Going over old ground - The Hound that is Grey

[biscuitman1978]

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.

Sorry to repeat myself (see just a few posts above), but if people continue to ignore the facts...

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

[G-Man]

I've said it many times on this thread. It could easily be a viable pub. We've already lost The Two Halfs to a supermarket chain. Sydenham desperately needs more choice for its night time economy, to help continue its regeneration. Decent pubs are what drove both Lordship Lane and Crystal Palace. I wish people on this forum weren't so defeatist. As to be quite frank it annoys me and bores me. I have also heard through the grapevine that there are interested parties in the pub.

I look forward to supping a pint in there sometime in the future.

G-man

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[gillyjp]

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.

Sorry to repeat myself (see just a few posts above), but if people continue to ignore the facts...

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

I wasn't really disputing Lewisham's guts or lack of them Buscuitman - just merely pointing out that they don't have the money to be locked into legal disputes, racking up huge lawyers fees at the expense of the council tax payer - particularly given that they have more pressing commitments such as Children's Services to name but one. I think Sydenham's necessity for a pub pales into insignificance when compared with such demands.

[gillyjp]

I've said it many times on this thread. It could easily be a viable pub. We've already lost The Two Halfs to a supermarket chain. Sydenham desperately needs more choice for its night time economy, to help continue its regeneration. Decent pubs are what drove both Lordship Lane and Crystal Palace. I wish people on this forum weren't so defeatist. As to be quite frank it annoys me and bores me. I have also heard through the grapevine that there are interested parties in the pub.

I look forward to supping a pint in there sometime in the future.

G-man

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

It's one thing being defeatist but entirely another being realistic. How much more good money after bad can be thrown at this for the sake of a pub that quite frankly, the necessity for in Sydenham, is a matter of debate.

[leenewham]

Purelake intend to rebuild. Parties are interested in it. Current hold ups are to do with planning.

These are the facts. I wish people wouldn't spread baseless conjecture on this forum, like they did about sainsburys pulling out of the development, which was also pure speculation.

I'm with you gman.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[mosy]

leenewham, were you at the Sydenham Assembly meeting? I wonder as you haven't regarded any of the comments, questions or explanations given.

[Annie.]

That's good news Lee.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[leenewham]

Sorry mosy, I don't understand. Please clarify.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[simono]

I am not sure that people understand that the granting of planning permission means that anything will actually be built. The decision as to whether to build out a scheme is purely a commercial one i.e. will the developer make a profit? I am afraid I can see no prospect that Purelake will make any money from rebuilding the Greyhound in the current economic climate or any time soon. As such the works will not be carried out. The only hold the Council had in this matter, that the flats could not be occupied until the pub was refurbished, was surrendered for very good reason as was explained at the Sydenham Assembly. Also as was also explained at the same meeting it simply does not have the capacity to take planning enforcement action, especially as I suspect that any action would be vigorously defended and therefore would be very expensive. Yes the Council did successfully prosecute Purelake and they were fined £13k but that is a drop in the ocean in terms of this scheme and no injunction was attached to force the building works to be carried out. Again if the Council attempted such an injunction it would be vigorously defended and the Council has neither the money or resources to prosecute the case.
Also has anyone had a look at the building recently? I have a lot of experience in building and it is quite clear that the front elevation and other areas are suffering from significant structural failure. Purelake I am sure would argue that it is now uneconomic for them to refurbish the building and that is a valid defence in planning terms. As such we would have to chose between a pastiche of the original pub, although given the amount of work already done that is effectively what we have, or create a space that would be a real benefit to the area, far more I am afraid that an refurbished but empty building.

[Eagle]

I , also , know people very close to the site and they would welcome the building being pulled down as soon as possible.

If they would do it promptly then I would still welcome a nice rebuild , but I mean promptly. The site is now an ugly carbuncle , to quote the POW.

Perhaps in its place a statue of a former resident. For example Ernest Shackleton, W G Grace , Marti Wilde , Rolf Harris,
etc etc etc.
Only a suggestion.

[G-Man]

Er...Rolf Harris? I don't think so.

I hope it is rebuilt or if worst comes to the worst a modern bar replaces it. I still stand by us needing a pub at the site. Good pubs are essential to the regeneration of an area and we should be fighting to keep one at that site, instead of being defeatists or pessimistic realists if you prefer.

G-man

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[marymck]

I'm sure Sainsburys would love a forecourt, not a pub. A lovely stonking great advert for their ambitious expansion plans.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Nigel]

G-man is bang on the money again .
Some of us have skipped a few steps . Those of us that want to theorise about the viability of pubs are welcome to. I doubt any of us have any real insight into running a pub but that's fine .
What is clear is that Purelake agreed to restore the Greyhound and that's that .
As it stands they are watching it fall down and getting away with it while we mumble on about whether small pubs are viable .
Demolished pubs are NOT viable , that much is clear and despite what the super-intelligent on this forum will try to tell us , Purelake have every opportunity to resume work and they are choosing not to .
We have to up the pressure on them - "engagement " will follow when they are being publicly lampooned as the greedy , philistine vandals they are .
A very good afternoon
Nigel

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Rachael]

Okay, here's a question. Do the people who want the Greyhound rebuilt want the Greyhound building specifically, or just a pub on the site? Is it the loss of the building or the amenity that is the issue? If the current half-built reconstruction was knocked down and a really nice modern pub building put in its place, would that do? I know that's not going to happen, I just think there are two issues that are being conflated - saving the building, and having a pub on the site. The building has been demolished, so it can no longer be saved. So what are people fighting for now? A decent pub at that end of Sydenham Road? Okay. Now, is rebuilding the Greyhound brick-by-brick the best way to achieve that? If so, great, let's pursue that. But insisting that it be rebuilt just because Purelake shouldn't have knocked it down in the first place doesn't seem like a very strong argument to me.

I can see the other side of the argument too - if they knock it down, we just end up with a space. It's all very well asking for 'good quality' public space, but the quality of a public space is determined more by how it is used than the quality of the finishes. Are those the sorts of retail units that will attract cafes and restaurants that would put tables outside? If a use for the space isn't designated, it just stays an empty space.

[mosy]

Sorry mosy, I don't understand. Please clarify.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

It was a yes/no question, i.e. did you attend the Sydenham Assembly meeting? You're under no obligation to answer of course.

[Robin Orton]

If the current half-built reconstruction was knocked down and a really nice modern pub building put in its place, would that do? I know that's not going to happen, I just think there are two issues that are being conflated - saving the building, and having a pub on the site. The building has been demolished, so it can no longer be saved. So what are people fighting for now? A decent pub at that end of Sydenham Road? Okay. Now, is rebuilding the Greyhound brick-by-brick the best way to achieve that? If so, great, let's pursue that.

I should be very disappointed if whatever was eventually built wasn't able to accommodate Lee's mural.

[marymck]

Seconded, Robin!

I think the pub sign should be the grey hound lifting his leg over the Purelake logo.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[leenewham]

More wild speculation.

Purelake are awaiting planning to carry On. if anyone has evidence to the contrary please post.

Mosy, no I didn't go to the assembly. Why is that important? I don't understand.

This is why I believe the greyhound will be rebuilt:

Purelake have just received over 10 grands worth of mural tiles and spent more money on rendering the back wall of the pub which is as much as they could do without getting the recent planning conditions approved.

If they wanted to knock down the pub or didnt intend to finish it why would they spend tens of thousands of pounds on it only recently, plus the price of the scaffolding? My source says that the reason they haven't finished it is due to a hold up with planning which seems to be taking forever.

Please read biscuitmans posts. He knows more about this than anyone, as does my source which comes from within purelake.

Mary And robin, thanks.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[JulietP]

It would be an absolute travesty if Lee's tiles weren't used, given the time, effort and money he's put into them. I bet they look brilliant.

I cringe every time I see a post on here saying it should be pulled down. It is imperative that we let the planning process take its course, while keeping the pressure on purelake to keep to their word. I, for one, don't want to have any part in giving them any kind of excuse or get-out. We were promised a pub. We should stop being defeatist and hold firm for a pub!

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Nigel]

Julietp , fully agree. Encouraging to hear from Lee that there are some good signs from Purelake - I still maintain they have a good deal of previous and that pressure must be maintained .
Interesting thought about some of the viability arguments - if Purelake had done what they contracted to do and restored the pub, would the pub-economists among us have been arguing for it to be vandalised or demolished ? Probably not .
Similarly who would have argued for the Dolphin before Michael and Violetta transformed it?
Goes to show a pub ( like a shop) is just a space ( sometimes an important historic building too) and what matters is how it's run. Hugely looking forward to seeing the ceramics installed on a restored Greyhound and will accept nothing else.
Good afternoon
Nigel

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]