiming for the High Street, looking at this web site, would think and do you really think that they will invest money in SE26?
Yes, what happened was wrong but we must move on.
Can you imagine what a new investor aiming for the High Street, looking at this web site, would think and do you really think that they will invest money in SE26?
Yes, what happened was wrong but we must move on.
In reply to Fishcox - on the day that the hoarding went up, Sydenham Society members visited the site and talked to the workmen. They were evasive when asked about what was happening and whether the shopfront was to be retained. The LBL enforcement officer and a local councillor were immediately telephoned and emailed. The councillor acted immediately and asked the enforcement officer to visit the site the next morning. By the time the enforcement officer arrived (before 9am next day) the shopfront had already been removed. Two local shopkeepers told us that they heard it being “smashed up” behind the hoarding.
I am certain that the owners intended to remove and destroy the shopfront and replace it with a modern metal or uPVC replacement. When they then received an enforcement order shortly afterwards they panicked and decided to try to “rebuild” something better – which is what we see before us now.
When a determined local property owner wants to defy the law, it is difficult to prevent this happening. We will now see how the enforcement officer wants to proceed and whether the shop (if it is to be a café) will be granted A3 (cafe and restaurant) use.
Anyone who is concerned about the current situation can give Enforcement at Lewisham Town Hall a ring – the number is 020 8314 6000 (24 hours).
I am certain that the owners intended to remove and destroy the shopfront and replace it with a modern metal or uPVC replacement. When they then received an enforcement order shortly afterwards they panicked and decided to try to “rebuild” something better – which is what we see before us now.
When a determined local property owner wants to defy the law, it is difficult to prevent this happening. We will now see how the enforcement officer wants to proceed and whether the shop (if it is to be a café) will be granted A3 (cafe and restaurant) use.
Anyone who is concerned about the current situation can give Enforcement at Lewisham Town Hall a ring – the number is 020 8314 6000 (24 hours).
I completely agree, and although they have taken down the old shop front I think the business should be given a chance. We don't know what they have hidden behind the newspaper it could be a real gem that will help in the developmetn of Sydenham.lbere wrote:I really hope that no one takes Coll up on his suggestion and that this all should stop.
Can you imagine what a new investor aiming for the High Street, looking at this web site, would think and do you really think that they will invest money in SE26?
As for Big Ben's information - that's really interesting. Were the builders just doing their job? Did the new leaseholder not know about the protected status? These are all facts that need to be uncovered before we fly off the handle.
G-man
-
jasonwebber
- Posts: 12
- Joined: 2 Feb 2009 15:43
- Location: sydenham
Wish i'd taken more pictures of it now.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jasonwebber/3303776617/
[/code]
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jasonwebber/3303781235/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jasonwebber/3303776617/
[/code]http://www.flickr.com/photos/jasonwebber/3303781235/
Look, there must be nearly 2,000 of us who have joined this forum now, and taking into account that many of us have other halves, there could be as many as 3,000 of us who want similar things for the high street.
If we ALL turned up to the next assembly meeting, I think the council would get a bit of a shock. The Saturday one especially should be a good time for most of us.
If the council continue to fail to give us what we want, you know what we can all do at the next local elections, (and general election if our MPs don't back us up), we can vote someone else in. I know I am seriously considering giving up voting Labour for the first time....Any independents out there?
If they could lose their seats over this maybe they might buck their ideas up once and for all!!!
If we ALL turned up to the next assembly meeting, I think the council would get a bit of a shock. The Saturday one especially should be a good time for most of us.
If the council continue to fail to give us what we want, you know what we can all do at the next local elections, (and general election if our MPs don't back us up), we can vote someone else in. I know I am seriously considering giving up voting Labour for the first time....Any independents out there?
If they could lose their seats over this maybe they might buck their ideas up once and for all!!!
Thanks for the response Big Ben.
Am I right in assuming that the Mackays property is actually being leased?
Is it also true that the building is still owned by another shop owner on the high street?
If the above two statements are correct (and I am told they are) then surely there will be a lease agreement between the Lessee (Kente) and the Lessor (the owner).
Such leases are full of what the Lessee can and cant do, ergo the Lessor must be happy with what has happened to the premises.
This is a round about the houses way of asking whether the premises are actually owned by someone who is a member of Sydenham Society - or am I barking up the wrong tree?
Am I right in assuming that the Mackays property is actually being leased?
Is it also true that the building is still owned by another shop owner on the high street?
If the above two statements are correct (and I am told they are) then surely there will be a lease agreement between the Lessee (Kente) and the Lessor (the owner).
Such leases are full of what the Lessee can and cant do, ergo the Lessor must be happy with what has happened to the premises.
This is a round about the houses way of asking whether the premises are actually owned by someone who is a member of Sydenham Society - or am I barking up the wrong tree?
Fishcox - The Machrays (not Mackays) property is being leased. This shop is owned by someone who runs and owns other properties in the high street. In prder to avoid "direct " ownership of this property he has set up a separate company of which he is a director. You must make up your own mind why he did this - the answer is pretty obvious I think. This owner believes that the high street should not be part of a conservation area and has tried to convince the council that conservation area status particularly shop front preservation should be removed.
I'm really not sure what your other two questions are directed at frankly? The lessor and lesee will be perfectly happy with the current state of the property; they'd probably have been even happier if they could have fitted a "new" shop front in plastic or metal. The Sydenham Society isn't like a political party - it cannot impose actions on its members.
What I find encouraging about this thread is the determination of many posters, who usually aren't too keen on doing much locally apart from posting "wish lists" on STF, but now seem to want to do something about their high street. Long may this continue.
Posting on STF changes nothing. It's what you do about things in the real world that counts.
I believe that Poppy's suggestion to raise this issue at the next Sydenham Assembly is an extremely good one. However you feel about this particular issue surely everyone is concerned about encouraging good quality shops into attractive premises in the high street. Perhaps LBL should be encouraged to tell us what plans (and controls) they have in place to do just that.
I'm really not sure what your other two questions are directed at frankly? The lessor and lesee will be perfectly happy with the current state of the property; they'd probably have been even happier if they could have fitted a "new" shop front in plastic or metal. The Sydenham Society isn't like a political party - it cannot impose actions on its members.
What I find encouraging about this thread is the determination of many posters, who usually aren't too keen on doing much locally apart from posting "wish lists" on STF, but now seem to want to do something about their high street. Long may this continue.
Posting on STF changes nothing. It's what you do about things in the real world that counts.
I believe that Poppy's suggestion to raise this issue at the next Sydenham Assembly is an extremely good one. However you feel about this particular issue surely everyone is concerned about encouraging good quality shops into attractive premises in the high street. Perhaps LBL should be encouraged to tell us what plans (and controls) they have in place to do just that.
Thanks for the response nasaroc, although a simple 'Yes, the property is owned by a member of Sydenham Society' would have sufficed.
I dont care for the 'wish lists' which appear on STF, most of them are unrealistic. I've almost been tempted to post one of my own, as I'd really like to see i) a branch of Harrods (just a small one) ii) a Paul Smith
iii) a Malmaison Hotel etc etc.
I realise that Sydenham Society is not a political party, but it is an organisation which seems to be only too willing to pat itself on the back, when it does actually achieve something.
It has taken 6 pages of a thread, however, for it to be admitted that the person who would actually have the last word on how Machrays shop front was treated - is a member of Sydenham Society.
As an aside, I visited the SS website last night. Someone should really update the picture on there - it's well out of date; The Greyhound doesnt look like that anymore.
I dont care for the 'wish lists' which appear on STF, most of them are unrealistic. I've almost been tempted to post one of my own, as I'd really like to see i) a branch of Harrods (just a small one) ii) a Paul Smith
iii) a Malmaison Hotel etc etc.
I realise that Sydenham Society is not a political party, but it is an organisation which seems to be only too willing to pat itself on the back, when it does actually achieve something.
It has taken 6 pages of a thread, however, for it to be admitted that the person who would actually have the last word on how Machrays shop front was treated - is a member of Sydenham Society.
As an aside, I visited the SS website last night. Someone should really update the picture on there - it's well out of date; The Greyhound doesnt look like that anymore.
I wrote to Lewisham council last night and today I got a response (complete with typo). Here you go - they are happy so we'll just have to tolerate it. However, I won't frequent the shop.
The message:
I am writing this email in response to your complaint about the removal of the shopfront at the above-mentioned site, I have been down to see the replacement shopfront and can confirm that what they have down is similar to what was previously there. As such we the Council consider these changes to be acceptable and will not be enforcing against it.
Furthermore the property is not Listed and does not fall within a Conservation Area as per the questions in your email.
I hope that this clarifies the situation with regards to the above-mentioned property and should you any further queries regarding this matter please do not hesitate to contact me directly.
Regards
Jody Solomons
Planning Enforcement
The message:
I am writing this email in response to your complaint about the removal of the shopfront at the above-mentioned site, I have been down to see the replacement shopfront and can confirm that what they have down is similar to what was previously there. As such we the Council consider these changes to be acceptable and will not be enforcing against it.
Furthermore the property is not Listed and does not fall within a Conservation Area as per the questions in your email.
I hope that this clarifies the situation with regards to the above-mentioned property and should you any further queries regarding this matter please do not hesitate to contact me directly.
Regards
Jody Solomons
Planning Enforcement
Errr... I sent the same email to two different email addresses on the Lewisham website. One was a general compaint email and one was direct to the planning team. I've also received this email that infers that there might be some hope, but it may be a standard reply.
Thank you for your comment relating to Development Control. Your comments have been noted.
The Planning Enforcement section will decide whether the Council can take any further action and advise you accordingly.
Regards
Martin Bartholomew
Planning Business Support Officer
Thank you for your comment relating to Development Control. Your comments have been noted.
The Planning Enforcement section will decide whether the Council can take any further action and advise you accordingly.
Regards
Martin Bartholomew
Planning Business Support Officer
Hi again nasaroc - why the $ sign instead of the second 'S'??
Anyway, I have two points:
i) if the shop owner (and the owner of other properties on the high street) is not a member of Sydenham Society, then what is the point of Sydenham Society? Odd, that someone with so much 'clout' as far as the local area is concerned, cant even be arsed to join SS (bad choice of initials, I know).
ii) the picture on the SS website should be changed to show the 'new' Greyhound - hoardings an' all (apologies to Mr O Cromwell).
Chin up!!
Anyway, I have two points:
i) if the shop owner (and the owner of other properties on the high street) is not a member of Sydenham Society, then what is the point of Sydenham Society? Odd, that someone with so much 'clout' as far as the local area is concerned, cant even be arsed to join SS (bad choice of initials, I know).
ii) the picture on the SS website should be changed to show the 'new' Greyhound - hoardings an' all (apologies to Mr O Cromwell).
Chin up!!
I can see that it is a pity that this old, traditional shop-front was removed after being there for so long.
However, it seems that these people are opening a cafe.
It seems probable that their name is not G Machray.
So I can completely understand why they would prefer not to have G Machray and Chemist on the front of their premises.
Let's not get carried away, trying to outdo each other as to who is most upset (no need for a Diana moment, please).
And as for boycotting a business that seems to have done nothing illegal - well, how anti-business can you get?
A great advert for entrepeneurs wanting to set up in Sydenham.
However, it seems that these people are opening a cafe.
It seems probable that their name is not G Machray.
So I can completely understand why they would prefer not to have G Machray and Chemist on the front of their premises.
Let's not get carried away, trying to outdo each other as to who is most upset (no need for a Diana moment, please).
And as for boycotting a business that seems to have done nothing illegal - well, how anti-business can you get?
A great advert for entrepeneurs wanting to set up in Sydenham.
Coll
Perspective please...that shop has been empty for as long as i can remember, everyone is moaning about what they didnt want it to be and what it should have been....in the absence of anyone here opening up any of those suggested shops..it is to be a coffee shop.
Id rather it be something than nothing.
Good luck to the shop keepers
S*** the scary thing is i think you are serious??!!!However, a friend suggested we leaflet the area. I’m willing to contribute to the cost of printing and will put some time aside to distribute them if someone will create a document. I would suggest a pic of the old and the new and a brief description of why this business should be boycotted, or why the council should be held accountable. Anyone else have any thoughts.
Perspective please...that shop has been empty for as long as i can remember, everyone is moaning about what they didnt want it to be and what it should have been....in the absence of anyone here opening up any of those suggested shops..it is to be a coffee shop.
Id rather it be something than nothing.
Good luck to the shop keepers
This is a great example of an investor with vision (not far away from sydenham in Bromley) who converted one of the beautiful Kennedy's sausage shops into a cafe.
They kept the old sign and interior. It looks beautiful inside and out.
Originally they wanted to keep the Kennedy's name, but there were legal issues, so they paid homage to the original shop. It's brilliant.
Another example of what can be done with a BIT of thought.
It's also a brilliant website.
http://website.lineone.net/~alan.c.edwa ... 03b02.html
What a HUGE lost opportunity. I've also written to the council to ask about planning issues. I'll post the reply when/if I get one.
They kept the old sign and interior. It looks beautiful inside and out.
Originally they wanted to keep the Kennedy's name, but there were legal issues, so they paid homage to the original shop. It's brilliant.
Another example of what can be done with a BIT of thought.
It's also a brilliant website.
http://website.lineone.net/~alan.c.edwa ... 03b02.html
What a HUGE lost opportunity. I've also written to the council to ask about planning issues. I'll post the reply when/if I get one.