Online petition to save the Windmill

[marymck]

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.

I'd be interested in what evidence you have that you are " the only person on this thread who took the trouble to look up any of the planning case references". That's rather insulting to people on this site. I clearly have more faith in them than you do. It's not surprising though that you are the only person who found no loss to the internal space. Of course you are. You're misreading the plans and playing with words. I trust by mistake.

Hmm the Greyhound ... just remind newcomers to Sydenham Tim. Greyhound? SydSoc? On your watch?

But yes, I agree property developers can be a tricky bunch to do business with. Neither Purelake nor St Gabriel Properties are of course Sydenham based. Thus proving the old adage ... they don't poo on their own doorstep.

[JMLF]

No problem Mary - I've never even been in (!) as only just been discovering the south east but am hopefully moving not to far away and recently did a recce of the area and it just doesn't make any sense when there is already a costcutter and tesco express. Mental.
I am definately on board with the gent who recommended someone should take in a laptop and get people to sign up. Failing Wi-Fi isn't there some fancy technological thing you can do with 3g or a mobile network with a computer? (I don't have the foggiest but just putting out ideas). Would seem like an easy way to massively boost the low number of people who have signed up online...

[squashst]

I drank in the Windmill when it was a Wetherspoons and over the years had an occassional pint after squash (a puff for Sydenham Tennis Club in Lawrie Park Rd). My favourite pub - no..but I lean to once you lose a pub, you lose a pub. If a pub remains it can evolve. So I would prefer to see it stay open as a pub, though it will be an uphill struggle re conversion to a mini-supermarket(see the Catford Bridge Tavern, now close and shuttered)

Also living in the distant lands of Honor Oak, I am a little wary of dismissing "boozers" like the Chandos or (in FHill) the Bird in Hand. Removing the "straight up and down drinking houses" will not remove drinking! Or if you do remove those pubs, it will be more street drinking.

Can't comment on the cross-fire re role of Sydenham Society, but I suspect a local voice is useful?

[G-Man]

Just so you know the Catford Bridge Tavern has been bought by Camden pubs and bars who own the very successful Lock Tavern in Camden. It is being converted into a brewpub - yep a pub with its own brewery.

If Lewisham helped save the CBT, why not the Windmill?

G-Man

[marymck]

Great news about the Catford Bridge Tavern. Some people may think the councillors saved that one because it's the council local. But I couldn't possibly comment.

I am planning to take my laptop into the windmill, as soon as time and my data allowance permit. I will need to set up email accounts for those who want to sign but don't have them. Anyone know the quickest and easiest to set up?

[Tim Lund]

once you lose a pub, you lose a pub

. Well, obviously not strictly true, but the real point is whether pubs can emerge as well as be lost. We know they can, thanks to the case of the Sylvan Post, and new watering hole is in principle on its way in 278-280 Kirkdale.

You say that the Windmill was not your favourite pub, and from what you write, you would have always had alternatives, e.g. The Bricklayer's Arms, The Foxes, and at the bar at the Sydenham Tennis Club. So hardly a strong case for saving the Windmill.

Removing the "straight up and down drinking houses" will not remove drinking! Or if you do remove those pubs, it will be more street drinking.

The big picture is a decline in alcohol consumption



Source here

So it's not as if there is any futile campaign here to curb the evils of the demon drink by removing the "straight up and down drinking houses", just an acceptance needed of businesses adapting to offer what they think people want - in this case, doubtless backed by hard headed economic analysis at Sainsbury's head office, a super-market. Of course they may be wrong, in which case the premises may revert to being a pub if a convincing case for one can be made.

If the Windmill is lost, some of its former clientele may chose instead to drink on the streets. More likely, however, they will go to the nearby Foxes, Bricklayer's Arms or drink at home.

Can't comment on the cross-fire re role of Sydenham Society, but I suspect a local voice is useful?

Of course local voices are useful, but it is a struggle sometime for others to get heard. As JulietP wrote earlier on this thread

Anyone that disagrees with Mary's worldview = misinformed, misguided, lacking in humanity, spiteful and vilified.

No wonder everyone who disagrees has quietly slipped away, unwilling to be berated and scolded into submission.

[Tim Lund]

If Lewisham helped save the CBT, why not the Windmill?
G-Man

It would be worth looking into the economics of this. In the Windmill case, the owners are being asked to take a financial hit, in not enjoying the benefit of a 15 year lease from a prime tenant such as Sainsbury's. Who is the owner of the CBT? Are they being hit similarly, or is there some cross subsidy? It's a long story, which I've not followed, but there are some interesting comments on this thread on Brockley Central - Catford Bridge Tavern - Death and Rebirth

[Tim Lund]

I'd be interested in what evidence you have that you are " the only person on this thread who took the trouble to look up any of the planning case references". That's rather insulting to people on this site. I clearly have more faith in them than you do. It's not surprising though that you are the only person who found no loss to the internal space. Of course you are. You're misreading the plans and playing with words. I trust by mistake.

The evidence is that I am the only person who has made a specific comment on the contents of the plans, with a link to the pages on the Lewisham planning web site. I'm sorry if anyone felt insulted. If anyone else has looked at them, and would like to explain why my layman's reading of them is wrong, please take this opportunity.

Hmm the Greyhound ... just remind newcomers to Sydenham Tim. Greyhound? SydSoc? On your watch?

In one of the many threads on the Greyhound I have dealt this this. I allowed myself to be bamboozled, I trusted in the enormously greater experience of members of the SydSoc planning committee in looking at plans than myself, and I have learned the lessons.

[marymck]

Luckily for the able bodied there are still a couple of pubs left that they can use. (Though one of them is in the sights of the developers.) But (oh God I can't believe I'm being suckered into this again) as I have said again and again, the windmill more than a pub. I shan't go over the events that it's used for yet again. but I will repeat that no other local venues offer fully disabled access. not everyone in our community is as fit and healthy as Tim. I think those people are worthy of our support.

As got Tim's repeating Juliet's scurrilous accusations, they are not true. some people put their opinions on here as FACTS. Opinions are not facts. I have always said that people are entitled to their opinions - with the exception of describing the Windmill's customers as scum. It's when lies are repeated as if they're facts that I get upset, because if lies get repeated enough people start to believe it.

Tim is repeating a lie about me and I ask him to retract it.

[Tim Lund]

Tim is repeating a lie about me and I ask him to retract it.

Can you be more specific?

[marymck]

Tim is repeating a lie about me and I ask him to retract it.

Can you be more specific?

Juliet's post, which you repeated.

[marymck]

Luckily for the able bodied there are still a couple of pubs left that they can use. (Though one of them is in the sights of the developers.) But (oh God I can't believe I'm being suckered into this again) as I have said again and again, the windmill more than a pub. I shan't go over the events that it's used for yet again. but I will repeat that no other local venues offer fully disabled access. not everyone in our community is as fit and healthy as Tim. I think those people are worthy of our support.

As got Tim's repeating Juliet's scurrilous accusations, they are not true. some people put their opinions on here as FACTS. Opinions are not facts. I have always said that people are entitled to their opinions - with the exception of describing the Windmill's customers as scum. It's when lies are repeated as if they're facts that I get upset, because if lies get repeated enough people start to believe it.

Tim is repeating a lie about me and I ask him to retract it.

I refer you to the final two paragraphs Tim.

[Tim Lund]

One of the points on this thread which I have tried to make it the value in putting arguments in the public domain. It is one of the most valuable features of the planning system, and as far as I know, it has always been the case that if anyone submits comments on a planning application, those comments lie on the public file. Here in Lewisham, anyone who wishes to see who has said what only has to go down to the Planning department in Laurence House, quote the reference number, and ask to see the file. It will be brought out, although it's advisable to let the officers know in advance, since they may be working on it. Once you have the file, any notes can be taken, but easier, and safer, to photograph any pages you are interested in, so that notes can be checked.

It is rather cumbersome and time consuming, and better adapted for the 1940s when (I assume) Town & Country Planning Acts established such procedures, but the principle is excellent. It makes our planning system an example of 'Open Data' government with all that offers for widespread democratic involvement, before 'Open Data' became a buzz word (or phrase). However, we are now in the 21st century, and many of us, especially younger people, lead busier lives, so it would be normal to expect all submissions on planning matters to be published on line. This is what Mr Milner of Turley Associates requested for his submission, and he is to be applauded for it.

For some of us, without specific technical expertise, it can be quite scary, because you risk being made to look an idiot. I know, because some years ago I made a submission to a planning inquiry, and, so I was told afterwards, the other side's barrister made mincemeat of me. I didn't actually quite understand what was happening. But if you don't take such risks, you let the other side win by default, just thanks to their greater chutzpah, while if you do, but lose, you have an opportunity to learn from your mistakes. And also anyone one else following what is going on learns too. So in this case we all would benefit from Mary putting all the Sydenham Society submissions on line - what has anyone to lose?

There was a time when the Sydenham Society ventured into the brave new world of the 21st century, and published such a submission - Sainsbury's application for 24 hour trading at Bell Green. This happened when I was its Chair, and I know that some of the hostile comments made in response to iit were felt to be very hurtful, and AFAIK, the experiment with openness has not been repeated. This is a shame, because it would be the most effective way in which SydSoc could up its game.

[marymck]

Tim Will you retract your repeat of Juliet's post? Yes or no?

[Tim Lund]

Tim is repeating a lie about me and I ask him to retract it.

Can you be more specific?

Juliet's post, which you repeated.

What I quoted was:

Anyone that disagrees with Mary's worldview = misinformed, misguided, lacking in humanity, spiteful and vilified.

No wonder everyone who disagrees has quietly slipped away, unwilling to be berated and scolded into submission.

which I interpreted to mean that this is what you said of anyone who disagrees with you, leading to them quietly slipping away. Which of "misinformed, misguided, lacking in humanity, spiteful and vilified" do you feel I am not?

[marymck]

[quote="Tim

What I quoted was:

Anyone that disagrees with Mary's worldview = misinformed, misguided, lacking in humanity, spiteful and vilified.

No wonder everyone who disagrees has quietly slipped away, unwilling to be berated and scolded into submission.

which I interpreted to mean that this is what you said of anyone who disagrees with you, leading to them quietly slipping away. Which of "misinformed, misguided, lacking in humanity, spiteful and vilified" do you feel I am not?[/quote]

Well obviously you're not quietly slipping away! (Joke BTW)

But seriously, yes you have interpreted it wrongly. Where have I ever said those things of anyone? I asked that people distinguish between their opinion and facts. And I've said everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Juliet said I'd said those things. It wasn't't true. Now you're repeating it. That's shabby Tim. Very shabby.

I have said people have been misinformed. The owner made assertions, repeated by Sainsburys, unsupported by facts and contradicted by witnesses.

If anyone is being villified here it's me and the Windmill's customers, who have had some terrible things said about them.

Now please withdraw your repeat of Juliet's inaccurate post. It's dangerous to my reputation and to this campaign because if inaccurate things get repeated people start to believe the lies.

[Tim Lund]

Where have I ever said those things of anyone?

How about here?

Sadly Tim you THINK you know humanity. But perhaps you really should ask yourself how many times you are the only one marching in step?

I have said people have been misinformed. The owner made assertions, repeated by Sainsburys, unsupported by facts and contradicted by witnesses.

OK, but let's have the specific assertions you feel are untrue in the public domain, and who your witnesses are. As far as I can tell, the statements in question are about the profitability of the pub, which should be a straightforward matter of fact and uncontroversial expert opinion.

If anyone is being villified here it's me and the Windmill's customers, who have had some terrible things said about them.

Now please withdraw your repeat of Juliet's inaccurate post. It's dangerous to my reputation and to this campaign because if inaccurate things get repeated people start to believe the lies.

I think Juliet's post was an expression of opinion, but it accurately described how I have felt vilified on this thread. I'm sorry if you feel the same way on the other side.

[marymck]

Sigh ... I didn't say you were lacking humanity Tim. I said you lacked UNDERSTANDING of humanity. Read the post. And you are quoting - as usual - out of context.

I have never posted lies about you. yet you continue to post lies about me. Enough now Tim. I'm out. You've won. Gloat all you care to, but please don't spread lies. It's only your skin that's thick.

[mosy]

It'll be good for the lawyers to know that locals can't even agree amongst themselves won't it I do think the comment made in this thread yesterday,should be heeded:
[quote]
...clip...
"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.
...clip...
[endquote] (michael's post timedated 16 Dec 10.49)

To me, that means a back door, if you like, is already open and can't be closed by objections or persuasion, only by a change in the regs. I don't know if exceptions can be made, but theoretically after 25 years expire maybe another 25 years can start (dunno) but either way it's hardly protecting of Asset(s) of Community Value

[Tim Lund]

Mosy - designating certain buildings as 'assets of community value' begs the question of why other buildings aren't also deemed of community value. I think you could say any place where people meet up is of community value, so cafés, churches, nail bars, and probably many more. Some of these will have planning protection on architectural grounds, but that is another matter. Either you take this sort of policy to its logical conclusion, which will have the effect of deterring any commercail landlord from letting their property be used for social purposes, for fear of not being allowed to sell in due course, or it is limited to just some, which in practice will be just those which immediately appear to local activists to matter. So in this case entirely predictable bias towards the social spaces preferred by an older generation, whose use is in long term decline. They don't look to protect nurseries, where young parents will do much their socialising, or cafés, which are increasing in popularity. So much the better, because it would have the sort of chilling effect on landlords described.

I regret lawyers and other professionals having to waste their time with this sort of stuff, but the fault lies with Lewisham Council in bringing in this absurd policy. I have a much more confident view of communities, as being what happens whenever people get together to do something, or sometimes just talk about it. This Forum is itself a sort of community, but there are no Council policies to protect it, as far as I know. Other communities are allotment associations and sports clubs, such as written about long ago by Summerbreeze when she asked 'What is a community'.

I don't say these need protection. Rather, I would say is the poorest and most vulnerable who need protection, and these are not the regular frequenters of pubs, or if they are, keeping the pubs open is not what they need.