Going over old ground - The Hound that is Grey

[Sydenham Syd]

Is there any reason why Lewisham planners can't just put a gun against Purelake's head:

"Unless you sort it out by X date, we will bring [x] prosecution against you for failing to rebuild. We don't give a stuff about the nature of the commercial agreement you come to with the other partiers, or if they screw you into the ground just to get a deal - that's not our problem. You created this situation - suffer the consequences."

The dude that owns Purelake is called Barry White - although not the walrus of love, I think he is probably at arms length from this one. Despite them being pretty despicable and a hard ar*e construction firm, I am struggling to think that they are the main issue here. Seems to me that everything I have heard and read it is the council/planners that are refusing to budge. I could be totally wrong however.

[biscuitman1978]

Seems to me that everything I have heard and read it is the council/planners that are refusing to budge. I could be totally wrong however.

Welcome to the Forum, Sydenham Syd.

I agree, in the sense that the Council's Plan A (get the deed of variation signed and planning permission formally granted, thereby allowing Purelake to get back on site to rebuild the pub) hasn't worked, and it appears to have no Plan B or Plan C.

In case anyone's not clear the alternative plans should, in my view, be:
- Plan B: use an independent mediator to try to break the deadlock on the deed of variation; and, if that doesn't work
- Plan C: take enforcement action to force rebuilding (I think this is possible but officers at the Council need to advise and then Members would need to resolve to do it)

[Sydenham Syd]

Thanks biscuitman - I have been a resident of SE26 for about 8 years, and often go onto the forum to have a quick browse over the odd discussion, particular fave topics have been the plethora of chicken shops, lack of trees (improving) and a few others, but nothing has quite annoyed me as much as this issue because it is just riddled by absurd bureaucracy. I am pretty certain that Purelake would ideally like to get this sorted and move on - they are a private sector firm who need to make money and this is tarnishing their brand - whereas the council have no investors or critics with any power at all, and are employed to argue to toss over these sorts of discussions and there is no place for taking the higher ground. Someone release the cork - Chris Best doesn't seem to have any clue whatsoever as to how to begin to deal with this; probably not her fault, but then again its kinda the job.

[owlwise]

Cllr Best and Cllr Smith should get their act together and arrange formal mediation between the parties to come to an agreement. This is ridiculous and has gone on long enough. Us residents are sick of the sight of this eyesore. I spoke to someone at Purelake this morning and was told that it is out of their hands and that they are well aware of how upset residents are.

If enough residents kick up a fuss about it then something will get done. An online petition perhaps or the old fashioned kind of knocking on doors to get signatures, etc.??

The PR damage this eyesore is doing to Sydenham is enormous and is a shame considering we are doing our best to improve the image of our high street. Anyone approaching the Cobbs Corner roundabout is faced with this derelict building and is not a good impression. Something must be done about it!!!

[Tim Lund]

- Some of the parties almost certainly don't trust one another (hardly a surprise given Purelake's track record on this site), so they are struggling to agree on some of the issues in (and related to) the deed of variation, as well as wanting to ensure everything is absolutely watertight
- Council officers have, rightly or wrongly, been unwilling to get involved in the deed of variation as the outstanding issues are 'commercial issues' between the parties (hence my suggestion that an independent mediator is brought in)

Have you any idea what these commercial issues might be? Would I be right in thinking that the "V" in the "DoV" is variation from previous plans for how the Greyhound should be rebuilt, that this has commercial consequences for the other parties, so needs to be negotiated with them? So Hexagon and the owner of the retail would tend to push for a higher spec rebuild, while Purelake would want to do it as cheaply as possible?

Do either of these other interests have an interest in seeing the Greyhound rebuilt? What advantage does a provider of social housing have from having a pub right in front of their main entrance? What interest does the landlord of a row of shops have in having a pub obscuring the view of the shop fronts? Is there any surprise these other interests and Purelake fail to come to an agreement? Maybe, without anything having to be said, all parties involved agree not to come to an agreement?

The 'other interests' will need to speak for themselves, but as far as I am aware neither view demolition as a realistic prospect and neither are pursuing it, actively or passively.

Might they not currently, passively, be pursuing a 'wait till it falls down' strategy, even if not a demolition strategy?

Who is actually meant to be pushing this process along??

There is no one with ultimate ownership, and that's part of the problem. In my view it falls to the Council, as it sought the prosecution of Purelake for unlawful demolition, so it follows that it should pursue the remedy. Cllr Best, one of our ward councillors, has taken a keen interest, but in my view Cllr Alan Smith, the cabinet member for planning, ought to take personal ownership. To date he's shown little interest.

What interest does Cllr Alan Smith have in resolving this? Does it make any difference to the prospects of him getting re-elected in Catford South, or Labour in Lewisham? How much of a drain, in terms of time and money, is it on LB Lewisham officers' time?

[biscuitman1978]

- Some of the parties almost certainly don't trust one another (hardly a surprise given Purelake's track record on this site), so they are struggling to agree on some of the issues in (and related to) the deed of variation, as well as wanting to ensure everything is absolutely watertight
- Council officers have, rightly or wrongly, been unwilling to get involved in the deed of variation as the outstanding issues are 'commercial issues' between the parties (hence my suggestion that an independent mediator is brought in)

Have you any idea what these commercial issues might be? Would I be right in thinking that the "V" in the "DoV" is variation from previous plans for how the Greyhound should be rebuilt, that this has commercial consequences for the other parties, so needs to be negotiated with them? So Hexagon and the owner of the retail would tend to push for a higher spec rebuild, while Purelake would want to do it as cheaply as possible?

I do have some idea of the commercial issues, but it's not appropriate for me to discuss them here. All I can say is that:
- What's at issue is not so much the content of the deed of variation itself, but the separate undertakings that different parties want from one another before they sign it
- Your understanding of the deed of variation (including 'the V') is some way off the mark. You can read more about the deed of variation in the report to the Council's planning committee (paras 6.53 to 6.55) back in April 2013 - see http://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/ ... %20P.H.pdf

Do either of these other interests have an interest in seeing the Greyhound rebuilt? What advantage does a provider of social housing have from having a pub right in front of their main entrance? What interest does the landlord of a row of shops have in having a pub obscuring the view of the shop fronts? Is there any surprise these other interests and Purelake fail to come to an agreement? Maybe, without anything having to be said, all parties involved agree not to come to an agreement?

The 'other interests' will need to speak for themselves, but as far as I am aware neither view demolition as a realistic prospect and neither are pursuing it, actively or passively.

Might they not currently, passively, be pursuing a 'wait till it falls down' strategy, even if not a demolition strategy?

Why would they? The retail concession has Sainsbury's lined up to move in and Hexagon have residents who are doubtless unhappy with a wrecked pub in front of their homes. A 'wait till it falls down' strategy could take years, particularly as the Council would look pretty stupid if it rolled over and allowed demolition having prosecuted Purelake for doing exactly that.

Who is actually meant to be pushing this process along??

There is no one with ultimate ownership, and that's part of the problem. In my view it falls to the Council, as it sought the prosecution of Purelake for unlawful demolition, so it follows that it should pursue the remedy. Cllr Best, one of our ward councillors, has taken a keen interest, but in my view Cllr Alan Smith, the cabinet member for planning, ought to take personal ownership. To date he's shown little interest.

What interest does Cllr Alan Smith have in resolving this? Does it make any difference to the prospects of him getting re-elected in Catford South, or Labour in Lewisham? How much of a drain, in terms of time and money, is it on LB Lewisham officers' time?

Your question is probably better put directly to Cllr Smith. To date it appears he has very little interest, but I vaguely hoped that the cabinet member for planning and regeneration might take some interest in planning and regeneration. Just a thought.

And as for officers' time spent on the project since the resolution to grant planning permission for the rebuilding, not vast amounts, as they've demonstrated a reluctance to get involved. Prior to that, Purelake were forced to pay costs for the prosecution and the new planning application will have incurred a new fee, which will have gone a long a way to covering officer time.

In any case, not everyone will agree with you that officer involvement in the Greyhound is (or rather would be) a 'drain' on their time. Some of the comments above suggest that they ought to be more, not less involved.

[biscuitman1978]

I agree, in the sense that the Council's Plan A (get the deed of variation signed and planning permission formally granted, thereby allowing Purelake to get back on site to rebuild the pub) hasn't worked, and it appears to have no Plan B or Plan C.

I hope you don't mind me asking Biscuitman, but you seem quite informed;

Did Purelake give a reason or an excuse for removing the roof? Was it a mistake or a communication error, or something more cynical than that?

No problem, rod taylor.

Purelake did more than simply remove the roof; they also demolished the rear and flank walls. They then began to rebuild the pub with a newly enlarged basement, as well as installing a mezzanine floor designed to allow residential units to be included on the first floor and in the roof space.

Purelake had neither conservation area consent for demolition, nor planning permission to rebuild the pub (with or without residential units above the ground floor). The Council therefore served a 'stop' notice so that rebuilding had to cease, as well as prosecuting Purelake for demolition of a building in a conservation area (a criminal offence).

Purelake have previously said that the demolition and rebuild was required because the building was structurally unsound following a fire (see http://www.bighospitality.co.uk/Venues/ ... rebuild-it). That may well have been the case, but it does not excuse the unlawful demolition nor starting to rebuild the pub without planning permission.

Is there anything more to it than that? Well, it's likely that residential units would have added reasonable value for Purelake. The trouble is that (a) it would have made letting the ground floor as a pub rather difficult, and (b) the mezzanine floor, which now needs to be removed, sits below the head (top) of the the first floor windows, which hardly befits a locally listed building.

[southernmoose]

Thanks Biscuitman. Your suggestions - particularly mediation sound like they would be a sensible way forward.

What is particularly frustrating is the sense that local residents care very deeply about the issue but aren't seeing any progress and there's little public accountability.

A 'vibrant high street' is one of the top priorities for the Sydenham Assembly, so one practical suggestion is for people to request that Cllr Alan Smith give a personal update on the Greyhound at the next Sydenham Assembly Meeting, by writing to Maya Onyett who is the Sydenham Assembly Coordinator . This is provisionally scheduled for Wed 18th June at 7pm and the agenda is released a week before so now's a good time to contact her. Her email address is: maya.onyett@lewisham.gov.uk.

If that doesn't work, another suggestion is for people to start reporting the Greyhound as an 'empty property' on the Love Lewisham website here: https://www.lewisham.gov.uk/doitonline/ ... rt-it.aspx - which could help to raise the profile of the issue and the strength of public feeling around it, within the council...

[marymck]

I think that's a great idea Moose. And time should be allocated at the Assembly for Cllr Smith to do a proper Q&A session too. Plus how about Jerry Dowd being asked to attend? He won't accept, but then that can be reported.

Re mediators: personally, I don't think RICS would be the way to go. In my experience they have too many vested interests and not sufficient knowledge. A commercial/planning barrister who is a trained adjudicator or mediator would be perfect IMO.

[biscuitman1978]

Re mediators: personally, I don't think RICS would be the way to go. In my experience they have too many vested interests and not sufficient knowledge. A commercial/planning barrister who is a trained adjudicator or mediator would be perfect IMO.

Eh? The whole point of asking the RICS to appoint one of their accredited mediators is that you get someone who is (a) trained in mediation, (b) neutral, and (c) an expert in property.

But sure, a specialist barrister who is a trained adjudicator or mediator would also be fine.

[Eagle]

I believe he is a lame duck MP , so good luck.

[Eagle]

Rod

I understood we was not standing again. Not sure where I got that from.

Cannot believe he has the gall to stand again. Rotten Borough comes to mind.

[Manwithaview1]

Rod

I understood we was not standing again. Not sure where I got that from.

Cannot believe he has the gall to stand again. Rotten Borough comes to mind.

MPs are not councillors, you mean HP Sauce.

[Manwithaview1]

MPs are not councillors, you mean HP Sauce.

Do you ever read 'from the message boards' in Private Eye? I recognize myself there regularly. And Eagle.

Yes with Bogbrush starting the debates.

No I'm not Dave Spart

[Likelife]

We can all see the mural now - the scaffolding has just been taken down! Clearly they have no intent to do anything else soon.

[Tim Lund]

I do have some idea of the commercial issues, but it's not appropriate for me to discuss them here. All I can say is that:
- What's at issue is not so much the content of the deed of variation itself, but the separate undertakings that different parties want from one another before they sign it
- Your understanding of the deed of variation (including 'the V') is some way off the mark. You can read more about the deed of variation in the report to the Council's planning committee (paras 6.53 to 6.55) back in April 2013 - see http://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/ ... %20P.H.pdf

Thanks for that link. If the content of the DoV is not so much the issue, does that explain why I am little the wiser for reading it? It was interesting to see the planning history, with

2.4 On 5 September 2007, Lewisham Council designated a new Conservation Area around Cobb's Corner, which includes the application site. At the same time, the Greyhound Public House was added to the Council's list of buildings of local architectural or historic interest.

Perhaps we should start commemorating Sept 5th.

What is missing, however, is the commercial history. A large part of the difficulty I, and I am sure many others, have in understanding this business is the lack of commercial transparency. As you write, you have some idea of the commercial issues, but it's not appropriate to discuss them here. However, I am very grateful for your explanation, in response to Rod Taylor, why Purelake started to put up that mezzanine floor.

The retail concession has Sainsbury's lined up to move in and Hexagon have residents who are doubtless unhappy with a wrecked pub in front of their homes. A 'wait till it falls down' strategy could take years, particularly as the Council would look pretty stupid if it rolled over and allowed demolition having prosecuted Purelake for doing exactly that.

Some of this we've gone over before, so I'll try to be brief. Yes, you have a good point about Sainsbury's being lined up to move in; this is short term income being lost. In the long run, however, I think the retail concession has an interest in its frontage being more visible. I'm sure Hexagon residents are unhappy about the wrecked pub, but has anyone ever asked them whether they would prefer a pub there or no pub? Has anyone asked the managers of Hexagon whether whether they feel it's a good thing to have a pub there? Indeed the Council would look pretty stupid, but is losing face the most important thing to worry about? I noticed from the link you sent that a relatively junior officer is now on the case - does this indicate that the powers that be in LB Lewisham are distancing themselves from this case?

What interest does Cllr Alan Smith have in resolving this? Does it make any difference to the prospects of him getting re-elected in Catford South, or Labour in Lewisham? How much of a drain, in terms of time and money, is it on LB Lewisham officers' time?

Your question is probably better put directly to Cllr Smith. To date it appears he has very little interest, but I vaguely hoped that the cabinet member for planning and regeneration might take some interest in planning and regeneration. Just a thought.

Another thought is the association of planning and regeneration. Planning, I like to think, has a quasi-judicial role - just making sure the rules get followed, rather than taking one side of the other. Hence why planning doesn't see itself as having a role as arbiter between the parties to the DoV, and the various undertakings between them. Regeneration I see as more positive - about getting the best economic and social outcome. Maybe Cllr Smith doesn't see the rebuilding of the Greyhound as a positive outcome, but with split responsibilities, is unable to say anything.

And as for officers' time spent on the project since the resolution to grant planning permission for the rebuilding, not vast amounts, as they've demonstrated a reluctance to get involved. Prior to that, Purelake were forced to pay costs for the prosecution and the new planning application will have incurred a new fee, which will have gone a long a way to covering officer time.

In any case, not everyone will agree with you that officer involvement in the Greyhound is (or rather would be) a 'drain' on their time. Some of the comments above suggest that they ought to be more, not less involved.

Officers' reluctance to get involved suggests they feel they have better things to do with their time. That is saving their time. Planning application fees may go a long a way to covering officers' time, but it sounds not all the way. Further legal actions may result in the Council's costs being paid in full, but there is always the risk that they will not. In connection with a completely separate matter, I know that getting the Council's legal department to focus on something which, to me at least seems completely straightforward, is not easy.

[Amended at biscuitman1978's request - I got my closing quote tags mixed up, and ended putting my words into his mouth. Sorry ]

[Eagle]

Walked sound site today. What a dreadful site.

I would not think much of the original building still there. Plant life growing out of balcony.

Pull it down and let 's be done with it.....

[leenewham]

Walked around the site today. What a dreadful site.

Plant life growing out of balcony etc…

Lets finish the building, have a pub to be proud of and be done with it…whoever is holding this up should be held to account.

It's a shame our local MP isn't all over this disgrace. What on earth does he do?

All our cllrs are Labour (which they have all made a huge song and dance about) in a very Labour dominated part of the borough with a Labour leader of the council and a Labour MP who is the builders brother and we STILL can't seem to get this resolved!

Anyone else find that astonishing? I think the problems around this case need to be looked at to ensure that this doesn't happen again and improve the planning system, which clearly at present isn't working properly.

[Eagle]

Lee

That might be the reason why . It is for all intended purposes a one party state . No incentive to try and be popular otherwise they would have finished this years ago and also the so called Tanzanian nightclub would never have been allowed to open late.

Locals are totally ignored.

[Tubby]

Hope that works. I would far rather have something like this as a pub/coffee bar/cafe/restaurant community room at the 'Gateway to Sydenham' than a flattened forecourt to a load of shops and flats. It makes me frustrated at the thought that Purelake could get away with totally destroying it.