Going over old ground - The Hound that is Grey

[biscuitman1978]

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...

Having read your subsequent post, I think I now understand your question! I think it omitted the word 'not', so it should have read:

Anyone any ideas on what sort of difference it would make to the commercial rent on that space to not have the pub in front?

In your subsequent post, you suggest I have not considered a situation where the pub is not rebuilt (and, implicitly, that somehow the Council gets bored and allows complete demolition).

There's a good reason for that: as the building is in a conservation area and was substantially demolished without conservation area consent, the Council can require that all work undertaken without consent is reversed (more at http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/prof ... eaconsent/ in the section headed 'What Happens If I Carry Out Work Without Consent?').

Given that (a) the Council clearly regard the building as important (many readers of this forum will recall that the Council locally listed the building), and (b) allowing unauthorised demolition to go unpunished would give out the wrong message to other developers, it seems highly unlikely that 'managed decline', as you put it, and certainly not demolition of at least what remains of the original parts of the pub, will be allowed in the long-term.

In any case, as far as I am aware Sainsbury's still wish to take the unit to the rear of the pub. To the best of my knowledge, the only thing stopping them opening their new store is the planning condition which (effectively) requires completion of the pub. Why hang on in some vain hope that the pub might be demolished, forefeiting any rental income, when there is an operator ready, willing and able to move in?

[Tim Lund]

In your subsequent post, you suggest I have not considered a situation where the pub is not rebuilt (and, implicitly, that somehow the Council gets bored and allows complete demolition).

There's a good reason for that: as the building is in a conservation area and was substantially demolished without conservation area consent, the Council can require that all work undertaken without consent is reversed (more at http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/prof ... eaconsent/ in the section headed 'What Happens If I Carry Out Work Without Consent?').

Maybe the Council can, but will it? Do you have figures for the proportion of cases where this sanction is applied? If it is 100%, then I will accept your argument 100%.

Given that (a) the Council clearly regard the building as important (many readers of this forum will recall that the Council locally listed the building), and (b) allowing unauthorised demolition to go unpunished would give out the wrong message to other developers, it seems highly unlikely that 'managed decline', as you put it, and certainly not demolition of at least what remains of the original parts of the pub, will be allowed in the long-term.

The message I assume you feel the Council should be giving to developers is something like "don't even think of developments contrary to our planning policies", which would be reasonable enough if only those planning policies weren't liable to change virtually overnight, as happened when the area was designated a conservation area, a decision that seems to have meant Wealdfrost had to be rescued by Purelake, and Milford went bankrupt (I think there was also a planning case in Lambeth at the same time which went against them, but can't find the links right now). So the actual message this whole saga gives developers is that Lewisham - or at least Sydenham - is a risky place to invest in, and if Lewisham are to take the sort of enforcement action you suggest, the message will be reinforced.

As such, I doubt if it is really in the interests of the Council to turn the 'can require' into a 'will require'. If my argument about the higher overall rental that the site without the Greyhound could attract is correct, such action would also have costs in terms of reduced business rates which the Council would receive - which thanks to another provision of the Localism Act should now benefit the Council directly. Finally, there would also, I guess, be significant immediate costs to the Council in terms of officer resources devoted to the process; maybe planning officers would better spend their time helping get more habitable rooms of adequate quality added in Lewisham?

In any case, as far as I am aware Sainsbury's still wish to take the unit to the rear of the pub.

Naturally. It is not Sainsbury's, as retail operators, but the freeholders, who stand to benefit from the higher rents I'm suggesting might be possible if the pub was not there. Sainsbury's would be the ones paying them.

[biscuitman1978]

Last words on this from me, for now at least...

Maybe the Council can, but will it? Do you have figures for the proportion of cases where this sanction is applied? If it is 100%, then I will accept your argument 100%.

Why will you only accept my argument if 100% of cases are addressed? Councils have limited resources and need to use them wisely. That may mean, rightly or wrongly, that not every misdemeanour is followed up.

But what I'm saying in this case is that this is a highly visible site which has aroused considerable public interest. I therefore think it unlikely that the Council would sit back and do nothing.

So the actual message this whole saga gives developers is that Lewisham - or at least Sydenham - is a risky place to invest in...

The first part of the saga might well suggest that...

...and if Lewisham are to take the sort of enforcement action you suggest, the message will be reinforced.

...but if some form of action is taken to restore the pub, whether it be through negotiation or more forceful means, that would demonstrate the resolve of the Council to stick to its position. If the Council agreed to complete demolition it would have changed its position once again - precisely the kind of uncertain behaviour of which you are critical.

Naturally. It is not Sainsbury's, as retail operators, but the freeholders, who stand to benefit from the higher rents I'm suggesting might be possible if the pub was not there. Sainsbury's would be the ones paying them.

Indeed. I am simply suggesting the freeholder may be waiting a very long time (perhaps forever) for these higher rents, when they have the opportunity to let the unit very soon (as soon as the pub is complete) to a tenant with a good covenant.

[Tim Lund]

Last words on this from me, for now at least...

And I'm not in the mood to drag this on, so I hope briefly ...

the point about the percentage I might be in agreement was about getting a ball park figure for how often Councils play hardball. Every case is different, and you bring arguments why Lewisham should be tough in this case, but it seems to me at least that the developers are acting as if they think they will be able to settle for less than currently being demanded, which is not the same as saying the Council will do nothing. There should be a face-saving way out of this - I wrote earlier in this thread

I wonder if there is a deal to be struck whereby the developers pay an amount - and all the tiles they have preserved - to get out of having to redevelop the Greyhound where it is, and have this amount applied by the Council to the (re)development of a new or existing pub elsewhere in Sydenham. A pub on a larger site is more likely to be viable, and there is more likely to be space for the tiles.

and a bit later

If there was to be New Greyhound in an exising building elsewhere, I think a rebranding for the Two Halves is most plausible.

To return to my first post on this thread

it is time to recognise that, for whatever reasons, it has gone pear-shaped, and it's now time to leave egos behind, and emerge from entrenched positions. Some of us will hate the fact that we have lost the Greyhound, and others will resent the fact that the developers will seem to have 'got away with it'. Others will be unhappy that in a prime Sydenham location, we have a 100% social housing development. Well, that's how it is, and it's not the end of the world. It is a shame to lose what might have been a great community pub, but communities are more resilient that some people think; take away a pub, and people can still find places to meet and socialise - especially if planning barriers are not put up to changing use of other premises

[Steveofsyd]

Forgive me if this has been said elsewhere (this is my first visit and I'm playing catchup), but notwithstanding the "legal bits" I think that the most desirable development would be to knock down the pub. It should be replaced by a paved plaza with possibly a sculpture or trees. I would also like to see some of the units filled with cafes or something like that with tables and chairs outside. Maybe some awnings to brighten things up. I would suggest a Cafe Rouge or Costa Coffee or a good quality independent. Some will object to these chains but they are far better than units containing shops that will have metal shutters drawn every night, creating a no mans land.
Sydenham would look welcoming and lively especially in the summer. All the nicest "villages" in London have cafes and bars with outside seating. I'm hoping that Lewisham will allow seating on our new wide pavements in the future.
By the way, who thinks that Pedder would have made a great bar or some such with seating on the terrace and possibly part of the new square?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Tim Lund]

My thoughts almost exactly, but I'm off postong for Lent

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[leenewham]

Hi Steve, welcome to the Forum.

I totally agree about Peddar. I did a visual of it as Thai Restaurant when it was an empty site (not one of the better what ifs, link HERE). It's a shame it's now an estate agents. Kente would be better off swapping with them, Peddar would have more window space too.

The empty units in the greyhound site are supposed to be mostly Sainsbuty's. The units are empty shells, ready for a fit out by a retailer. It's far too costly for a independent, or any cafe for that matter to go in there. I'm not sure what will partner Sainsbury's.

There will be some seating outside of the Greyhound. Plus the Greyhound will be one of the very last interesting paces to have any sort of bar/pub/restaurant. For that reason along it should be finished. Not to mention the fact that it's an historic building, although it's hardly been treated well by the developers.

While some dream of Cafe Rouges etc, Sydenham no longer has the available space for such brands, plus they would push up rents and rates which would harm independents.

I'm all for the Greyhound being reinstated, properly finished and turned into a really good social pub that looks great, does great food, real ales with a great atmosphere and becomes a proper part of the community. It should compliment the Dolphin and offer something different aside form overpriced burgers that many other so called 'gastro' pubs do.

[Steveofsyd]

I do agree and I always wanted a great pub there but will there be enough room for a good "foodie" there. Perhaps the developer will have enough imagination to make it a 2 floor pub ... Now that would be something. The seats outside are a must as far as I'm concerned.
I really hate the thought of the back alley with shutters becoming "pee" alley.
On the subject of independents...I want them as long as they are along the lines of the ones in Lordship Lane or other "villages" in London. Crystal palace is so vibrant ....we need some of the same.
Unfortunately we seem to get dreadful chicken outlets and nail bars.., and even worse more shops selling "tat" . If the rents are too low then we attract rubbish, and no decent independent wants to be next to some of the shops on our high street.
Does anyone know if there is a town policy on what we need to attract and what the do not want to see in our high street?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Steveofsyd]

Sorry, meant to say thanks for the welcome and I am in agreement with you leenewham...especially the great food and good beer and ales.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[leenewham]

Hi Steve,

I'm liking your posts by the way.

In defence of the council, there wasn't much they could do about Peddars.

Unless our local civic societies, traders groups and cllrs actively marketed the site as a cafe to encourage certain businesses in certain sites. I know the Sydenham Society fought some planning applications for what is now the Co-operative Funeral site which would have made a great cafe/gallery. unfortunately we don't have a strong enough traders group in Sydenham with enough members which has held the high street back. It makes a huge difference but they are difficult to manage and set up. It's always best if they come from the traders themselves.

I don't think the space around the back of Greyhound will be a muggers alley, it will be well lit, it will have a late opening supermarket next to it. It's not that narrow!

[Pat Trembath]

It is a great pity that our pocket squares do not have cafes or restaurants adjacent to them but it is not for the want of trying.

With regard to the old HSBC building, now Pedders. After the bank closed Cllr Chris Best wrote to Sturge and Co, who were marketing the building as A2, and suggested that they apply for a change of use to A3, stating that there would be no objections from the council nor the Sydenham Society if this were to happen, but to no avail.

[leenewham]

That would have been great news to share on the forum and town centre websites Pat, while it was still available (if it wasn't).

Are there any other sites where this is the case? It would be great to get this info out there.

I know there is an aversion by some to posting on this forum, but it is still the most widely read online source of local information by far.

[Steveofsyd]

Totally agree with lee. We need to know these things in advance if only to prevent another corner grocer/bad off licence, hairdresser, estate agent (although at least they look good), tat merchant etc. Why is that I read that some communities are able to reject certain establishments (some of which we would gratefully receive) and we seem to have no choice at all. Sydenham has great housing stock, we have a good demographic, great transport links blah blah. Why on earth is our high street so dreadful? Anyone have a simple POV?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Tim Lund]

Steve - read your PMs

[Steveofsyd]

Crispest, how does one do that. Not the best with technology and new to all this!

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Steveofsyd]

Meant to say "Cripes" . Damn you Autocorrect!

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Rachael]

Steve - read your PMs

Tim - if you're off posting for Lent, sending PMs is cheating.

Steve - near the top of the page, you will see a blue banner with two rows. In the second row you should get an alert (in brackets) of a new message. If it's a message from Tim about local politics and/or planning, you might want to sit down and get comfortable first.

It may include graphs.

[Eagle]

Will the Pub be opening in time for King Charles the 3rd coronation ?

Why do we take so long to plan and build things in the UK. By the time we build a new runway at LHR ,China will have built 25 runways.

[Eagle]

Not sure it is a socialism that Keir Hardy etc would reconise as such.

[G-Man]

That would have been great news to share on the forum and town centre websites Pat, while it was still available (if it wasn't).

Are there any other sites where this is the case? It would be great to get this info out there.

I know there is an aversion by some to posting on this forum, but it is still the most widely read online source of local information by far.

I find this aversion crazy. It would be great to have regular updates from the SydSoc particularly on the Greyhound and other buildings. Look at the Forest Hill Society, so open about what they are doing in the area. Most of the time it feels like the SydSoc are doing nothing as we don't know about it. It's the 21st Century, you should be using forums like this to communicate the good you are doing with the public.

G-man

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]