Going over old ground - The Hound that is Grey

Mr_Sheen · Post by **Mr_Sheen** » 31 Jul 2013 19:55

When? Good question. I've already asked them at least 4 times.
So far this week:
Monday 29th. Emailed asking for an estimate as to when work on the Greyhound would be complete. No response.
Tuesday 30th. Emailed asking for an estimate as to when work on the Greyhound would be complete. No response.
Wednesday 31st. Emailed asking for an estimate as to when work on the Greyhound would be complete. No response.

It's a battle of wills Eagle. They WANT you to start getting pi$$ed off, they WANT you to get tired of looking at a derelict site. They WANT you to beg them to demolish it.

It's obvious it's been left open to the elements in the hope that it falls down or 'vandals' get in - that would be the perfect excuse to say it's beyond repair. I somehow don't think they'd be so slow off the mark putting more 'luxury' apartments in its place.

leenewham · Post by **leenewham** » 31 Jul 2013 21:18

I'm hoping to hear from them soon after writing to Gerry and others about the mural and also when we will finally receive the second half of the winning fee (£500) for winning the competition 1 year and 3 months later. I'm sure they will reply soon, I'm sure they are just very busy preparing for the final onslaught to finish it all.

blakewho · Post by **blakewho** » 1 Aug 2013 10:35

Walking past it yesterday evening I did notice that the large golden 'E' from the name was lying on the ledge of one of the upper windows. It wasn't there a couple of days earlier, so someone has obviously been on site recently.

michael · Post by **michael** » 1 Aug 2013 10:52

Apparently they might be in the process of appealing against one of the planning decisions that went against them. This can take months and might explain why they have not proceeded with any building work, especially when they have got 90% of the revenue out of this development.
But I heard this in a rather noisy club last night in Sydenham, so I might have got it wrong, and I find the planning inspector's website almost impossible to search so I haven't confirmed this information (my source is usually reliable on such matters).

biscuitman1978 · Post by **biscuitman1978** » 1 Aug 2013 12:36

blakewho wrote:Walking past it yesterday evening I did notice that the large golden 'E' from the name was lying on the ledge of one of the upper windows. It wasn't there a couple of days earlier, so someone has obviously been on site recently.

Purelake were on site doing some tidying about three or four weeks ago. More recently some scaffolding was erected at the rear of the property.

michael wrote:Apparently they might be in the process of appealing against one of the planning decisions that went against them. This can take months and might explain why they have not proceeded with any building work, especially when they have got 90% of the revenue out of this development.
But I heard this in a rather noisy club last night in Sydenham, so I might have got it wrong, and I find the planning inspector's website almost impossible to search so I haven't confirmed this information (my source is usually reliable on such matters).

Purelake do indeed have a couple of appeals in progress which relate to conditions imposed upon the permission. I have just spoken to the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) and, I'm sorry to say, the target date for a decision on the appeals is 15 October 2013. At this stage PINS have yet to even appoint an Inspector to visit the site and consider the appeals.

If anyone wants to look up the appeals they can go to http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pc ... Search.asp and then search 'SE26 4QB' in the post code section of the online search form.

Eagle · Post by **Eagle** » 1 Aug 2013 17:03

Sounds like a nightmare. Another long wait.

Michael good to see you are sampling the nightlife. I assume you mean the Tanzania.

hazy · Post by **hazy** » 2 Aug 2013 08:15

Jim Dowd is the brother of the Dowd dude at Purelake??? Ah OK. What a coincidence.

G-Man · Post by **G-Man** » 2 Aug 2013 09:02

I actually hate Purelake. This is ridiculous. How can they expect to win? It makes me very, very angry. What can we do? Do CAMRA know this is going on? I suspect they do but it would be good to know their thoughts.

G-Man

marymck · Post by **marymck** » 2 Aug 2013 09:05

hazy wrote:Jim Dowd is the brother of the Dowd dude at Purelake??? Ah OK. What a coincidence.

A fact which IMO ought to be declared as a Members interest. There may be no strict financial link, but I personally believe these sort of family connections should be declared, if only for absolute openness. Unless I'm looking at the wrong document, it's not declared.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

G-Man · Post by **G-Man** » 2 Aug 2013 09:38

Absolutely Mary. Transparency and trust in business is of paramount importance. Obviously not for Purelake and Lewisham though.

leenewham · Post by **leenewham** » 2 Aug 2013 09:45

I didn't understand the documents online.

What are Purelake looking at challenging?

Tim Lund · Post by **Tim Lund** » 2 Aug 2013 11:02

michael wrote:they have got 90% of the revenue out of this development.

I think from the Purelake point of view, they have got rather more than 100% of the revenue out of this development - from now on, as they see it, it's net costs. I'm sure if anyone could offer Purelake a credible deal whereby they were out of it tomorrow, they would jump at the opportunity.

Eagle · Post by **Eagle** » 2 Aug 2013 11:06

Why were they paid in full before the job was finished. Someone would answer for this,

Rachael · Post by **Rachael** » 2 Aug 2013 11:41

Eagle wrote:Why were they paid in full before the job was finished. Someone would answer for this,

What do you mean, 'paid in full'? I assume Purelake own the site, they are not contractors. Am I wrong?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Search East · Post by **Search East** » 2 Aug 2013 11:50

leenewham wrote:I didn't understand the documents online.

What are Purelake looking at challenging?

I was also really unsure of what the appeal documents indicate? Since the original tiling in the corridor is mentioned, are they now trying to reduce the amount of original features it was stipulated they had to retain?

CaptainCarCrash · Post by **CaptainCarCrash** » 2 Aug 2013 15:01

rod taylor wrote:According to the Purelake website they are still excited by the project.

Is this true? Unless we are living in a world where words mean the opposite of what they actually mean. Oh yes...the world of business, marketing, advertising, corporate sales & media.

It really is a load of w***, isn't it? Imagine having to operate in that world every day.

Furthermore imagine actually being one of them

Scary isn't it? Words defy me.

A room full of those types of people could have a detrimental affect on the space time continuum!

Fact.

biscuitman1978 · Post by **biscuitman1978** » 2 Aug 2013 17:03

leenewham wrote:I didn't understand the documents online.

What are Purelake looking at challenging?

You're right, the information on the PINS website doesn't explain the grounds of appeal (and the same is true of Lewisham Council's website), so I requested the grounds of appeal from PINS this afternoon.

In both cases, the grounds of appeal are that Lewisham Council failed to give notice of its decision on the applications to 'discharge' the conditions within the required eight weeks.

The conditions being 'discharged' are:
- Agreeing the details of the rear tiled wall
- Agreeing the details for the relocation of the tiles salvaged from the old drinking corridor

Beyond that it's quite hard to tell exactly what's going on as I've been advised by PINS that the only way to inspect the other appeal documentation is to request it from the Council, and Lewisham Council advised me today that they can only make it available in hard copy for inspection in their offices, i.e. it won't be uploaded to the website.

Quite why Purelake and Lewisham Council can't reach agreement in the meantime, thereby avoiding the need to wait until PINS make a decision in October, I don't know.

To complicate things further the case officer is on sick leave (and that may explain why things have ended up in the hands of PINS), so matters are in the hands of one of his senior colleagues, the Development Control Manager, who appears to have limited time to devote to the Greyhound. This is understandable but is of little comfort us in Sydenham.

I have asked the Development Control Manager, copying the Head of Planning and Cllr Chris Best, to ensure that by the time PINS make a decision on the appeals all other matters are resolved, in order that there can be no justification for Purelake not returning to the site to rebuild the pub.

Mr_Sheen · Post by **Mr_Sheen** » 2 Aug 2013 17:14

Thursday 1st. Emailed asking for an estimate as to when work on the Greyhound would be complete. No response.
Friday 2nd. Emailed asking for an estimate as to when work on the Greyhound would be complete. No response.

leenewham · Post by **leenewham** » 2 Aug 2013 19:30

This whole episode has the word farce written all over it.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Eagle · Post by **Eagle** » 4 Aug 2013 18:32

Farce is correct.

If the reasons they are challenging are just to do with the tiling no excuse to finish the actual building except for the tiling...

Sydenham Town Forum

The Community Voice for London SE26 since 2004