Antic pubs have withdrawn from the Greyhound

[Weeble]

Thanks for that info biscuitman. Presumably the concerns from the two pub operators refer to the original configuration (the new basement must be more than 1.6m!). The rebuild could be a blessing in disguise if the new configuration is more attractive to a pub operator.

It is all very well us suggesting that it's better to have the first floor given over to the pub, but is that actually attractive for an operator? The above suggests not - plus would add rent/overheads which may reduce viability.

Good point from jeebee too about accommodation over the pub being beneficial.

I would be absolutely gutted if we end up with a betting shop - really hoping the revised layout is more attractive to a pub operator.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Tim Lund]

Mary - let's leave the local Leveson to another time and thread.

[marymck]

Whoa there eagle! You seem to have missed a stage. I'm not the one having a go a another member. Tim asked a question in amongst his anti syd soc remarks that he as chair must know the answer to. I don't know about the detail of the greyhound's complex planning history, nor did I claim to. I came later to the conservation sub committee. I'm glad Tim has decided to drop the subject and hope he'll shipping at people who devote a lot of time doing their best for the community.(I don't include myself among their number, they work a heck of a lot harder at this than I do.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[marymck]

Aargh can't edit typos from my phone. I meant stop sniping not shipping of course!

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[biscuitman1978]

Thanks for that info biscuitman. Presumably the concerns from the two pub operators refer to the original configuration (the new basement must be more than 1.6m!). The rebuild could be a blessing in disguise if the new configuration is more attractive to a pub operator.

It is all very well us suggesting that it's better to have the first floor given over to the pub, but is that actually attractive for an operator? The above suggests not - plus would add rent/overheads which may reduce viability.

Good point from jeebee too about accommodation over the pub being beneficial.

I would be absolutely gutted if we end up with a betting shop - really hoping the revised layout is more attractive to a pub operator.

Yes, the concerns related to the previous configuration! And yes, consolidating the seating area on one level will almost certainly be more attractive to an operator than spreading it over two levels.

The residential units over the pub are designed to be self-contained (with access from outside the pub) rather than to provide accommodation for a resident pub landlord/landlady. I think there would be far more money to be made in selling or letting the residential units separately from the pub, but I guess one or both of them might have some appeal to a pub operator seeking premises where the landlord or manager can live on site.

I think the addition of a conservatory will make the building unattractive to betting shops and similar types of use. Famous last words...

[leenewham]

Just what are people objecting to?

Is it JUST the flats? It would be good to get clarification on this, especially from the Sydenham Society.

It would also be good if Purelake came on here to explain why the planning application has changed. It may stop some speculation. Especially if they tell us who the pub operator is or even just confirm that they have one.

[Annie.]

Or even,let us know if its a Pub? Or aBetting office? Would help.
I'm surprised you ask the question lee, a lovely old pub is a shell of its former self,it looks totally out of place,stuck in front of the flats like that, like its a last minute thought.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Weeble]

Or even,let us know if its a Pub? Or aBetting office? Would help.
I'm surprised you ask the question lee, a lovely old pub is a shell of its former self,it looks totally out of place,stuck in front of the flats like that, like its a last minute thought.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

But reducing the pub to "a shell of its former self" was inherent in the original plan - that's not an objection to the new plan.

People may lament what we've got - that the development went ahead at all, that the pub annexes were removed, that the whole building was demolished and is being rebuilt. However - we are where we are, we can't undo any of that.

As I see it, the good news is the changes in the new plans optimise the potential for pub use - the question for me is are the flats above going to be detrimental to its future as a pub, or have a significant adverse impact on the building's appearance (I don't know about this?)

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Eagle]

Very sad.

Still cannot see who would want to pay to live above a Pub.

[SE26bloke]

Or even,let us know if its a Pub? Or aBetting office? Would help.

Especially if they tell us who the pup operator is or even just confirm that they have one.

Pet shop?

[Tim Lund]

Pet shop?

Now boys!

[cockneyrebel]

I've lived in sydenham nearly all my life and I think the whole development is really sad. It looks terrible and a pub which was a real feature is now ruined.

Sydenham has few enough decent places as it is and now one has gone and been replaced by featureless prison block flats.

What purelake are saying is nonsense in my view. If there were structural reasons to knock it down why not tell the council first rather than just rushing it through. The whole thing has stunk from the fire to the demolition. What could have been a lovely pub and surrounding area has been hijacked for private companies greed and profit. As usual in this society.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Weeble]

What purelake are saying is nonsense in my view. If there were structural reasons to knock it down why not tell the council first rather than just rushing it through. The whole thing has stunk from the fire to the demolition. What could have been a lovely pub and surrounding area has been hijacked for private companies greed and profit. As usual in this society.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

But if there were no structural reasons to knock the pub down, why bother doing so? It's going to cost them a small fortune to knock it down and build it back again!

The easiest thing for them to have done surely was to leave it standing, say there was no takers for the building as a pub due to size/space issues and then we'd end up with a betting shop! At least the rebuild gives us a fighting chance of the pub we all want.

[marymck]

What purelake are saying is nonsense in my view. If there were structural reasons to knock it down why not tell the council first rather than just rushing it through. The whole thing has stunk from the fire to the demolition. What could have been a lovely pub and surrounding area has been hijacked for private companies greed and profit. As usual in this society.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

But if there were no structural reasons to knock the pub down, why bother doing so? It's going to cost them a small fortune to knock it down and build it back again!

The easiest thing for them to have done surely was to leave it standing, say there was no takers for the building as a pub due to size/space issues and then we'd end up with a betting shop! At least the rebuild gives us a fighting chance of the pub we all want.

I suppose some people might think that Purelake thought that if they knocked it down there would be many in the local community who would say it's not worth rebuilding, as any diminished replacement would just be a sad pastiche reminding us of what we've lost.

[Annie.]

I agree,
After the fire,then the foundations,they were probably hopng no one would object if they just knocked the whole thing down,but they have been caught out and now have to re-build it, albeit a miniature pub.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[leenewham]

Or even,let us know if its a Pub? Or aBetting office? Would help.
I'm surprised you ask the question lee, a lovely old pub is a shell of its former self,it looks totally out of place,stuck in front of the flats like that, like its a last minute thought.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Hi Annie,
I'm asking because we can't un-knock it down. We need to know exactly what the grounds for objecting are. We can't object because they knocked it down. They shouldn't have done that, which I"m sure they know, and Lewisham's planning department is understaffed, as they are on all councils, especially with the cuts.

I'm in favour of the basement, the conservatory and the removal of the window in the back wall. I'm not in favour of the flats because I feel (and I have no evidence of this) that it will be detrimental to the pub, that it would be better to have them as function rooms, like the Hob has.

All of this thread is pure speculation. We need facts and advice on how to proceed and ensure that the Greyhound will be built to a high spec and leave us with a building that will be useful for future generations.

What we don't want is a hasty rebuild, that is cheap and shoddy, poorly finished and not a patch on the original.

On another note, has anyone noticed that zinc finish to the proposed commercial units around the Greyhound are exactly like the ones on Lidl buildings?

[Annie.]

To be honest Lee, the flats themselves are better than i thought they would be,but thats down to the fact the whiter bricks were not used?
As for the pub,I think it should either be a pub,or Harvester or indian restaurant, somethnig along those lines,I think the whole pub should be included in whatever it is going to be,the flats above,other than pub? owner occupied, shouldn't be sold off as separate units,the conservatory sounds like quite a good idea,some greenary dotted about would be good just o soften the impact of the flats.
Ps Lee, I finally got to the bookshop to see your design,I like it,and the fact the tiny tiles will include people of Sydenham,perhaps we could all pay a (small) amount to be amongst them,albeit anonymously! ;0)))

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[leenewham]

Hi Annie,

I meant the flats in the pub, not the ones surrounding it.

I'd want the pub to be a proper pub rather than a Harvester or an Indian restaurant. We have enough Indian restaurants and takeaways in Sydenham already. A nice, independent, well run, real ale, good food, community minded, child friendly pub would be great there. Having function rooms above would be even better, especially with the option to have our own comedy club (like we used to apparently).

I'm glad you like the Greyhound Wall Design Annie. It's also in display in the Library at the moment along with the What If Sydenham Project as part of the Arts Festival.

I finally, after a couple of months, have the disclaimer text for collecting images for the Greyhound Wall. It will be free to enter images. I will sort out a post (which I hope Admin will pin) and other details over the next couple of days. We haven't been paid for the Greyhound Wall artwork this so it will have to fit in between paid work. We need to pay the bills!

[Weeble]

I'm asking because we can't un-knock it down. We need to know exactly what the grounds for objecting are. We can't object because they knocked it down. They shouldn't have done that, which I"m sure they know, and Lewisham's planning department is understaffed, as they are on all councils, especially with the cuts.

Exactly!

Personally I'm more ambivalent about the flats - to me it's about what works best to ensure we have a high quality rebuild and a pub, but like you say Lee, we need facts to inform that - we're just speculating.

What I'm a bit baffled about is that Purelake don't have planning permission yet, but they're getting on with the rebuild? I don't want to see the development held up any further than it already has been, but aren't they jumping the gun?

[Weeble]

I'd want the pub to be a proper pub rather than a Harvester or an Indian restaurant. We have enough Indian restaurants and takeaways in Sydenham already. A nice, independent, well run, real ale, good food, community minded, child friendly pub would be great there.

As much as anything else, I'd really like to see the Greyhound retain the name - not Harvester, not 'Bengali Spice', not Costa or Starbucks and certainly not William Hill or Paddy Power - just The Greyhound.