Online petition to save the Windmill

[Eagle]

Tim
Decent pubs are profitable now.

Hopefully if saved it will become a niche pub for good ale and homecooked food. They will attract a new clientelle that will make the pub acceptable to the more snooty members on this Forum.


Good Luck Mary. Sydenham is with you.

[marymck]

Sainsburys intend to make so many structural alterations that the building - which is a well designed access compliant multi function space, can never be used as a function room again.

This has to be an exaggeration. Obviously there's a cost to any refitting, and a cost to reversing a refitting, but I can't see how any changes Sainsbury's might make can make it impossible to go back to an earlier use; it's just a matter of cost, and if pubs do become more profitable in future, then it can as easily go back to being a pub as now it is going to be a supermarket.

I and others more qualified than I have studied the building plans. Obviously there is no point in trying to convince you Tim, and I've long given up trying. But I urge others to study the plans and reach their own conclusions. I draw their special attention to the rear extensions.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Tim Lund]

Mary - can you post those plans for general inspection?

Who are those more qualified than you who have seen them?

[marymck]

I have posted the links Tim! Ages ago on the windmill thread (not the petition thread) on this site. The plans are on Lewisham's website.

Of course I know you're just being mischievous, but for the benefit of others, as Tim knows, qualified and experienced architects sit on SydSoc's planning and conservation sub committee. They have seen the plans. Indeed one of the architects wrote key parts of SydSoc's objection.

In Tim's time as Chair, the sub committee had one architect member. Now the sub committee has two.

Tim knows who these people are. I have also shown the plans to people I know who are qualified in specialized areas of design. It is not for me or Tim to put these people's names on this site without first seeking their permission to do so.

But let people judge for themselves whether they think the drastic changes that include a rear extension of a three storey solid brick wall can be described as "refitting". And whether any future publican is going to pay out to reverse those structural changes. I think Not on Planet Reality.

I apologise if I sound sharp, Tim. It just gets a bit wearing to be asked question after question that I've already answered on here. Especially when I know your mind is made up and I'm just letting myself in for another put down. When I have access to a desktop I will try to post yet another link to the plans.

[Tim Lund]

Mary - this is what you posted 8 September

DC/13/84358 | Alterations to the front elevation of 125-131 Kirkdale SE26, including the installation of a new shopfront and customer entrance door. | 125-131 KIRKDALE, LONDON, SE26 4QJ
http://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online- ... CAPR_70972

DC/13/84359 | The construction of a two storey extension to the rear of 125-131 Kirkdale SE26, to accommodate goods lift and emergency stairs. | 125-131 KIRKDALE, LONDON, SE26 4QJ
http://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online- ... CAPR_70973

DC/13/84360 | The installation of plant equipment on the roof of 125-131 Kirkdale SE26 | 125-131 KIRKDALE, LONDON, SE26 4QJ
http://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online- ... CAPR_70974

DC/13/84356 | The installation of an ATM to the shopfront of 125-131 Kirkdale SE26 | 125-131 KIRKDALE, LONDON, SE26 4QJ
http://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online- ... CAPR_70970

DC/13/84357 | The display of two internally-illuminated fascia signs, one externally-illuminated projecting sign and one non-illuminated panel sign at 125-131 Kirkdale SE26. | 125-131 KIRKDALE, LONDON, SE26 4QJ
http://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online- ... CAPR_70971

DC/13/84355 | An application submitted under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for minor material amendment in connection with the variation of Condition (5) of planning permission DC/99/44839 dated 15 December 1999 in order to allow the hours of operation for the retail unit to be 07.00-23.00 (previously consented hours 08.00-23.00). | 125-131 KIRKDALE, LONDON, SE26 4QJ
http://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online- ... CAPR_70969

Since you mention in particular the rear extension, I've just had a look at the application DC/13/84359, which include before and after sections. From these, to my untrained eye, it seem internal space is being created, so still no evidence that I can see of how this space is being messed up for all time. Anyone who wants can follow those links I put on the words 'before' and 'after' here.

The documents on Lewisham's site do not include SydSoc's objection, which is not unusual, but this document is in the public domain, and available for inspection at the planning department's offices, so if you have a copy, why not publish it here?

I didn't know SydSoc's planning sub-committee had a second architect, and I don't know his / her name.

I used the word 'refit' on the assumption that some changes were being made to the existing internal space which would make it difficult to change back, so I hadn't realised that the objection was to adding something at the back. How can this be a problem?

It's not a matter of having a mind made up - it's just that it is very implausible that conversion to a supermarket will make any interior space less flexible in the long run, e.g. by making it less wheel-chair accessible. I understand (but don't sympathise with) your objections to the loss of a pub, but that should be another matter. However, I have to think you are letting this actual objection lead you into making absurdly weak arguments on other grounds.

[marymck]

Sigh ... well let's just agree to disagree and leave others to make up their own minds. Best for people to print them all out and view them side by side, because they've been confusingly split between the various applications such that you have to see three "proposed" elevations and imagine them as one. The 3 storey brick wall of the rear elevation (where the outdoor patio seating is now) was only apparent to me when I saw "to scale" print outs side by side.

[JMLF]

signed! and passed on to a few.
In case the thread has been lost (I had to search online for the website) - here is the petition -

http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/s ... hese-plans#

[marymck]

Thank you JMLF. Much appreciated.

[Eagle]

Mary

Ignore any negative comments you are doing an amazing job for the community.

Well done from all sensible local people.

[parker]

Well done from all sensible local people.

Aww thanks Eagle

[Eagle]

Glad to be of help Parker. One does one's best to support those helping the community.

[Tim Lund]

Just looking at this on the Council planning pages, and found this document

Dear Hugo

125 – 131 Kirkdale, Lewisham – Application refs: DC/13/84356, DC/13/84357, DC/13/84358, DC/13/84359, DC/13/84360 and DC/13/84355

Please see below additional information and clarification on a number of points raised by the Sydenham Society and third parties.

Loss of public house

The change of use from the existing lawful use as a public house (Class A4) to a retail use (Class A1) is Permitted Development not requiring planning permission by virtue of the Town and Country (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended).

Sainsbury’s would emphasise therefore that the change of use from a public house to retail use is not itself a subject for consideration by the Council given it is Permitted Development. Further, the nomination for listing of the building as a Community Asset was rejected by the Council (16 July 2013) for the following reasons:

The public house is not used beyond being a venue for the consumption of alcohol and activities associated with the consumption of alcohol. No evidence of any other community use of the asset was provided.

There is also a question about the financial viability of this assets continued use a public house. The current owners have been marketing the public house since 2008 and have failed to find any brewery or publican interested in acquiring. No community group expressed any interest in purchasing or leasing the public house during this period.

In its response, the Council stated there are two other public houses very close with a further eight public houses within walking distance (less than one mile).

In addition to the above, the owner of the property has confirmed that the public house is running at a loss and has been for a considerable time. The landlord states that the pub will close in the New Year. Lastly, it is worth noting that even if the pub were listed as an Asset of Community Value, Sainsbury’s will only be taking a leasehold interest of under 25 years, and therefore the Assets of Community Value Regulations would not class this as a ‘relevant disposal’ and therefore a community right to bid would not be triggered.

...

We hope that the above information clarifies matters raised by objectors and we would request that this letter is placed on the public file and uploaded to the Council’s website.

Should Officers have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely

Nicholas Milner
Planner

It would be good if the Sydenham Society were similarly confident about the quality of its comments on planning, which will also be on the public file, and could ask for them to be uploaded to the Council’s website as well.

Any chance?

[Nigel]

Well done Tim - short of taking a sledgehammer to its doors I can't see there is any more you can do to dismantle the building as a pub .
It's the triumph of intellect over common sense and I hope we CAN'T count on your support for the Greyhound !
Good afternoon
Nigel

[marymck]

Of course we've been through all this before. The owners have made certain claims that have been disproved. That Sainsburys and Tim continue believe them is entirely up to them. Neither of them want a pub on the site. Hopefully Lewisham will judge on evidence, which in this case contradicts the owners assertions.

Tim is taking us back over ground we've gone over time and time again. I wish he'd find something positive to expend his energies on.

[michael]

Lastly, it is worth noting that even if the pub were listed as an Asset of Community Value, Sainsbury’s will only be taking a leasehold interest of under 25 years, and therefore the Assets of Community Value Regulations would not class this as a ‘relevant disposal’ and therefore a community right to bid would not be triggered.

I would like to thank Tim for bringing this to our attention as I think it is a deficiency in the law. the idea that a brewery cannot sell a recognised Asset of Community Value, but can lease it to a supermarket for 25 years or longer, demonstrates just how difficult it is for the community to make a difference, even when a pub (or any other building) is recognised as an Asset of Community Value.

All this demonstrates is exactly how hard it is to save a pub, be it the Tigers Head, the Green Man, the Two Halves, the Greyhound, the Woodman, the Windmill, the Honor Oak, the Railway Bridge, the Two Brewers, etc
Given the profits available from converting a pub into residential or supermarket, where do we expect this trend to end? We are probably in danger of ending up with as many pubs in Lewisham as we have cinemas (none). And once they are gone there is little chance of bringing them back to the area.

[Tim Lund]

All this demonstrates is exactly how hard it is to save a pub, be it the Tigers Head, the Green Man, the Two Halves, the Greyhound, the Woodman, the Windmill, the Honor Oak, the Railway Bridge, the Two Brewers, etc
Given the profits available from converting a pub into residential or supermarket, where do we expect this trend to end? We are probably in danger of ending up with as many pubs in Lewisham as we have cinemas (none). And once they are gone there is little chance of bringing them back to the area.

You can expect the trend to end when the supply of development opportunites increases enough for pubs and cinemas to be no longer priced out by residential, supermarkets and any others which do currently get financed.

[Tim Lund]

Everyone obviously wants pubs to be well run, and not encourage irresponsible drinking. However, this is exactly what an over supply of pubs is likely to do. Having just looked at the evidence given to last year's Lewisham report "Preserving Local Pubs", I find Max Alderman from the Antic pub group saying, para 2.4:

He reported that the difficult situation that some pub landlords find themselves in may exacerbate problems associated with alcohol misuse as they struggle to remain in profit.

[Tim Lund]

Of course we've been through all this before. The owners have made certain claims that have been disproved. That Sainsburys and Tim continue believe them is entirely up to them. Neither of them want a pub on the site. Hopefully Lewisham will judge on evidence, which in this case contradicts the owners assertions.

Tim is taking us back over ground we've gone over time and time again. I wish he'd find something positive to expend his energies on.

We only have your word for it that any claims have been disproved until you say what claims you mean, and you put the evidence to support your counter claims in the public domain.

[marymck]

Of course we've been through all this before. The owners have made certain claims that have been disproved. That Sainsburys and Tim continue believe them is entirely up to them. Neither of them want a pub on the site. Hopefully Lewisham will judge on evidence, which in this case contradicts the owners assertions.

Tim is taking us back over ground we've gone over time and time again. I wish he'd find something positive to expend his energies on.

We only have your word for it that any claims have been disproved until you say what claims you mean, and you put the evidence to support your counter claims in the public domain.

Why doesn't it surprised that Tim is prepared to take the word of a property developer, rather than my word? No need to reply Tim. That is a rhetorical question. As Tim is clearly not interested in reading and inwardly digesting my many posts on this subject, I see no point in repeating them yet again. Life frankly is too short and I prefer to save my time and energies on those who have open minds. Though, in passing, I thank Tim for posting evidence disposing of the owner's claim that he has no money and can't afford to meet his mortgage payments.

[Tim Lund]

Why doesn't it surprised that Tim is prepared to take the word of a property developer, rather than my word? No need to reply Tim. That is a rhetorical question. As Tim is clearly not interested in reading and inwardly digesting my many posts on this subject, I see no point in repeating them yet again. Life frankly is too short and I prefer to save my time and energies on those who have open minds. Though, in passing, I thank Tim for posting evidence disposing of the owner's claim that he has no money and can't afford to meet his mortgage payments.

As far as I can see, I am the only person on this thread who took the trouble to look up any of the planning case references you referred to, and so found evidence that there would be no permanent loss of internal space which could physically be returned to use as a pub if there was more demand for it than for a supermarket.

It's safer not to take anyone's word at face value - that's why it's better to rely on evidence which has been put in the public domain, and so can be tested. If the Sydenham Society evidence could also be put in the public domain, it would give it more credence. In this case there is every reason to think the planning consultants used by Sainsbury's know what they are talking about, and have approached the matter with the utmost care. I say that not because they are any friends of mine, but because (1) they have a professional reputation to maintain, and if they mess this one up, Sainsbury's, who will be a prime client, will not be too impressed, and (2) with the experience of the Greyhound behind them, they are well aware of just how tricky it can be to do business in Sydenham.