Going over old ground - The Hound that is Grey

[biscuitman1978]

Some interesting questions from Tim. For the record I don't think anything is cut and dried here, but I am encouraged by the progress being made.

So far, the Council has secured a conviction against Purelake New Homes Limited for the unauthorised demolition.

A new planning permission needs to be granted before the rebuilding of the pub can commence. A planning application is due to be considered by the Council's planning committee shortly which provides for the rebuilding, including a larger basement (already built) and the addition of a conservatory on the western elevation. I hope that the committee will grant permission.

The Court fined Purelake a relatively small sum because, among other things, it was confident that Purelake intend to rebuild the pub using original materials (as proposed in the current application). I am encouraged by that. But Tim is right, it will be a planning permission that is granted (I hope), not planning compulsion.

If Purelake fail to implement the permission (assuming it's granted), perhaps because it wants to sign up an operator first or for some other reason, the Council could issue a Conservation Area Enforcement Notice (more at http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/prof ... c/1357958/) at a time of its choosing, which would compel Purelake to restore the building. But I can't imagine that Purelake would want to go down this route as (a) they surely don't want further bad PR, and (b) they would probably end up with a building without a conservatory, which is likely to be less attractive to potential occupiers (as it would be darker and smaller).

Turning to the use of the upper floor, the application before the Council is for pub/restaurant use on both floors. Assuming permission is granted, any future use of the upper floor for flats would need a new permission which, if officers' response to date is anything to go by, is unlikely to be forthcoming.

And finally, I'm afraid I don't know whether anyone is engaging with Purelake on potential occupiers.

[Weeble]

Tim's questions about Purelake's intentions also omit the rather striking fact that Purelake have, already, rebuilt most of the Greyhound.

Goodness knows why they thought they could get away with knocking it down and rebuilding it without planning permission, but it would appear their intention was very much to finish the job and it would seem they might have done so already if not for the (entirely right and proper!) intervention of the planners.

The document submitted to the planning committee also notes that Purelake have been cooperating positively with the planners.

[Tim Lund]

Tim's questions about Purelake's intentions also omit the rather striking fact that Purelake have, already, rebuilt most of the Greyhound.

Goodness knows why they thought they could get away with knocking it down and rebuilding it without planning permission, but it would appear their intention was very much to finish the job and it would seem they might have done so already if not for the (entirely right and proper!) intervention of the planners.

The document submitted to the planning committee also notes that Purelake have been cooperating positively with the planners.

I'm not sure if we'll ever know exactly what Purelake thought they were doing, but I'd imagine they had a reason - presumably that they thought whatever rebuilding they started on would satisfy the LB Lewisham planners and maximise profits / minimise losses, as the case may be. Somehow they misjudged the planning context for this development. It would be helpful for the sake of future investment in Sydenham if how this happened was understood. In particular, any operator for the new Greyhound will want to understand this background.

[sparticus]

Size doesn’t matter. The micropub and craft beer outlets that are springing up all over the place vary in size from big to tiny, and seem to be flourishing. The Euston Tap and the Craft Beer Co bar in Brixton are very small and both are packed most of the time. It's what's on offer that matters and I'm convinced that a small, friendly pub offering well kept craft beer, conversation and modest bar snacks could work on that site, in what will be a reasonable sized building. The question is whether an operator is willing to be satisfied with a modest profit margin or if they want to screw as much out of the place as possible. I fear we'll get the latter, in which case we will see something like the Dolphin, with overpriced indifferent food and poorly kept and uninteresting beer.

[Eagle]

I suspect Purelake have a punter in mind and when they pulled the building down they intended to rebuild to the classifications of the new owner.

[G-Man]

Going on from what Sparticus said, I was in the Holborn Wiippet last week and they serve excellent beer and have a very basic menu. Reasonably priced quality burgers. All done just using a grill, and a fryer for chips. The kitchen area was tiny but efficient. Proves a small kitchen can work in a pub.

With regards the Dolphin. We always enjoy our food there and the new menu is a lot more accessible pub food. James also takes extreme care in how he keeps the beer. I think they serve an excellent pint. He has also managed to introduce guest ales and some interesting bottled beer, despite being a tied pub. I imagine this took some negotiating.

G-Man

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Chris Best]

We are now at the stage of a revised planning application from Purelake being recommended for approval at the Planning Committee on Thursday 25 April - report here http://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/ ... %20P.H.pdf - meeting starts at 7.30pm. I will be attending and speaking on the conditions for this revised application and asking the applicants about the timescale.

It is a public meeting and if there are objectors the Chair normally allows 5 minutes for point to be made. Please let me know if you have objections and we can discuss further.

Cllr Chris Best

[Chris Best]

Just to let everyone know that planning permission was granted this evening for the rebuilding of The Greyhound. There were a couple of additional conditions added to the report - one to treat the conservatory doors as emergency exit doors and the other was to see the detail of the refuse store as it is 15 foot from the entrance to Sainsbury's.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[admin]

Great. What news on timescales?

Admin

[Chris Best]

Reps from Purelake positive last night so would expect a return as soon as they can plan the resources needed.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[biscuitman1978]

This is excellent news and I'm encouraged to hear that Purelake are sounding positive.

In terms of timescales, and assuming the planning committee accepted all of the recommendations in the report it considered, the first thing that needs to happen is the completion of a deed of variation to the legal agreement attached to the original permission granted in May 2010. Once that's done the planning permission can be formally granted.

The formal grant of permission will mean that Purelake are permitted to get back on site to remove the mezzanine floor they built without permission. However, before further work can be done Purelake will need to get some detailed matters approved by officers at the Council. For example, they'll need to provide drawings to show that the detailed design is acceptable, including the refuse store to which Cllr Best refers above, and to identify which doors and windows will be replaced and which will be salvaged.

Provided that both Purelake and officers at the Council have the appetite to push this forward, none of this need take too long, and some of the tasks can be done in parallel. For example, the detailed design can be agreed while the mezzanine floor is being removed. With that in mind, I very much hope to see scaffolding going up soon...

[Rachael]

Is the mezzanine floor the one that cuts across the upper windows? What on earth was the purpose of that? To raise the head height on the ground floor? It is one of the most bizarre things I've ever seen and makes me groan every time I drive past.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[biscuitman1978]

Is the mezzanine floor the one that cuts across the upper windows? What on earth was the purpose of that? To raise the head height on the ground floor? It is one of the most bizarre things I've ever seen and makes me groan every time I drive past.

That's the one. Purelake wanted to create two flats, which would have sat over first floor level and in the roofspace. I guess installing the mezzanine at that height made the roofspace just big enough to accommodate a couple of bedrooms.

Of course, they did all this without planning permission, and now they have the hassle and cost of putting things right...

[bensonby]

I know I'm a bit late off the mark with this point: but I don't understand the paltry fines that companies receive for doing things like this demolition... it's a drop in the ocean. It almost seems like companies could just factor in fines in their budgets so they can just crack on and do what they like.

Why aren't companies forced to completely undo whatever they shouldn't have done and, additionally, the person that signed off the order for the demolition personally held criminally liable?

Wouldn't that make more sense?

[Tim Lund]

I suspect their mistake is costing Purelake a lot more than the fine in the rebuilding costs and lost revenue from what they at least imagine would be more profitable uses for the site than a pub. The question is how they misjudged this situation - given that they bought the site when they rescued the previous developer Wealdfrost, they should have had a good understanding of the planning context. I think it unlikely, however, that we will ever learn this.

I don't think making an individual criminally liable would be a sensible use of anyone's budget.

[bensonby]

The principle is though, Tim, is that fines can do very little to a determined and very wealthy organisation. I'm not saying that that is necessarily the situation here: but it is not inconceivable that a company could decide that a listed building was "not profitable" etc and that the long term gain in terms of profit was worth more than a small fine.

Ultimately, someone, or some persons, in this organisation gave an order to knowingly cause the company to commit a criminal offence. Why should that individual not be liable?

[Tim Lund]

The principle is though, Tim, is that fines can do very little to a determined and very wealthy organisation. I'm not saying that that is necessarily the situation here: but it is not inconceivable that a company could decide that a listed building was "not profitable" etc and that the long term gain in terms of profit was worth more than a small fine.

I've no doubt that Purelake was making a commercial judgment - or mis-judgment in this case - but the value they will be writing off will be much more than this fine.

Ultimately, someone, or some persons, in this organisation gave an order to knowingly cause the company to commit a criminal offence. Why should that individual not be liable?

I'm not a lawyer, but I'd imagine because he/she was acting as either a director, employee or agent of the company, rather than as an individual. A quick google leaves me immediately out of my depth.

[biscuitman1978]

I'm not fully up to speed on the finer points of the law on conservation area prosecutions, but I'll try to answer bensonby's questions to the best of my ability. I'll answer the questions in a slightly different order to try to make more sense!

1. Why isn't the person that signed off the order for the demolition personally held criminally liable? They can be, but it must be proved that a particular individual consented or connived to commit the offence, or that the offence is some way attributable to them. That's almost certainly going to take more work than it is to bring proceedings against a company as a whole. Sometimes the additional work will be justified, but the local planning authority will always need to take a view on how best to use its resources.

2. Why aren't fines higher? The law says that the maximum fine which can be imposed on a firm if found guilty in the Magistrates' Court is £20,000 (or, if it is an individual, the same maximum fine or imprisonment of up to two years). If, however, the prosecution can successfully argue that the case is too serious to justify the limited penalties available in the Magistrates’ court, the case can proceed to the Crown Court where the potential fine is unlimited (and, once again, if it is an individual, imprisonment of up to two years). This is what happened in Kingston recently, where an individual was fined £80,000, plus very substantial costs - http://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/ ... g-articles

In the case of the Greyhound, where Purelake were ordered to pay a fine of £5,000 (plus £13,000 in costs to the Council), the Magistrate took into account the fact that they had offered a plea of guilty, were not likely to benefit from the development financially, had agreed to pay prosecution costs and intended to rebuild the pub using original materials. Was that enough? I'll leave others to make that judgement.

3. Can't developers just factor in fines so that they can do what they like? They could do, but they run the risk of a larger fines if the case proceeds to the Crown Court and, if proceedings are brought against an individual, imprisonment.

4. Why aren't developers forced to completely undo whatever they shouldn't have done? They often are, but in the case of the Greyhound that's really not sensible, as the new larger basement (already built) and the new conservatory (proposed) will make the building far more attractive to potential occupiers, and make it less likely that the building will remain vacant in the long-term.

[dickp]

Wow - when worlds collide! You read local government lawyer, Buiscuitman? That website is run by a couple former contacts of mine. That's a pretty darned small world, if you do.

[biscuitman1978]

Wow - when worlds collide! You read local government lawyer, Buiscuitman? That website is run by a couple former contacts of mine. That's a pretty darned small world, if you do.

I dip in online, but only very occasionally. More a case of two worlds brushing past one another than colliding!