On 27 July, Lee Barker of Milford Group drew attention to one of their developments for which an application for planning permission had been made to Lambeth .
" I invite you to visit the website for another of our developments www.knightscourt.co.uk to see an example of how we carry this out through meetings, public exhibitions, participation in forums such as this one, and through the website itself."
Despite all this consultation there were a mass of objections from local residents and Lambeth Council turned down the application.
The Greyhound to Close!
The Milford Group isn't interested in consultation.
Lee Barker's silence in response to questions on this forum speaks volumes.
At Knight's Hill, Milford even failed to turn up at one of the public consultation meetings!
What successful public consultation is all about is engaging with a community and taking their concerns on board so that when the project gets to the planning department it has far more chance of getting approved and has the support of the mass of local public opinion. What it doesn’t mean is that you simply tell locals of what you intend then brand anyone who questions any aspect of your plan as a “wrecker”.
Lee Barker's silence in response to questions on this forum speaks volumes.
At Knight's Hill, Milford even failed to turn up at one of the public consultation meetings!
What successful public consultation is all about is engaging with a community and taking their concerns on board so that when the project gets to the planning department it has far more chance of getting approved and has the support of the mass of local public opinion. What it doesn’t mean is that you simply tell locals of what you intend then brand anyone who questions any aspect of your plan as a “wrecker”.
Whilst I appreciate the fact that Milford Group have consulted with the Sydenham Society and posted here, I don't hold out much hope of this reaching a very happy conclusion, simply because the objectives of any property developer are going to be highly at-odds with the interests of those local residents who are interested in preserving a building of historic interest.
-
Muddy Waters
- Posts: 137
- Joined: 2 Oct 2004 17:05
Very true Muddy Waters, although Milford have said they'd have a pub/bar/restaurant of some description in their development.
OK, I imagine they'll probably go down a more low-key restauranty route than a big pub, but most people seem to be favouring something more Dolphin-esque for the Greyhound anyway, so is there really that much of a difference.
For me the main factor is the building.
OK, I imagine they'll probably go down a more low-key restauranty route than a big pub, but most people seem to be favouring something more Dolphin-esque for the Greyhound anyway, so is there really that much of a difference.
For me the main factor is the building.
I would just like to register my support for those who favour the retention of the Greyhound. Annabel McLaren’s posting of 28 July sets out arguments with which I fully agree so I won’t repeat all the points that she, and others of a similar mind, have made.
However, I’m heartened by the posting made by Lee Barker of Milford Group Limited (on 27 July) who gives a very public assurance about his company’s commitment to consultation with the local community. I’m more than ready to accept that assurance at face value.
Although an active member of the Sydenham Society I am not directly involved in its campaign to preserve the Greyhound. But I do know that the Society is anxious to ensure that Lewisham Council, as part of the planning application process, takes its views on the future of the Greyhound fully into account.
However a present worry is the local rumours that the Milford Group plan to demolish the Greyhound as soon as they complete their purchase of the building.
I doubt there is substance to the rumour. Nevertheless I should like to ask Lee Barker whether he would now provide a public assurance, through the Sydenham Forum, that his company does not intend to demolish the Greyhound before Lewisham Council determines any planning application they may make.
If Mr Barker can provide such an assurance I think that will go a long way towards confirming Milford Group’s desire to take local views into account.
Bryan Leslie
[/b]
However, I’m heartened by the posting made by Lee Barker of Milford Group Limited (on 27 July) who gives a very public assurance about his company’s commitment to consultation with the local community. I’m more than ready to accept that assurance at face value.
Although an active member of the Sydenham Society I am not directly involved in its campaign to preserve the Greyhound. But I do know that the Society is anxious to ensure that Lewisham Council, as part of the planning application process, takes its views on the future of the Greyhound fully into account.
However a present worry is the local rumours that the Milford Group plan to demolish the Greyhound as soon as they complete their purchase of the building.
I doubt there is substance to the rumour. Nevertheless I should like to ask Lee Barker whether he would now provide a public assurance, through the Sydenham Forum, that his company does not intend to demolish the Greyhound before Lewisham Council determines any planning application they may make.
If Mr Barker can provide such an assurance I think that will go a long way towards confirming Milford Group’s desire to take local views into account.
Bryan Leslie
[/b]
Re: Milford Group Ltd.
Mr Barker of the Milford group is rather ' economical with the truth'.
He says:
"There are comments on the forum that suggest that Milford’s were active in the closure of the pub, however it was the decision of the current owners, who are in the process of selling, to do this."
I have been told, by a reliable source, that this is simply not true. Barter Inns are only too keen to carry on running the pub. So, despite the fact that the Milford group's application to Lewisham has been rejected, building work cannot begin, and there is no urgent imperative to close the Greyhound, Barter Inns have been told by Milford that they will be forced to shut next week. Why?
There is Mr Barker's curious phrase: "a decision of the current owners".
Hmmm… When a tenant is given no choice by the landlords, it is obvious that they are making a 'decision', but only a muddle-headed PR person could conflate that with a voluntary decision.
Strangest of all though is Mr Barker's recommendation of the KnightsCourt development in Lambeth. In a desperate attempt to prove the Milford group's consultation credentials he invites us to:
"... visit the website for another of our developments www.knightscourt.co.uk to see an example of how we carry this out through meetings, public exhibitions, participation in forums such as this one, and through the website itself."
Seeing as Mr Barker works for the Milford group, it is hard to imagine that he doesn't actually know the outcome of the Knightscourt development he holds up as an exemplar. The Milford group website shows a timetable of development, but unfortunately (or perhaps deliberately) it stops at the third of June 2007. Why is this? Could this be anything to do with the fact that Lambeth Council threw out the development on the 13th of July, when planning permission was refused? The Milford group were told, by Lambeth, to start again from scratch, as the development they had submitted was completely unsuitable. On top of this, the Milford group website is very quiet on the hundred and sixty letters that were received by Lambeth Council protesting about the proposed Knightscourt development. Funny that.
Despite his supposed desire for public consultation, Mr Barker has singularly failed to respond to nasaroc's question of the 28th of July:
"Have I or Lewisham’s planning department misunderstood your drawings?
This silence can only be construed as acknowledgement that he was caught out.
I, for one and perfectly prepared to give the Milford group:
"... the benefit of the doubt and wait to see our proposals for themselves before leaping to condemn us as a developer who just wants to “stuff as many dwellings as possible onto the site to maximise profits”.
But NOT until they stop spinning, and deal with the people of Sydenham, in the spirit of W. G. Grace -- with a straight bat!
Go on, Mr Barker! Prove that you are serious about consultation!
He says:
"There are comments on the forum that suggest that Milford’s were active in the closure of the pub, however it was the decision of the current owners, who are in the process of selling, to do this."
I have been told, by a reliable source, that this is simply not true. Barter Inns are only too keen to carry on running the pub. So, despite the fact that the Milford group's application to Lewisham has been rejected, building work cannot begin, and there is no urgent imperative to close the Greyhound, Barter Inns have been told by Milford that they will be forced to shut next week. Why?
There is Mr Barker's curious phrase: "a decision of the current owners".
Hmmm… When a tenant is given no choice by the landlords, it is obvious that they are making a 'decision', but only a muddle-headed PR person could conflate that with a voluntary decision.
Strangest of all though is Mr Barker's recommendation of the KnightsCourt development in Lambeth. In a desperate attempt to prove the Milford group's consultation credentials he invites us to:
"... visit the website for another of our developments www.knightscourt.co.uk to see an example of how we carry this out through meetings, public exhibitions, participation in forums such as this one, and through the website itself."
Seeing as Mr Barker works for the Milford group, it is hard to imagine that he doesn't actually know the outcome of the Knightscourt development he holds up as an exemplar. The Milford group website shows a timetable of development, but unfortunately (or perhaps deliberately) it stops at the third of June 2007. Why is this? Could this be anything to do with the fact that Lambeth Council threw out the development on the 13th of July, when planning permission was refused? The Milford group were told, by Lambeth, to start again from scratch, as the development they had submitted was completely unsuitable. On top of this, the Milford group website is very quiet on the hundred and sixty letters that were received by Lambeth Council protesting about the proposed Knightscourt development. Funny that.
Despite his supposed desire for public consultation, Mr Barker has singularly failed to respond to nasaroc's question of the 28th of July:
"Have I or Lewisham’s planning department misunderstood your drawings?
This silence can only be construed as acknowledgement that he was caught out.
I, for one and perfectly prepared to give the Milford group:
"... the benefit of the doubt and wait to see our proposals for themselves before leaping to condemn us as a developer who just wants to “stuff as many dwellings as possible onto the site to maximise profits”.
But NOT until they stop spinning, and deal with the people of Sydenham, in the spirit of W. G. Grace -- with a straight bat!
Go on, Mr Barker! Prove that you are serious about consultation!
im in the fire service and LFB promise to "consult" with residents when they wish to shut down stations or remove fire engines under the guise of "risk management" ..trust me consultation is just a buisness phrase for saying we told you what we want to do, we have listened to your concerns but we are doing it anyway ..here endeth lesson
-
Muddy Waters
- Posts: 137
- Joined: 2 Oct 2004 17:05
Maturin, let's get some facts right.
One hundred amd sixty letters? Surely it was 183, as well as 2 petitions, one with 322 signatures and another with 85, although Lambeth acknowledged ( in all fairness) some signatories may have signed both petitions?
Letters of (reasons for) objections fell into the categories of infrastructure, design, amenity, crime, transport and non-material considerations - all of which will need to be addressed by Milford in any planning application for the Greyhound site.
So, Mr Barker, is Milford really prepared to listen and consult as claimed?
Will Milford provide the assurance to Sydenham residents that his company does not intend to demolish the Greyhound before Lewisham Council determines any planning application they may make?
Such an assurance could go a long way towards confirming Milford Group’s desire to take local views into account
One hundred amd sixty letters? Surely it was 183, as well as 2 petitions, one with 322 signatures and another with 85, although Lambeth acknowledged ( in all fairness) some signatories may have signed both petitions?
Letters of (reasons for) objections fell into the categories of infrastructure, design, amenity, crime, transport and non-material considerations - all of which will need to be addressed by Milford in any planning application for the Greyhound site.
So, Mr Barker, is Milford really prepared to listen and consult as claimed?
Will Milford provide the assurance to Sydenham residents that his company does not intend to demolish the Greyhound before Lewisham Council determines any planning application they may make?
Such an assurance could go a long way towards confirming Milford Group’s desire to take local views into account
I'm very concerned that a couple of people have stated that there would be nothing to stop Milford demolishing the Greyhound building right now, without any planning consent for a replacement.
I have no information to support what maturin has suggested, that the pub has been effectively forced to close by Milford, but logically this does seem the most likely scenario. Whilst the Greyhound hasn't got the most trouble-free reputation, it always seems to be pretty busy so it seems unlikely that the pub would have to close for other financial reasons.
It seems much more likely that the closure is a tactical manouevre on the part of Milford.
It is really worrying if they could simply demolish the building overnight? Can anyone confirm that this would be (theoretically) possible?
I have no information to support what maturin has suggested, that the pub has been effectively forced to close by Milford, but logically this does seem the most likely scenario. Whilst the Greyhound hasn't got the most trouble-free reputation, it always seems to be pretty busy so it seems unlikely that the pub would have to close for other financial reasons.
It seems much more likely that the closure is a tactical manouevre on the part of Milford.
It is really worrying if they could simply demolish the building overnight? Can anyone confirm that this would be (theoretically) possible?
-
Pat Trembath
- Posts: 613
- Joined: 2 Oct 2004 10:54
The answer to your question is simply, yes! I believe Milford would need to obtain some technical agreement with the Council about Health and Safety measures before they start.
Milford are due to take over the land on Monday 13 August and, in theory, they could begin the demolition process very quickly thereafter. At present they have no planning application lodged with Lewisham Council and are therefore a long way from getting planning permission.
We know that the pub is viable - we understand that Barter Inns would like to extend the lease so the closure of the pub is down to the developer, alone.
There is concern in a number of quarters about Milfords plans and efforts are being made to try to persuade the developers to have second thoughts.
There is a petition in Kirkdale Bookshop and I would urge all ST posters to call in and sign this.
Milford are due to take over the land on Monday 13 August and, in theory, they could begin the demolition process very quickly thereafter. At present they have no planning application lodged with Lewisham Council and are therefore a long way from getting planning permission.
We know that the pub is viable - we understand that Barter Inns would like to extend the lease so the closure of the pub is down to the developer, alone.
There is concern in a number of quarters about Milfords plans and efforts are being made to try to persuade the developers to have second thoughts.
There is a petition in Kirkdale Bookshop and I would urge all ST posters to call in and sign this.
But assuming H&S boxes are ticked, Lewisham have no powers to prevent them knocking the building down? That is VERY worrying.
I will get in and sign that petition this week, but I must say I'm feeling very pessimistic about this! Milford will surely want get rid of the millstone of the existing building, and if no-one has any powers to stop them...
Is chaining myself to a bulldozer an option?
I will get in and sign that petition this week, but I must say I'm feeling very pessimistic about this! Milford will surely want get rid of the millstone of the existing building, and if no-one has any powers to stop them...
Is chaining myself to a bulldozer an option?
I've never even been in the Greyhound, I'm much more likely to be found in the Dolphin. However (issues of noise, trouble etc notwithstanding) I don't really care who the clientelle of the Greyhound is, I just want it to stay. I'd be very happy for it to stay as a "proper" non-gastro ordinary pub providing it's managed well.nork1 wrote:No, SOME people on HERE seem to be favouring something more Dolphin-esque. What's wrong with keeping it as a 'pub'?
If I just wanted somewhere to go for a glass of Shiraz I'd probably get that via Milford's redevelopment, but that's really not the issue for me.