Going over old ground - The Hound that is Grey

Annie. · Post by **Annie.** » 6 Sep 2013 16:18

Where is the greenery to soften the horrible stark lines.
The original plans looked so much better than what has been built,I really dislike the flats that are there now.
Just another block of mundane flats,hardly the Gateway of Sydenham I was expecting!

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Eagle · Post by **Eagle** » 6 Sep 2013 16:44

The original design looked much nicer that what we have

Legal action by LBL ???

Annie. · Post by **Annie.** » 6 Sep 2013 18:12

No, they won't bother Eagle, no guts to take on a big company, I would love them to insist on dismantling the flats and putting it back as it was, even that was better than it is now.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

biscuitman1978 · Post by **biscuitman1978** » 6 Sep 2013 22:27

hairybuddha wrote:Found this particularly interesting:

The old Greyhound was closed amongst great acrimony in August 2007. The developers intimated they intended to demolish and replace with flats. The Sydenham Society, the Mayor and others embarked on a ferocious campaign to stop it. The council stepped in and imposed a conservation order which froze any planned demolition. The developers threatened legal action and the ugly grey boarding looked to become a semi-permanent part of Sydenham’s gateway.

But cooler heads prevailed. The owners of the site took back management of the project and consulted pro-actively with the Council, Sydenham Society and others. As you can see the result is a very big change in the nature of the proposed development. Done well (and soon) this could be the real start of the regeneration of Sydenham Road & Kirkdale.
What happened to derail this apparent optimism?

This was also interesting:

...Wednesday 5th September 2007 the Mayor and cabinet declared a Conservation Area and added the pub to the local historic buildings list.

Ratified on Friday – The Greyhound is now legally protected from demolition.

A victory? Hardly. For Milford Group they now have a non-earning liability. They have future redevelopment constrained and complicated by rules they would not have wanted. For the community we have no pub and a horrible blot on the landscape for the forseeable future.
So the Council and The Mayor must take a degree of responsibility for the ensuing stalemate? Did they?

The optimism was derailed by Purelake committing a criminal offence by demolishing the pub without conservation area consent and then starting to rebuild it without planning permission.

As for the Council taking responsibility for the position in which we now find ourselves, bear in mind that it was acting in response to the concerns of a vocal (and arguably sizeable) section of the community in locally listing the pub and designating Cobbs Corner as a conservation area. It therefore seems a little unfair to blame the Council for what has resulted, i.e. a partially demolished/rebuilt pub. In any case, Purelake had a planning permission which they started to implement; completion of the development has been delayed by their unauthorised demolition of the pub, for which they were quite rightly prosecuted.

That said, I do have concerns about the Council's recent activity (or apparent lack of it) in discharging conditions and varying the legal agreement attached to the 2010 permission. These need to be sorted in order that Purelake can get back on site. I hope to ask officers about this at the Sydenham Assembly on Thursday.

leenewham wrote:I find it amazing that the original plans for the flats look so different to the finished building : http://sydenham.org.uk/greyhound-gets-going/

What happened to the staggered roof line?
Wasn't it supposed to be a white glazed brick initially, which would have made the pub stand out more? Why did it end up being London Stock brick?
What happened to the green roofs?
Why was the building on the corner built up by another couple of stories?
Why are the windows different?

All these things have taken away from what was originally an interesting development.

The image to which you provide a link does not accurately reflect the proposal for which permission was ultimately sought and for which permission was granted. In addition, some issues, including the brick type, were the subject of conditions which required Purelake to agree the details with the Council post the grant of permission. They did so. As for the green roofs, they're growing (though I think it's unlikely they'll ever resemble the small forest shown on the image!).

Annie. wrote:No, they won't bother Eagle, no guts to take on a big company...

Given that London Borough of Lewisham successfully prosecuted Purelake, to say it has 'no guts to take on a big company' is patently untrue.

Annie. wrote:...I would love them to insist on dismantling the flats and putting it back as it was, even that was better than it is now.

On what grounds could you insist that the flats are dismantled?

Annie. · Post by **Annie.** » 7 Sep 2013 13:02

I never said I had "grounds" just giving my wish in an ideal world.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Steveofsyd · Post by **Steveofsyd** » 8 Sep 2013 16:56

Successfully prosecuted......Out of interest, what was the fine or punishment for the crime.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

biscuitman1978 · Post by **biscuitman1978** » 8 Sep 2013 17:50

Steveofsyd wrote:Successfully prosecuted......Out of interest, what was the fine or punishment for the crime.

£5,000 plus £13,000 costs.

Full details at http://sydenham.org.uk/news-greyhound-conviction/ and https://www.lewisham.gov.uk/news/Pages/ ... d-pub.aspx

Steveofsyd · Post by **Steveofsyd** » 8 Sep 2013 18:03

Is that all? Doesn't exactly put developers off does it?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Annie. · Post by **Annie.** » 8 Sep 2013 18:12

Exactly, chicken feed to them.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

biscuitman1978 · Post by **biscuitman1978** » 10 Sep 2013 12:33

I've referred in previous posts to the need for the completion of a 'deed of variation' to the legal agreement attached to the 2010 permission.

Once this is done the new planning permission for rebuilding of the Greyhound can be formally issued and:
- Purelake will be able to return to site to remove the mezzanine floor
- Purelake will be able to start discharging the conditions attached to the new permission (mainly agreeing the details of the design with the Council), which they need to do before they can start rebuilding

I've been advised today by the Head of Law at Lewisham Council that the Council sent the deed of variation to Purelake's solicitor last week and that she hopes to hear from them 'shortly'.

leenewham · Post by **leenewham** » 11 Sep 2013 14:49

The Mural has been delivered to Purelake to be installed on the Greyhound.

Hurry up Lewisham council!!

parker · Post by **parker** » 11 Sep 2013 17:21

Praise The Lord!

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

simono · Post by **simono** » 13 Sep 2013 17:22

I doubt very much if the building will stay standing if they take the scaffolding down so not sure we will ever see the mural. And as I said at the Sydenham Assembly last night (with agreement from an unlikely ally) I doubt if the pub will ever reopen so the mural will be on a ruin.
Rather we need to think about what we do with the site rather than keep protecting a ruin and eyesore spoiling the gateway to Sydenham.

Eagle · Post by **Eagle** » 13 Sep 2013 17:34

Simon

I think you speak a lot of sense. As I have mentioned before , with regret , I do not think there will ever be a viable pub built and operated in that site.

Not sure what , if anything , should go in its place. Very sad all round.

Let us put our effort in helping Mary save The Windmill, which already has a good building

gerispringer · Post by **gerispringer** » 13 Sep 2013 19:17

The current site is an eyesore. The old pub wasn't a particularly beautiful building and looks ridiculous so close to the huge ghastly flats. Its silly getting onto our high horses for some principle, the site would look loads nicer with an open space and a few trees or cafe tables etc. I know this has all been said before, but its how most people I speak to feel.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

hairybuddha · Post by **hairybuddha** » 13 Sep 2013 19:29

^second that

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

gillyjp · Post by **gillyjp** » 13 Sep 2013 21:18

Third that - will common sense ever prevail???

gillyjp · Post by **gillyjp** » 13 Sep 2013 21:25

Eagle wrote:Simon

I think you speak a lot of sense. As I have mentioned before , with regret , I do not think there will ever be a viable pub built and operated in that site.

Not sure what , if anything , should go in its place. Very sad all round.

Let us put our effort in helping Mary save The Windmill, which already has a good building

Sorry Eagle - don't agree re the Windmill. The owners of the Windmill have already said it is not a viable business. It's a done deal with Sainsburys by the looks of things. Look at all the effort that went into 'Saving the Greyhound'. Is that what is wanted with the Windmill? Just to end up in the same predicament as we are now in with the Greyhound- No further forward and a derelict building at the Gateway to Sydenham. Please - lets learn the lessons from the Greyhound experience.

gillyjp · Post by **gillyjp** » 13 Sep 2013 21:37

Annie. wrote:No, they won't bother Eagle, no guts to take on a big company, I would love them to insist on dismantling the flats and putting it back as it was, even that was better than it is now.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Not just a question of no guts Annie - they've got no money for such action nor could they justify it to the Council Tax payer if they are having to chose between Children's Services (for instance) and this action. Lets face it LBL took their eye of the ball (did they ever have it on the ball is the question) by not conducting proper regular site visits to see what Pure Lake were up to during development build.

simono · Post by **simono** » 13 Sep 2013 22:36

It is time to think a bit differently and there seems to be a bit of a consensus forming. The Greyhound will not be rebuilt. The developer has no financial incentive to do so, indeed they will make a loss if they did. The reality is also that the Council does not have the appetite, money or power to make them do it.
Rather it would be better if the Council negotiated a deal where Purelake (ironic somehow given their record) knock the building down and create a high quality open space. That way one of the empty retail units currently boarded up and also blighting the area could be let as decent eating/drinking space with tables in the square etc. As things stand no one, including Sainsbury's will want to let a retail unit next to a ruin. And I hate to say it that if they open a shop at the Windmill I doubt if they will want to open one at the Greyhound. There are after all only so many convenience shops that any high street can stand in the same way as there are pound or betting shops or estate agents.

Sydenham Town Forum

The Community Voice for London SE26 since 2004