The Greyhound closes on Sunday August 12th. All staff have been given notice and the pub is to be cleared by the 13th.
Is it going to be boarded up - or even demolished? We don't yet know. Its a breaking story and it is going, like The Greyhound itself to have the highest profile in Sydenham Town.
The news comes from Pat Trembath of Sydenham Society. They are having a meeting tonight and we may jointly organise a petition to do what we can to save the best bits of the building.
Please do give us any information you have and we will run it as a frontpage story.
Here is a short history: http://www.sydenham.org.uk/pubs_greyhound.html
Admin
The Greyhound to Close!
The Greyhound to Close!
Last edited by admin on 7 Sep 2007 17:12, edited 1 time in total.
Re: The Greyhound to Close!
I think if a poll of local residents was taken, most people will be pleased to see it demolished.admin wrote:The Greyhound closes on Sunday August 12th. All staff have been given notice and the pub is to be cleared by the 13th.
Is it going to be boarded up - or even demolished?
I for one will be pleased to see it demolished and and the same time demolish that bloody roundabout.
With all these extra police now, they could build a Police Station there
Well - that is a shock!
That surprises me - surely it can't be because it is struggling, it often seems busy? Does that mean that it has been sold for development.
I know the building has been mistreated over the years but I'd be very sad to see it go. I'd be all for signing a petition to save it.
And I'd be happiest if it remained a pub, although I don't think that sounds likely.
That surprises me - surely it can't be because it is struggling, it often seems busy? Does that mean that it has been sold for development.
I know the building has been mistreated over the years but I'd be very sad to see it go. I'd be all for signing a petition to save it.
And I'd be happiest if it remained a pub, although I don't think that sounds likely.
-
Pat Trembath
- Posts: 613
- Joined: 2 Oct 2004 10:54
Is it the building we want to get rid of, or the clientele and the need for bouncers at the door (this speaks volumes to me about the customers) at what is the entrance to Sydenham Town? Management of this pub has been abysmal over the past decade.
What might be built in its place? The developers have indicated that they want to build 60-70 flats on the site with just 18 car parking spaces. How will residents access their limited private car park spaces? By way of the the existing car park entrance or will this be designed out in the pedestrian improvement scheme currently being developed? Wlll access need to be via Spring Hill?
There is already pressure on car parking space - gillyjp frequently refers to this problem in the area around the station.
We have the Blue Mountain cafe in the course of opening on the roundabout and the Dolphin, showing how a pub can be turned round in quick time, and we also have the prospect of a newly designed high street.
We should not aspire to being a clone of East Dulwich, but I dare bet that no public house in Lordship Lane would be threatened with demolition.
What might be built in its place? The developers have indicated that they want to build 60-70 flats on the site with just 18 car parking spaces. How will residents access their limited private car park spaces? By way of the the existing car park entrance or will this be designed out in the pedestrian improvement scheme currently being developed? Wlll access need to be via Spring Hill?
There is already pressure on car parking space - gillyjp frequently refers to this problem in the area around the station.
We have the Blue Mountain cafe in the course of opening on the roundabout and the Dolphin, showing how a pub can be turned round in quick time, and we also have the prospect of a newly designed high street.
We should not aspire to being a clone of East Dulwich, but I dare bet that no public house in Lordship Lane would be threatened with demolition.
I think it is a shame that a pub which has been here for nearly three hundred years should go because of recent poor managment and the escalation in property values. We've already lost a couple of pubs in Sydenham and seeing as the Greyhound is the oldest and occupies sucha landmark site you would think someone could makea go of it. That said, Ive only been in there for the odd football match, prefering the Railway up that end of town. However, if it was a decent place, reasonably well run i would go more often. Hope it is saved.
"We should not aspire to being a clone of East Dulwich, but I dare bet that no public house in Lordship Lane would be threatened with demolition"
Do you think anyone will try to save it?
It IS an historical building,it is a shame to see such a big bit of sydenham history threatened with the bulldozers.
Do you think anyone will try to save it?
It IS an historical building,it is a shame to see such a big bit of sydenham history threatened with the bulldozers.
Sydenham residents may be looking at the shut-off car park and the notice that The Greyhound is going to close as some sign that work will shortly commence on a scheme to build flats on this site.
This is far from the case.
In April, Milford Homes (the developer who own the site) put up a preliminary scheme to the Lewisham Planning Department which was firmly rejected. This was for 60/70 flats with 18 parking spaces. They proposed a five storey block adjacent to the railway line and a four storey block overlooking Peak Hill Gardens. The developer has made it clear that they want to build right up to the “building lines”on all four sides.
Traffic would enter via an access road from Spring Hill along the rear of Peak Hill Gardens into a car park. Residents on Peak Hill Gardens would be confronted with a huge four storey wall of flats – the plan envisaged “back-to-back” flats so that the front windows of many of the flats would face directly onto the rear of Peak Hill Gardens.
Milford Homes are boarding up the site because they want to leave the site derelict and hope to pressurise Lewisham into accepting their scheme. This isn’t a benign developer who want to construct a community-friendly development but a firm who want to stuff as many dwellings as possible onto the site to maximise profits.
Frankly, local residents should realise that their near neighbour isn’t going to be a pub but a block of flats and start acting on this issue. If you want to knock down the pub you merely increase the number of living units. Demanding to knock down The Greyhound is merely playing into the developer’s hands.
This is far from the case.
In April, Milford Homes (the developer who own the site) put up a preliminary scheme to the Lewisham Planning Department which was firmly rejected. This was for 60/70 flats with 18 parking spaces. They proposed a five storey block adjacent to the railway line and a four storey block overlooking Peak Hill Gardens. The developer has made it clear that they want to build right up to the “building lines”on all four sides.
Traffic would enter via an access road from Spring Hill along the rear of Peak Hill Gardens into a car park. Residents on Peak Hill Gardens would be confronted with a huge four storey wall of flats – the plan envisaged “back-to-back” flats so that the front windows of many of the flats would face directly onto the rear of Peak Hill Gardens.
Milford Homes are boarding up the site because they want to leave the site derelict and hope to pressurise Lewisham into accepting their scheme. This isn’t a benign developer who want to construct a community-friendly development but a firm who want to stuff as many dwellings as possible onto the site to maximise profits.
Frankly, local residents should realise that their near neighbour isn’t going to be a pub but a block of flats and start acting on this issue. If you want to knock down the pub you merely increase the number of living units. Demanding to knock down The Greyhound is merely playing into the developer’s hands.
Milford Homes can be found here: http://www.milfordgroup.com
The company tagline is: "The Milford group has one of the best reputations in the Southern Counties" and in the company profile: "Milford consistently wins praise for its commitment to the environment and for its social conscience."
Which would suggest Chairman Bob Trendle and Vice Chairman Jim Murphy would be wanting to consult with the Sydenham Society, our councillors and neighbouring residents.
Have they?
Stuart
The company tagline is: "The Milford group has one of the best reputations in the Southern Counties" and in the company profile: "Milford consistently wins praise for its commitment to the environment and for its social conscience."
Which would suggest Chairman Bob Trendle and Vice Chairman Jim Murphy would be wanting to consult with the Sydenham Society, our councillors and neighbouring residents.
Have they?
Stuart
oh how fan-tastic! 
So the longer it goes on, the more the building falls into disrepair, the more demolition becomes an attractive option to remove the eyesore.
It's criminal that a building that has been at the historic heart of Sydenham has been treated the way it has, and is now going to be left to rot, probably prior to demolition.
If it hadn't have been so badly treated it would probably have been listed. What a tragedy.
So the longer it goes on, the more the building falls into disrepair, the more demolition becomes an attractive option to remove the eyesore.
It's criminal that a building that has been at the historic heart of Sydenham has been treated the way it has, and is now going to be left to rot, probably prior to demolition.
If it hadn't have been so badly treated it would probably have been listed. What a tragedy.
Well lets hope that the Milford Group do engage constructively with the people of Sydenham (e.g. on this website, or at a public meeting), Lewisham Council and the Sydenham Society. I would certainly not like the slow revival of Sydenham high street to be stymied by the boarding up of the Greyhound, forcing the Council to give way. That said, this is a well-located site (especially for public transport) in an up and coming area, so the Council is in a reasonably good bargaining position. What I would like to know more about is how realistic is it to insist that the pub remains or to what extent bulldozing is inevitable and it is only a matter of securing a less bad development?
In response to Nasaroc and thank you for the info by the way - there must be a compromise to be reached here surely? Why can't a reputable developer take the shell (or at least the historic bits) of the Greyhound and build flats in a sympathetic style to the surroundings? This has been done inumerable times where pubs have sold out to property developers.
I am trusting Lewisham Council to hold fast on this and keep rejecting 'get-rich-quick' schemes which are to the detriment of the local community. I am quietly confident that Lewisham Council will not be pressurised into caving into the whims of the developer. Particularly if the Sydenham Society are involved.
I have made my feelings known about the Greyhound in the past - my garden literally backs onto the pub's garden (if you can call it that) and the closing of the carpark is welcome in one way. At least we won't have dodgy dealings going on in the darkness or cars being revved up and music blaring out at all hours. However the thought of a 4-5 storey block of flats doesn't fill me with any great hope either.
Incidentally if they are going right to the building lines - I do hope they will not be thinking of cutting down the beautiful row of trees that give us at least some privacy and sound insulation from Sydenham Road. I am sure there must be a preservation order on those?
I am in contact with Pat Trembath and hope to be able to be involved in any meetings regarding this development.
I am trusting Lewisham Council to hold fast on this and keep rejecting 'get-rich-quick' schemes which are to the detriment of the local community. I am quietly confident that Lewisham Council will not be pressurised into caving into the whims of the developer. Particularly if the Sydenham Society are involved.
I have made my feelings known about the Greyhound in the past - my garden literally backs onto the pub's garden (if you can call it that) and the closing of the carpark is welcome in one way. At least we won't have dodgy dealings going on in the darkness or cars being revved up and music blaring out at all hours. However the thought of a 4-5 storey block of flats doesn't fill me with any great hope either.
Incidentally if they are going right to the building lines - I do hope they will not be thinking of cutting down the beautiful row of trees that give us at least some privacy and sound insulation from Sydenham Road. I am sure there must be a preservation order on those?
I am in contact with Pat Trembath and hope to be able to be involved in any meetings regarding this development.
Gilly - I am confident that we can work towards a development on this site which will satisfy locals - although any building of this size is bound to increase local pressures on parking and create its own problems in terms of noise, traffic movement etc.
What is most disappointing is that the developer does not currently seem to want to come up with any scheme which would either satisfy local opininion or Lewisham council. Instead they seem to prefer to let the site go to rack and ruin. There have been a number of meetings with the developer but there are currently few signs that they want to compromise.
My view is that we should hold a brief informal meeting open to all interested paties - but particularly aimed at residents close to the site - where we explain what is happening. What do you think of this idea?
Incidentally, I am sure that the trees will remain.
What is most disappointing is that the developer does not currently seem to want to come up with any scheme which would either satisfy local opininion or Lewisham council. Instead they seem to prefer to let the site go to rack and ruin. There have been a number of meetings with the developer but there are currently few signs that they want to compromise.
My view is that we should hold a brief informal meeting open to all interested paties - but particularly aimed at residents close to the site - where we explain what is happening. What do you think of this idea?
Incidentally, I am sure that the trees will remain.
-
annabel mclaren
- Posts: 115
- Joined: 1 Oct 2004 19:55
- Location: thorpes
I will be adding my name to the petition, but it sounds like the property developer wants to play hard ball and isn’t interested in local opinion or sorting out a solution in the short term. So from what I’ve learned from this post and a chat down the pub after the cricket, it doesn’t seem as if they are going to pay any attention to Lewisham Council / Sydenham society / etc and they are prepared to hold out for the development they want once the site is derelict.
There might be 2 other possibilities to put pressure on the developer to get things moving in the right direction. The first is to write to the shareholders of Milford Homes and explain that the management are wasting their money by letting one of their sites fall into a state of dereliction instead of submitting a sensible development plan. If the fund managers and whoever else owns shares in Milford Homes think there is a chance that the company is not being managed properly (that includes issues of reputational risk) then they will be on the phone to the Chairman. And there is nothing that motivates senior management like a phone call from the shareholders. Obviously those letters would carry much more weight if they were from the Sydenham Society and especially if they could be countersigned by someone from Lewisham Council and/or other local groups.
Secondly, I know it is not a listed building, but it is a prominent commercial site and as such are there any “duty of care” regulations that require such a property to be kept in a certain condition? Or are there any covenants in the title deeds that require certain standards to be kept? Any experts on property law who read the forum??
Ideas worth pursuing or mad ramblings on a Thursday afternoon?
There might be 2 other possibilities to put pressure on the developer to get things moving in the right direction. The first is to write to the shareholders of Milford Homes and explain that the management are wasting their money by letting one of their sites fall into a state of dereliction instead of submitting a sensible development plan. If the fund managers and whoever else owns shares in Milford Homes think there is a chance that the company is not being managed properly (that includes issues of reputational risk) then they will be on the phone to the Chairman. And there is nothing that motivates senior management like a phone call from the shareholders. Obviously those letters would carry much more weight if they were from the Sydenham Society and especially if they could be countersigned by someone from Lewisham Council and/or other local groups.
Secondly, I know it is not a listed building, but it is a prominent commercial site and as such are there any “duty of care” regulations that require such a property to be kept in a certain condition? Or are there any covenants in the title deeds that require certain standards to be kept? Any experts on property law who read the forum??
Ideas worth pursuing or mad ramblings on a Thursday afternoon?
OK folks its time for a spot of realism. What ever the good intensions of the Sydenham Society the Greyhound will not be retained as a pub. It is now owned by a property developer. The differential price between the value of the site for residential use as opposed to commercial is so vaste as to make that impossible. The only decision is as to whether the pub is demolished or whether some of the building - albeit extended is retained and redeveloped as flats. This can be done very effectively and there are lots of similar developments around.
So how do we get an acceptable development? We have to get our facts right. What does the Council's plan say about densities? We have to recognise this will be a high density site but there must be limits. What does the plan say about parking, particulalry on a site with such excellent public transport. Car capped developments are common. However they are only effective if the surrounding streets are covered by a CPZ and there is a planning condition that residents of the development may not have a parking permit. Otherwise the residents just park in the surrounds and make things worse.
There also needs to be a balance of social housing. The developers will want 1 and 2 bedroom flats because that is cheap. The Council must want larger family size accommodation. That will reduce densities but also improve design as there must be an assumption that familes will want amenity space.
Finally there is the pressure we can put on the developer. The National House Builders Federation were on the radio last week saying how their members do not land bank and how they were very keen to develop all available land to help the Government deliver their housing targets. These builders are members so pressure could be applied through that route. A bit of naming and shaming will do no harm.
And so to the politics. There is political committment at all levels to house building of all kinds. So if the community is to be successful we need not only to have Lewisham on our side but also local MP's to raise questions in the House - more naming and shaming - and we will need to engage Ken as well as he now has major planning powers. So I think Nasaroc is right we need a meeting of local people to discuss strategy and a campaign for a good quality development on the wider site.
So how do we get an acceptable development? We have to get our facts right. What does the Council's plan say about densities? We have to recognise this will be a high density site but there must be limits. What does the plan say about parking, particulalry on a site with such excellent public transport. Car capped developments are common. However they are only effective if the surrounding streets are covered by a CPZ and there is a planning condition that residents of the development may not have a parking permit. Otherwise the residents just park in the surrounds and make things worse.
There also needs to be a balance of social housing. The developers will want 1 and 2 bedroom flats because that is cheap. The Council must want larger family size accommodation. That will reduce densities but also improve design as there must be an assumption that familes will want amenity space.
Finally there is the pressure we can put on the developer. The National House Builders Federation were on the radio last week saying how their members do not land bank and how they were very keen to develop all available land to help the Government deliver their housing targets. These builders are members so pressure could be applied through that route. A bit of naming and shaming will do no harm.
And so to the politics. There is political committment at all levels to house building of all kinds. So if the community is to be successful we need not only to have Lewisham on our side but also local MP's to raise questions in the House - more naming and shaming - and we will need to engage Ken as well as he now has major planning powers. So I think Nasaroc is right we need a meeting of local people to discuss strategy and a campaign for a good quality development on the wider site.
simono
Hang on a minute! I don't know much about these things but I'm sure a developer can't just change the use of a building/knock it down at whim. They surely do have to get permission from the council to do it – so no way is it the foregone conclusion you seem to be suggesting.
Why do we 'have to accept this will be a high-density site'? We don't have to accept anything of the sort.
Hang on a minute! I don't know much about these things but I'm sure a developer can't just change the use of a building/knock it down at whim. They surely do have to get permission from the council to do it – so no way is it the foregone conclusion you seem to be suggesting.
Why do we 'have to accept this will be a high-density site'? We don't have to accept anything of the sort.
Well managed pub....... haven't we heard all this before?annabel mclaren wrote:A petition to save the Greyhound, supporting the retention of a well-managed pub and a 'sensitive' development in the car park has now been started by the Sydenham Society. You can sign it at the Kirkdale Bookshop, opposite the pub.
Before Sydenham Society started this petition did they ask the LOCAL residents what their feelings are about this?