Going over old ground - The Hound that is Grey

Weeble · Post by **Weeble** » 7 Dec 2012 19:27

It's worth bearing in mind that when Antic pulled out the basement was practically unusable but the rebuild includes a sizeable basement where kitchen and toilets would be situated.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Sacha1966 · Post by **Sacha1966** » 6 Jan 2013 12:55

I think the Sydenham Gateway site looked far nicer when it was just The Greyhound, without the flats. When I first saw the plans for the proposed flats I said 'it looks awful! The pub's all cramped in!' But was assured that was the best we could hope for! Now we're lumbered with the flats, (which would have looked 100% better if they could have followed the line of using the reclaimed bricks & the lovely sash windows like the corner of the development). Under the circumstances, & how 'unbalanced' the site now looks, I think the pub should be demolished. It's not the lovely Greyhound as we remember it, it's nothing to be proud of any more, & it looks like an architect without an ounce of aesthetic creativity designed the whole site in about five minutes. What we need there now is a lovely little green space (ask Grow Mayow for some tips as they have an amazing garden up there). Then I think the Gateway could be something to be proud of. We could called the green space 'The Greyhound Gardens' & have a plaque remembering the beautiful old Greyhound Pub.

Kind regards

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Eagle · Post by **Eagle** » 6 Jan 2013 13:00

Pity flats were not more upmarket . Social housing generally drags an area down.

Very sad.

Mr_Sheen · Post by **Mr_Sheen** » 6 Jan 2013 13:43

Indeed. Ship the undesirables off to Hull to keep house prices up.

ALIB · Post by **ALIB** » 6 Jan 2013 14:56

[quote="Sacha1966"]I think the Sydenham Gateway site looked far nicer when it was just The Greyhound, without the flats. When I first saw the plans for the proposed flats I said 'it looks awful! The pub's all cramped in!' But was assured that was the best we could hope for! Now we're lumbered with the flats, (which would have looked 100% better if they could have followed the line of using the reclaimed bricks & the lovely sash windows like the corner of the development). Under the circumstances, & how 'unbalanced' the site now looks, I think the pub should be demolished. It's not the lovely Greyhound as we remember it, it's nothing to be proud of any more, & it looks like an architect without an ounce of aesthetic creativity designed the whole site in about five minutes. What we need there now is a lovely little green space (ask Grow Mayow for some tips as they have an amazing garden up there). Then I think the Gateway could be something to be proud of. We could called the green space 'The Greyhound Gardens' & have a plaque remembering the beautiful old Greyhound Pub.

Kind regards

the stuff i've put in bold i agree with. Nothing short of vandalism where a fantastic opportunity was presented.
Gone are the rooftop trees.
The exterior features of the flats are totally out of sync with the surround.
The creation of a parking nightmare for existing residents of the area. A goldmine for Traffic Wardens, though.
The muggers alleyway at the rear of something once called The Greyhound.

A lot of people in influential places should be a tad red-faced at this development , which could have been soooo much better.

And i may cite the Forest Hills Pools as a prime example of what can be achieved with a bit of effort from the developers and encouragement from the community and vigilance by Lewisham.

Tim Lund · Post by **Tim Lund** » 6 Jan 2013 16:53

Although I wrote previously that I thought the size was a problem, it should be possible to account for this in a sensible commercial negotiation by dropping the rent demanded. It could be that the developers are just being cussed, but this seems unlikely to me - what possible interest do that have in a 'managed decline', unless they think the latest revisions being demanded make it unlettable at any rent?

A possible answer is that any pub being there interferes with the renting of the commercial space behind. With a nicely landscape plaza in front, Sydenham's only sizable, modern, purpose build retail space behind is likely to attract a higher rent than if obscured by the remains of an old building. Would that increased amount be more than whatever rent the cut down Hound could be let for? If so, the developers would have an interest in writing off this bit of Sydenham history - but this would depend on the developers also owning the ground floor retail, or having secured some agreement with whoever does own it.

angela53 · Post by **angela53** » 28 Jan 2013 18:00

Does anyone have any news on what is happening with this, or are we going to be left with a half finished pub and an eyesore for ever?

leenewham · Post by **leenewham** » 28 Jan 2013 18:21

It will be, a few months apparently.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Mr_Sheen · Post by **Mr_Sheen** » 28 Jan 2013 20:36

Unless it falls down first.

Weeble · Post by **Weeble** » 29 Jan 2013 11:05

A few months until what? I'm not sure what is going on at the moment and what is delaying progress. Is it still planning issues or is it just about the developer getting on and finishing the job?

Mr_Sheen · Post by **Mr_Sheen** » 29 Jan 2013 16:27

If a clause had been put in preventing occupation of the flats until the pub was finished I doubt they'd be hanging around. They appear to have got what they wanted and don't seem to give a damn.

Tim Lund · Post by **Tim Lund** » 29 Jan 2013 17:13

Mr_Sheen wrote:If a clause had been put in preventing occupation of the flats until the pub was finished I doubt they'd be hanging around. They appear to have got what they wanted and don't seem to give a damn.

But have they yet got what they want on the retail element?

biscuitman1978 · Post by **biscuitman1978** » 29 Jan 2013 18:48

Mr_Sheen wrote:If a clause had been put in preventing occupation of the flats until the pub was finished I doubt they'd be hanging around. They appear to have got what they wanted and don't seem to give a damn.

A clause (or rather a 'condition') was imposed on the original permission to restrict occupation of the residential units. Occupation of the residential units was not permitted until:
- The tiled wall on the rear of the pub was complete
- Arrangements for the reuse of the tiles from the old drinking corridor had been agreed with the council

An application (ref DC/12/80805/FT) was latter submitted to vary the condition, and the application was granted. However, although the revised condition permits occupation of the residential units, occupation of the commercial units is not permitted until:
- The tiled wall on the rear of the pub is complete
- The tiles from the old drinking corridor are installed in the pub

So, assuming the developer wants to see the commercial units occupied, there is still an incentive for them to get on and finish the pub.

Tim Lund · Post by **Tim Lund** » 29 Jan 2013 19:08

Anyone any ideas on what sort of difference it would make to the commercial rent on that space to have the pub in front? If it was significantly more, then the owner of the retail space - not Purelake, I believe - will not have much incentive to push Purelake to get on with it, and Purelake will have none at all.

maverick · Post by **maverick** » 29 Jan 2013 19:16

A great example of too many cooks spoil the broth.Pull it down,what was once a very desirable premises,now looks simply stupid.

biscuitman1978 · Post by **biscuitman1978** » 29 Jan 2013 20:20

Tim Lund wrote:Anyone any ideas on what sort of difference it would make to the commercial rent on that space to have the pub in front? If it was significantly more, then the owner of the retail space - not Purelake, I believe - will not have much incentive to push Purelake to get on with it, and Purelake will have none at all.

I don't fully understand your question, but as the commercial units cannot be occupied until, to all intents and purposes, the pub is finished, their rental value is zero at the moment. They will, however, have a rental value once the pub is finished, so that's surely an incentive to take the necessary steps to finish the pub.

Of course, you might argue it's not been much of an incentive, as we still have a derelict pub on our hands. But bear in mind that this is a site which has seen a building in a conservation area demolished without consent (which is an offence) and one application submitted and, according to the last Sydenham Society newsletter, withdrawn because it 'did not meet the expectation of rebuilding the structure, like for like'. Hardly a surprise that it's now taking some time to get this right.

Ever the optimist, I'm hopeful we might see some progress soon. I hope I'm not proved wrong.

Tim Lund · Post by **Tim Lund** » 29 Jan 2013 22:26

biscuitman1978 wrote: I don't fully understand your question, but as the commercial units cannot be occupied until, to all intents and purposes, the pub is finished, their rental value is zero at the moment. They will, however, have a rental value once the pub is finished, so that's surely an incentive to take the necessary steps to finish the pub.

This is where it would be nice to have some plausible numbers, because without them I might have to fall back on algebra with 'x's, 'y's and such like representing various unknowns. But the point, I'm suggesting, is that the pub not getting rebuilt, and then everyone moving on - is and for a long time has been - a real possibility. Given this, the expected value of the retail space is:

(( value of X1 per annum ) / ( 1 + r) ^ T1) * p
+ (( value of X2 per annum ) / ( 1 + r) ^ T2) * (1 - p)

where

p = the probability that the pub is restored
r = the return on investment that the owner of the space looks for
X1 = the annual rent the retail will get if it is
T1 = the number of years till is is restored
X2 = the annual rent the retail will get if it is not
T2 = the number of years till its non restoration becomes a fait accompli

I think the variables in this which matter most are X1 & X2, and if X2 is greater than X1 - which I suspect - then the lower the probability of the pub being redeveloped the better for the owner of the retail space, although any difference between the times to when income will start in the two scenarios - T1 & T2 - may also make a difference. Because you were not considering the second option - in other words you assumed p = 1 - you were looking only at T1. In this case, it would indeed make sense for the owner of the retail to push the developers to get on with it, but I suspect he sees the developer not getting on with it as decreasing the probability of the pub being developed, and so working to his advantage. Call this managed decline if you wish, but a developer's argument would be that a higher overall level of rent from the site would reflect a higher overall value that customers would pay, via their wallets, for the benefit of having the the retail without the pub compared with the retail obscured by a not very profitable pub, and so they are managing things both for their benefit and the wider population of Sydenham.

maverick · Post by **maverick** » 30 Jan 2013 08:29

I feel sorry for the contractor. It would be a fair bet to guess that all the choping and changing has swallowed up their profit. As i say,it is now an eye sore.Architectulary it does not work,but heh ho i'm sure Sydenham will get it's Greyhound back.

Tim Lund · Post by **Tim Lund** » 30 Jan 2013 10:41

maverick wrote:I feel sorry for the contractor. It would be a fair bet to guess that all the choping and changing has swallowed up their profit. As i say,it is now an eye sore. Architectulary it does not work,but heh ho i'm sure Sydenham will get it's Greyhound back.

I have sympathy for any contractors sucked into this whole saga, although my sympathy for Purelake is moderated by their apparent financial immunity from the twists and turns of the story line

Purelake New Homes Ltd is 71.58% owned by Purelake Properties, which at end 2011 had a book value nearly twice this.

Along the way, other companies now at least ultimately controled by Purelake Properties, such as Wealdfrost, erstwhile owner of the Greyhound, have had their rocky moments, but have pulled through

.

OTOH, Milford Group, which I don't think ever owned the site, but was engaged to develop it, did go bankrupt - with some very unpleasant consequences for one of its directors, who after the bankruptcy was for a period a director of Wealdfrost.

The subtleties of Antic's administration are also relevant here.

[Note - the edit was to insert the words 'now at least' before 'ultimately controlled by Purelake'; I don't know this, but I assume Wealdfrost was rescued by Purelake.]

Tim Lund · Post by **Tim Lund** » 30 Jan 2013 12:00

rod taylor wrote:Perhaps Tim could give his contributions to this forum in the form of a power point presentation. Coffee and biscuits provided.

Are you offering to provide them? Maybe SydSoc could arrange a venue and publicity?

Sydenham Town Forum

The Community Voice for London SE26 since 2004