Going over old ground - The Hound that is Grey

[leenewham]

What could be nicer?

A decent pub eagle.

They can fix it and rebuild it. They managed to rebuild the Concrete house in Forest Hill and that was in worse state.

[Eagle]

I am not sure any pub in Forest Hill was ever in a worse state.

Which one are you refering to ?

[leenewham]

The concrete house. Surely you know what that is? You live in Forest Hill. The first Concrete house in the UK. Its listed, had a tree growing through it's roof, not that it had a roof. Just off the south circular, near the now empty harvester pub.

[Rachael]

More info on the Concrete House and its award-winning restoration here:
http://www.bdonline.co.uk/the-concrete- ... 81.article

It was in a much worse state than the Greyhound and had the disadvantage of being a prototype in its day, using unconventional building methods. The restoration is very impressive indeed.

[leenewham]

It is impressive and an asset to the area Rachael.

Much nicer than a flower bed.

[Tim Lund]

The Dulwich Society also has this on the restoration

The Concrete House Restoration by Paul Latham

which I see involved a compulsory purchase order. Could Lewisham use one of these for the Greyhound?

[Eagle]

Sorry Lee. Under misapprehension you were refering to a licensed premises. My mistake

Of course no this building well.

[angela53]

[Had a good look and it is an absolute mess and disgrace]

I agree, absolutely shocking with boarded up retail space adding to the eyesore with no end in sight!
If the original pub had been refurbished it would have made Sydenham - I would knock it down and get rid of the empty retail space. We have had great improvements to the high street, so sad that this has spoiled it all.

[Tim Lund]

[Had a good look and it is an absolute mess and disgrace]

I agree, absolutely shocking with boarded up retail space adding to the eyesore with no end in sight!
If the original pub had been refurbished it would have made Sydenham - I would knock it down and get rid of the empty retail space. We have had great improvements to the high street, so sad that this has spoiled it all.

Abstaining on the question of knocking down the Greyhound, but please let's not get rid of the empty retail behind - those will be some of the few purpose built spaces with room to swing cats They will fill!

[leenewham]

But we need to fill them with something good. Not another bloody convince store selling exactly the same things as every one else.

I'd rather have an empty unit than than.

And a decent pub in the Greyhound.

[G-Man]

Knocking down the pub - defeatist! Purelake have done wrong, they need to pay and it will be resurrected and I can't wait.

And yes. We need some decent retailers and units being let out at a decent rent. The powers that be (maybe the Sydenham Society and SEE3) need to get involved and make sure we don't get more tosh.

G-Man

[Nigel]

G-man I agree entirely - there seem to be no consequences for Purelake apart from the court ruling achieved by LB lewisham which I applaud .
It does worry me that Purelake see these posts and will see us as a mewling shower of complicaters - with the odd teetotaller banging on about preferring a " piazza " whatever that is .
It remains simple - Purlelake are devious conniving shysters who defaced Sydenham , don't respond to emails or calls and cost the tax payer a fortune and they need to be made to complete . After that they can do one - we have no need for them so i hope nobody tries the " we must keep avenues open with business " on this one .
It's funny how they managed to build those awful low-grade flats so quickly .
We should push for plan A , immediately and in full.
A very good evening
Nigel

[angela53]

I agree with you Nigel

[perryman]

which I see involved a compulsory purchase order. Could Lewisham use one of these for the Greyhound?

I agree with Tim. Buy it, complete the work they both promised, and sell/lease the pub.
Then the lawyers can chase up purelake for the costs.

[harrym]

Wouldn't you rather a lovely open space than a bad impersonation of an historic pub? I agree that Purelake should not be allowed to get away with the mess they have left the site and the building in but aesthetically having the pub there just doesn't work.

Before you lynch me... I love the idea of bringing a really good pub to Sydenham (!) and there are some great suggestions on the forum - bringing the Regency Club back to life as an independent cinema / bar for example - but we should let the Greyhound go.

I didn't know Sydenham pre this debacle, but coming with fresh eyes I don't think the new flats are unattractive and with some thought and good design the site could be a really welcoming open space. An urban wild flower meadow and sanctuary for bees maybe with some beautiful benches on which to sit and enjoy the hypothetical sunshine. Or a square with cafés and outdoor tables would be lovely.

Putting our efforts into saving a pub which no longer exists in any meaningful form and will never look good in its current position, is surely a bit self defeating...

[gillyjp]

I'm right with you on that harrym. In fact most of my posts about the lost Greyhound have been about pulling what is left of it down and having a public square. The picture you paint of cafes with outside seating sounds just what we, possibly the nearest neighbours to this embarrassment, want.

I think it's time to cut our losses, and lets face it, they are few and far between with what we have now on that site. With the current onslaught of bad weather taking it's toll on what remains of the old pub, it's time for new ideas and a complete change to give Sydenham the 'gateway' it deserves and badly needs.

[Tim Lund]

A square will become what squares always become - a front piece to shop facades - yet more neon signage, in addition to which the al fresco seating will be irrelevant for two thirds of the year.

So much for pocket parks.

[Tim Lund]

which I see involved a compulsory purchase order. Could Lewisham use one of these for the Greyhound?

I agree with Tim. Buy it, complete the work they both promised, and sell/lease the pub.
Then the lawyers can chase up purelake for the costs.

I was being a bit facetious. I don't know much about CPOs, but I understand they are not undertaken lightly, since they involve significant costs to the local council. In this case, I think the site with the requirement to rebuild the pub is, financially, a liability rather than an asset, so I I was thinking Purelake would love to be shot of it. The point it to ask whether there is anyone with the money required who thinks it could be, financially, an asset. To move forward from here, we need to have an estimate of what the costs of completing the work would be, and a realistic assessment of where they might come from. Setting lawyers on to chasing up Purelake for them after the event is not, IMHO, a realistic approach to funding anything.

[JRobinson]

Harrym, you say you weren't here earlier to see what it used to be like, well that's surely the point.
Before, there were no flats - these were built by Purelake, and they only got planning permission with certain constraints, one of which was keeping the pub open. Surely it makes a mockery of the whole system of having planning laws and applications if the developer just builds what they want anyway, reneges on agreements about the pub, makes money from selling the flats, wrangles in legalese about finishing agreed works, then states that the building is in such bad repair as to be unsalvageable (a state that they've let it fall into), and then knocks it down, and is not held to account.

I'm sure there would have been uproar 10 years ago, if we'd have been told that no matter what we did, or how much we demonstrated, or put views forward, or what was previously agreed, that in the end the developer would build horrible new flats, knock down the pub, and walk away a lot richer.

and those people on here who post comments about knocking it down, and getting rid of an eyesore, are just helping them in a battle that's already going to be hard for the council and locals who want whats right. They'll just use those posts as evidence in favour of them going back on their word.

it makes me angry! GRRRRRrrrrr!

[Tim Lund]

So much for pocket parks.

This may sounds like a politicians answer, but I'd prefer a pub.

Would it be less politic to expand then, and say that you cannot argue this space would not also be valuable, without the pub, and at the same time welcome pocket parks elsewhere in Sydenham Road?

Perhaps this is the way to end the impasse - apply to the GLA Pocket Parks Programme

If the space could be designed and managed so that of a summer evening, Late Knights



More here

or some other local craft brewer could set up a stall, with outside seating, could we on this Forum help with additional crowd funding

As an alternative and innovative way of raising funds, or as a potential mechanism for raising match-funding for a Pocket Parks grant, upload your project to the London Pocket Parks page on the crowdfunding web-site Spacehive.

Heritage and Pocket Parks

If your project has heritage value, you may wish to contact the Heritage Lottery Fund about funding opportunities under their Sharing Heritage or Our Heritage grant programmes. For more information, please see website http://www.hlf.org.uk/Pages/Home.aspx or telephone 020 7591 6151.

- See more at: http://www.london.gov.uk/priorities/env ... JpEop.dpuf

Is there no way the space could be designed to refer to its heritage value? I'm sure there is