Going over old ground - The Hound that is Grey

[Tim Lund]

In other words - and please correct me if I am wrong) - in the order they need to happen, according to your post of 24 Aug 2013 22:24 there has to be:

1. A 'deed of variation' completed.
2. A new formal permission issued
3. Conditions discharged - e.g. points of detail proposed by Purelake need to be agreed by the Council
4. Works start.

But, according to your post of 21 Aug 2013 18:59, the Council has received applications to discharge two of the conditions, but failed to deal with them in some target time, which implies that conditions can be discharged sooner. What actually does it mean when a developer applies to a Council to discharge a condition? I guess it means they send in plans or samples, such as your list here, and say 'are these OK?'. If I'm right, that means Council officers have not felt able to say one way or another, but with Purelake appealing to the Planning Inspectorate, we should get a decision from them by mid-October.

How difficult are these conditions to meet for the developer, or their submissions to be assessed by the Council? From a non-specialist understanding, I can't see why plans and samples should be difficult - surely with technically qualified people on both sides, decisions should be quick. Do you think that on one side of the other there aren't the technically qualified people available, or might what technically qualified people agree differ from what the community and its political representatives might want? (This is my suggestion as to why Council officers "left these applications to time-out, rather than just refusing them, and telling Purelake to get on with it."; they thought that the application were OK, but were under pressure to say they were not, so they took the easy way out of doing nothing.)

Or is the last conditions the problem - the requirement for a BREEAM Rating of ‘Excellent’? Is this something which imposes requirements which conflict with others to do with the conservation of the original fabric? Or is there a bottleneck in the availability of Building Research Establishment qualified assessors?

Incidentally, if Purelake do appeal successfully to the Planning Inspectorate, do they recover costs from the Council?

[biscuitman1978]

In other words - and please correct me if I am wrong) - in the order they need to happen, according to your post of 24 Aug 2013 22:24 there has to be:

1. A 'deed of variation' completed.
2. A new formal permission issued
3. Conditions discharged - e.g. points of detail proposed by Purelake need to be agreed by the Council
4. Works start.

Correct.

But, according to your post of 21 Aug 2013 18:59, the Council has received applications to discharge two of the conditions, but failed to deal with them in some target time, which implies that conditions can be discharged sooner.

This is where it gets confusing. The two conditions which Purelake have sought to discharge relate to the May 2010 permission for the site as a whole. Presumably, though I don't know for sure, these conditions need to be discharged in addition to those which will be imposed on the new permission.

What actually does it mean when a developer applies to a Council to discharge a condition? I guess it means they send in plans or samples, such as your list here, and say 'are these OK?'. If I'm right, that means Council officers have not felt able to say one way or another, but with Purelake appealing to the Planning Inspectorate, we should get a decision from them by mid-October.

Correct (though we'll only get a decision on the two specific conditions which are the subject of the appeals).

How difficult are these conditions to meet for the developer, or their submissions to be assessed by the Council? From a non-specialist understanding, I can't see why plans and samples should be difficult - surely with technically qualified people on both sides, decisions should be quick. Do you think that on one side of the other there aren't the technically qualified people available, or might what technically qualified people agree differ from what the community and its political representatives might want? (This is my suggestion as to why Council officers "left these applications to time-out, rather than just refusing them, and telling Purelake to get on with it."; they thought that the application were OK, but were under pressure to say they were not, so they took the easy way out of doing nothing.)

The conditions shouldn't be terribly difficult to discharge. I've no idea what the issue was (or issues were). It could have been a lack of resources at the Council, it could have been Purelake's failure to provide sufficient information, or it could have been something else.

Or is the last conditions the problem - the requirement for a BREEAM Rating of ‘Excellent’? Is this something which imposes requirements which conflict with others to do with the conservation of the original fabric? Or is there a bottleneck in the availability of Building Research Establishment qualified assessors?

An application to discharge this condition can't be made until the new permission is granted, so this isn't really an issue yet. But (a) it's highly unlikely that the Council will impose a condition that cannot reasonably be met, and (b) there's no shortage of BREEAM assessors.

Incidentally, if Purelake do appeal successfully to the Planning Inspectorate, do they recover costs from the Council?

They can make an application for costs, but there's no guarantee it will be successful. Indeed, the award of costs at appeals is rare.

[perryman]

Thanks again biscuitman1978.
I now very much look forward to Purelake's conditions being fully discharged!

[Tim Lund]

The two conditions which Purelake have sought to discharge relate to the May 2010 permission for the site as a whole. Presumably, though I don't know for sure, these conditions need to be discharged in addition to those which will be imposed on the new permission.

Thanks. Do you know what these conditions were? From general experience, are there types of condition which are difficult to discharge?

Incidentally, if Purelake do appeal successfully to the Planning Inspectorate, do they recover costs from the Council?

They can make an application for costs, but there's no guarantee it will be successful. Indeed, the award of costs at appeals is rare.

Is it possible to estimate how much this is costing each side?

[sparticus]

Size doesn't matter! Anyone who thinks that pubs have to be big to be viable should follow up the growing micro-pub movement started by Martyn Hillier at the Butcher's Arms in Herne, Kent. There's lots of information on his website http://www.micropub.co.uk/
The nearby Tanketon Arms, which appears to be a roaring success, is an even better example of what a neighbourhood pub could be, and both are much smaller than the Greyhound. The Euston Station Tap on Euston Road is smaller than my front room!
It surprises me that the micro-pub movement hasn't taken off in London but I suspect that it's a lot to do with excessive rents and business rates. The concept has been proved to work, but it's likely that it can only succeed in London if it is supported as a social enterprise or partnership, but I do think that it could be a real asset in regenerating our high streets, certainly with more potential that the frankly gimmicky and disapointing Portas Partnerships.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Tim Lund]

Size doesn't matter!

...

It surprises me that the micro-pub movement hasn't taken off in London but I suspect that it's a lot to do with excessive rents and business rates.

I do like the idea of the Greyhound working as a micro-pub, but I think you are contradicting yourself here; if size doesn't matter, why should excessive rents and rates hurt micro-pubs any more than regular sized pubs?

I don't know how much difference discussions such as these make, although I suspect they matter a bit. If so, it's best if people are clear about what is happening, which is why I think Bisuitman1978's input is so valuable. It would be good, also, if those arguing for the Greyhound as a part of Sydenham's future, could get together and develop a business plan for it. I don't think it helps to criticise Portas Partnerships here, any more than it does to have a go at Purelake; it is Purelake with whom any deal will have to be done, and people involved with our local Portas Pilot scheme, SEE3, such as Chris Best and the Sydenham Society, are part of the local political context.

[biscuitman1978]

The two conditions which Purelake have sought to discharge relate to the May 2010 permission for the site as a whole. Presumably, though I don't know for sure, these conditions need to be discharged in addition to those which will be imposed on the new permission.

Thanks. Do you know what these conditions were? From general experience, are there types of condition which are difficult to discharge?

The two conditions at issue are:
- Condition 21 - details of rear tiled wall
- Condition 22 - details of a scheme for the reuse of the salvaged tiles from the 'drinking corridor'

You can look up the appeals at http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pc ... Search.asp - search 'SE26 4QB' in the post code section of the online search form.

In principle I don't see any particular reason why it should be difficult to discharge these conditions, although the Greyhound has hardly had a smooth ride through the planning process so far!

Incidentally, if Purelake do appeal successfully to the Planning Inspectorate, do they recover costs from the Council?

They can make an application for costs, but there's no guarantee it will be successful. Indeed, the award of costs at appeals is rare.

Is it possible to estimate how much this is costing each side?

I could make a very rough guess, but I'd rather not do so as it doesn't really help anyone.

You can read more about the award of costs at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... ppeals.pdf.

[Eagle]

Tragic if the council landed with the costs. If Purelake are not sticking to contract not sure how they can win , but judges are a strange lot.

The person who started this thread certainly choose an apt title, Going over old ground , we certainly have.

[sparticus]

"I do like the idea of the Greyhound working as a micro-pub, but I think you are contradicting yourself here; if size doesn't matter, why should excessive rents and rates hurt micro-pubs any more than regular sized pubs?

I don't know how much difference discussions such as these make, although I suspect they matter a bit. If so, it's best if people are clear about what is happening, which is why I think Bisuitman1978's input is so valuable. It would be good, also, if those arguing for the Greyhound as a part of Sydenham's future, could get together and develop a business plan for it. I don't think it helps to criticise Portas Partnerships here, any more than it does to have a go at Purelake; it is Purelake with whom any deal will have to be done, and people involved with our local Portas Pilot scheme, SEE3, such as Chris Best and the Sydenham Society, are part of the local political context."

It's not contradictory, the business model for micro-pubs depends on them both being small and having low overheads. Generally, they depend on sales of beer at below average pub prices and are staffed by the Landlord and a couple of helpers at the most. They don't have sales of high margin items like soft drinks and food. They are often, though not always, in converted retail premises though a couple are in old pubs. They don't generate sufficient turnover to pay huge rents and business rates, let alone premiums to owners and investors. The whole point is that they are low volume, depend exclusively on the sale of interesting and well-kept beer, are intimate and cosy. Places where strangers are encouraged to join in the conversation! In other words, the antithesis of places like The Dolphin.

I don't criticise the local implementation of the Portas Pilot scheme and SEE3 but I think that the overall concept is flawed, gimmicky and narcissistic and that we need to face up to the fact that high streets need to change fundamentally if they are to survive. I think at a model based on the premiss that reviving small retail is the way to go is likely to be unsustainable. I think it's unlikely that the Greyhound will become a decent pub given that Purlake will want to screw the maximum return out of it, but the micro-pub model could certainly work in one of the vacant retail premises given a fair wind, and would make a real difference to what's on offer locally. And I would dearly love to have a go at getting one off the ground but I know I wouldn't have the self-discipline to stay off the beer and being a cantankerous old barsteward I'd fall out with the punters!

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[sparticus]

I think this has been covered elsewhere on these forums but here goes. In a couple of words; Bell Green and the Internet. All sorts of other issues like traffic, parking, convenience, but it seems to me that a high street consisting of a row of shops is simply not able to compete with the big retail sheds and the Internet. Personally, I try and shop on our local hi street as much as possible and do most of my food shopping in the Coop, Billings and a PFC. I won't use Tesco. But I'm retired and have the time. Mixed residential, leisure and specialist retail is possibly a solution, but this has to consist of more than a few random cafes and vintage clothing stores. It requires at the minimum a unifying vision and commitment on the part of the local authority and buy-in from the local community.The discussion elsewhere about the situation in Kirkdale is pertinent. It might just be the case that the demographic and economic changes that are occurring in neighbourhoods like Sydenham could support the development of greater diversity of use, such has occurred in East Dulwich and Forest hill. Is that what we want? The idea of Sydenham becoming like East Dulwich fills me with horror.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Eagle]

Sparticus

You have very sound points.

Were not HMG going to insist that no parking at so called out of town shopping sites was free to help the High Street.

If the charge was say 2.00 pounds a visit to park at Sava centre people might think twice about cloging up the roads with their infernal cars.

[leenewham]

I always wonder why people dislike about East Dulwich. The only negative thing I can say about it is that it's often busy and they only have gastro pubs (none of which I have ever been in).

East Dulwich has (among it's deli's and boutique shops):

Betting shops
Indian Takaways
Greasy spoon cafes
Plumbers
Florists
Bookshop
Charity shops (quite a few actually)
Kebab shop
DIY shop
Hairdressers
Nail bars
Chicken shops
Food market
Newsagents
and even a 'Pound Plus World'
Lots of independent shops and few chains.

Why do some hate it?

[hairybuddha]

Something to do with chips and shoulders I suspect.

[sparticus]

To get back to the substantive issue, here are some comments from a friend who lives in east Kent and has been a enthusiastic and knowledgable supporter of the micro-pub movement since its inception:

"In practice, the community building thing goes quite deep – customers watching out for each other, checking out so and so’s ok, trading goods and services – roof fixing, wall mending, car repairing, computers fixed. Support for local church, local charity. etc. Not just old lags nattering.
Not part of the campaign to ‘save village pubs’ – favourite line of minister – Martyn says – if they can’t run, they need to fail. The business case for micropubs is that they work – twenty now in East Kent and 30 in UK.
Keep income and staff to manageable levels – preferably below VAT threshold. New employment tax regs mean employing staff is a real hassle – monthly pay returns to HMRC – so think twice re that.
The average micropub shifts almost as much as a Whethersppons – it’s all the punters drink – so good margins on beer can be negotiated – great beer is the key and the nerve to tell brewers when it’s not good and not take theirs again.
You can have several in the district – they are so small – they don’t compete – they deliver an attractive community to draw people in to gtry the all.
Tankerton Arms a good place to drag your correspondents down to - Butchers a bit hard-core. Area now lifting up – deli opened, cafes opened, good restaurant. You know how the Tankerton actually works! Size is important though. Too big and it don’t work –add too many bells and whistles – food, wine, cider, and it don’t work"

And East Dulwich? Yes, it is a class thing. We moved to Sydenham (from Beckenham) because we wanted to live somewhere which was diverse in every sense. East Dulwich is becoming an overwhelmingly middle class enclave full of yummy mummies and its not the sort of place I would want to live.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[hairybuddha]

Told you so.

[sparticus]

"The problem with that line of approach, and I have some sympathy with it, is that you end up arguing for all sorts of amenities you know you'll never use just for the sake of keeping your stock diverse. I requested a multiplex at bell Green as well as an Independent Cinema on the high street. I'll never use the multiplex.

I'll never use chicken shops, nail bars, Polish food stores, pay day loan shops, pawnbrokers, kebab shops, betting shops etc but I feel a bit awkward advocating them on the basis that I like to be surrounded by a healthy mix of people.

I spent 6 months living in Dulwich a few years ago and it was refreshing to have a cheese shop, a proper bookshop, clothes shops I might actually use, a decent wine shop etc."

Yes, I agree. I've also lived in East Dulwich and Forest Hill, and for that matter Stoke Newington before that, all places that were starting to become trendy for the boho middle classes- I was always ahead of the curve. The old problem for middle-class lefties like me that we change what we become part of. Me, I'd be happy with a micro pub or two, a couple more decent places to eat and my occasional trip to Borough Market for much better cheese than anything available in East Dulwich.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[sparticus]

"Told you so"

Shame that personal invective has to intrude into a interesting discussion.

FWIW, we sold a house in Park Langley mortgage-free to move to Sydenham. We could easily have afforded to move to East Dulwich, or Dulwich itself for that matter. We chose otherwise.

We wanted to live somewhere that was more reflective of our values and attitudes. It might be utopian and self-indulgent in some people's eyes, for us it was about the sort of people we wanted to live amongst.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Eagle]

Two more on the never use list. You have missed the two most infamous

Tanning Studios
Tattoo Studio.

Too be honest not sure why either of them are allowed in The High Street , or anywhere else for that matter.

[Mr_Sheen]

It's kind of diverting away from the Greyhound a bit. How about starting a new thread about 'Do we want to be another East Dulwich'?

[sparticus]

"thought you required diversity? Why move to a place where your neighbours are a reflection of your values?" I didn't say I wanted to live amongst people exactly like me. I want to live somewhere where there is a diversity of lifestyle and opinions ranging from the sensible and compassionate to the barking mad. Bit like this forum really. But I agree with the last post that this is a bit off the point and I'll start another thread.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]