Demolishing restaurants / giant rabbits

[dickp]

When having a look around Lewisham's planning portal for news on the Greyhound, I came across this planning application regarding 118 Sydenham Road.

Interesting.

http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk/LEWIS-XS ... mkey=68289

I also came across an application to display "a 4 to 5 metres high inflatable rabbit on the ground floor flat roof to the front elevation of 359 Sydenham Road SE26." Now that's just plain weird!

http://acolnet.lewisham.gov.uk/LEWIS-XS ... mkey=68527

[Rachael]

The rabbit is already in situ - it's above a day care / nursery centre near Bell Green, advertising its presence. Been there a few months now. This must be a retrospective application.

[simon]

It would be hard to argue against the development above the restaurant, in my opinon, as ever since Criterion Ices went, nobody has made a go of the site as restaurant. Is there a market for office space though?

Yes, saw the bunny going up. Was meaning to take a picture of it because it so bizarre. Wonder if it will get permission?

[leenewham]

The restaurant is a pretty ugly building, it never looked like an inviting place to eat so I"m not surprised it didn't do well. I was going to do a 'what if' makeover on it, but it's was almost impossible to do anything to improve it! It's not a great position either.

The proposed new offices though are not much of an improvement. It looks pretty cheap and dull. Actually, it looks crap and I hope the Sydenham Society oppose it in favour of something of SOME quality. Can't anyone build anything good any more?

Perhaps we could have Sydenham first skyscraper here Tim to house the masses?

As for the inflatable rabbit, I guess it's a case of Hare today, gone tomorrow.

(sorry).

[Tim Lund]

Perhaps we could have Sydenham first skyscraper here Tim to house the masses?

How amusing to persist in deliberate misrepresentations. Let me remind you of this the next time you have a go at politicians.

[Tim Lund]

It would be hard to argue against the development above the restaurant, in my opinon, as ever since Criterion Ices went, nobody has made a go of the site as restaurant.

Which raises the interesting question, of what is the going rate for how many years it takes to accept commercial reality / cave in to greedy developers? 18 Longton Avenue, The Greyhound, Criterion Ices?

Yes, saw the bunny going up. Was meaning to take a picture of it because it so bizarre. Wonder if it will get permission?

On a related note, this shark led to a long planning battle in Oxford.

[simon]

Which raises the interesting question, of what is the going rate for how many years it takes to accept commercial reality / cave in to greedy developers? 18 Longton Avenue, The Greyhound, Criterion Ices?

The difference between the Greyhound and the Criterion Ices sites is that the former was a profitable business before the developers got hold of it and closed it while nothing since Criterion Ices has worked at the latter. It seems odd that you seem to equate "commercial reality" with the wishes of "greedy developers" as if they are the same thing! How long before caving in to greedy developers? In your case, with the Greyhound, not very long it would seem. Thankfully, many others it should be a lot longer, hopefully not at all.

[leenewham]

Perhaps we could have Sydenham first skyscraper here Tim to house the masses?

How amusing to persist in deliberate misrepresentations. Let me remind you of this the next time you have a go at politicians.

Did you miss of the smiley face or are you not amused Tim? It was meant in jest of course.

Does that also apply to bankers?

[Tim Lund]

There's a reason for my sense of humour failure, which I can assure you is not permanent. To mangle the idiom a bit, there's many an actual opinion spoken in jest. In a few years, as a parent, you'll probably hear the excuse 'I was only joking' more often than you would wish. Humour, as you well know, can be a very effective way of putting across a view, but it doesn't make it right, so it's perfectly legitimate to challenge it. As Michael appreciates, I am not going to tolerate a serious argument about how we can get better housing be deflected by facetiousness.

Have a go at bankers any time, but PM me first if you feel the need to check any facts or background.

Hope you liked the shark, BTW.

[14BradfordRoad]

Hope you liked the shark, BTW.

I was wondering if they actually owned this shark, or was it a Loan-Shark!

[Sydenham]

Which raises the interesting question, of what is the going rate for how many years it takes to accept commercial reality / cave in to greedy developers? 18 Longton Avenue, The Greyhound, Criterion Ices?

@Tim Lund - what's the problem with 18 Longton Avenue? It's not the first single house to be converted to flats and to their credit the current developers preserved and kept the exterior fabric (taking over from the former bankrupt developers). Yes, I'd prefer it if the property contained fewer 'flats' but the current developers could also have let it deteriorate to the stage where demolition was the only option and then go from there (with the valid claim that 'we are sorting out a mess left us from the previous developers'). As things go it looks OK to me.

[Tim Lund]

@Tim Lund - what's the problem with 18 Longton Avenue? ... As things go it looks OK to me.

I'm a bit concerned at the number of flats squeezed in, but another part of me feels that if people are happy to buy such flats, who am I or anyone else to stop them? I would expect other people to feel more strongly than me on the matter, since there are regulations about what size flats can be, and how many habitable rooms per hectare there can be, which apply to new build, and I can't see why being new build or a conversion makes a difference. Can anyone suggest a reason?

But the main issue is how long it took to get to where we are now - which I agree is on balance OK - and the costs that have been incurred. First of all, it means that for several years of our housing crisis, no one has been able to live there. It has also been an eyesore for other local residents. These are just part of the total social cost, which will include the economic cost to the developers, in particular the one which went bankrupt. I know nothing of the planning history of this case, or why that developer misjudged matters, but it it ought to be possible to do things better.