The stance of the Sydenham Society starts with our membership. At a well-attended Sydenham Society AGM, there was a unanimous vote aginst demolition of the Greyhound. We were supported in this by our local MP and councillors. As you will see from above we now want to test local feeling by running a petition (supported and run by the way by the Sydenham Traders' Association) and by organising a meeting of local residents.
We do not believe that it is inevitable that the Greyhound will be demolished. The fact that someone owns something and can maximise their profits by destruction simply isn't a factor in planning law otherwise most of London's assets would have been flattened by now to build blocks of flats. If you look back on Town Museum you will see plenty of evidence that many of Sydenham's terraced streets would now have been demolished in the 60s and 70s if developers/local authorities had their way.
And yes, we do believe that the Greyhound can be redeemed by proper management (just as The Dolphin has).
There are those who, when faced with an issue such as this say" yes knock it down!" And the roundabout as well! In the real world outside of Sydenham Town you then have to face the question of what you put in its place and thankfully that's what the Sydenham Society along with local residents is now trying to tackle. And it won't be a police station!
The Greyhound to Close!
-
Milfordgroup
- Posts: 8
- Joined: 26 Jul 2007 19:04
- Location: Purley
Milford Group Ltd.
Hello, I’m Lee Barker, Head of Architecture and Planning, for the Milford Group Limited. I’m sorry that I was unable to join this forum earlier but our office was very badly flooded last Friday (20th July) and we had to wade out. This is why Stuart was unable to get an answer from our telephone line, which I am glad to say is back up and running again now although we are still in throws of setting up in temporary offices.
Now that I am able, I would like to take this opportunity to clarify a few of the points raised regarding Milford’s position and proposals for the Greyhound Public House in Sydenham:
Milford Group act on behalf of the people who are buying the Greyhound. We are a substantial company with a very good reputation for planning the regeneration of underused sites such as this one. 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. We have no interest in the site becoming derelict or remaining disused for any length of time and we do not “land bank”.
When we take on a site we take public consultation in the process of the redevelopment very seriously. 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. It is because we are interested in hearing the views of local people that one of our first points of contact at the beginning of the year (2007) was the Sydenham Society. The Sydenham Society has posted a record of our meetings with them on their website ( www.sydenhamsociety.com/02-07%20Greyhound.html ) which you are free to access. The Society’s take on the meetings is, perhaps understandably, biased by the Society’s objective, which is the preservation of the Greyhound as a building with history rather than as a pub or even as building of architectural merit. This is a position on which they appear unwilling to compromise in order to engage with us in discussions regarding how the site could be redeveloped and contribute the most to the ongoing improvements to the High Street.
The design proposals that were presented to the Sydenham Society were a series of very early sketch designs, showing how a replacement pub/bar, another restaurant or similar use, and housing could be arranged on the site. These were illustrated by simple models of the mass of the elements which have regrettably and unfairly been branded ‘bland’ by the Society. These proposals were put together by our architects following a thorough process of investigations of the site’s constraints and opportunities and were designed to allow the maximum level of comment on the ideas. All of the designs respected the key features of the site and were designed to maintain the privacy of the adjoining residential properties, retain and enhance the line of mature trees, and provide a revitalised high street frontage.
Our latest proposals do not include “back-to-back” flats - no front windows of any of the proposed flats would face directly onto the rear of Peak Hill Gardens and there is certainly not a “huge four storey wall of flats” confronting the residents of Peak Hill Gardens. Neither are we seeking to “build right up to the ‘building lines’ on all four sides”. The design does include, as noted earlier, a replacement pub/bar and other “high street” uses.
Access to the site is proposed from Spring Hill, separated from the rear of Peak Hill Gardens by a broad strip of landscaping including the existing, mature trees. The level of parking has been dictated to us by Lewisham’s planning policies, which seek to restrict parking on sites such as The Greyhound that are in very close proximity to a wide range of amenities and public transport. Similarly, Lewisham’s planning policies place the site within the Sydenham Sustainable Living Area and Secondary High Street Frontage, which promotes mixed use, higher density development.
I hope that people will give us 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”. I ask that you bear with us for a little longer while we get our temporary office accommodation organised and then I’ll post again with further details of our latest proposals and design ideas.
Lee Barker
Head of Architecture & Planning
Milford Group Ltd.
Now that I am able, I would like to take this opportunity to clarify a few of the points raised regarding Milford’s position and proposals for the Greyhound Public House in Sydenham:
Milford Group act on behalf of the people who are buying the Greyhound. We are a substantial company with a very good reputation for planning the regeneration of underused sites such as this one. 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. We have no interest in the site becoming derelict or remaining disused for any length of time and we do not “land bank”.
When we take on a site we take public consultation in the process of the redevelopment very seriously. 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. It is because we are interested in hearing the views of local people that one of our first points of contact at the beginning of the year (2007) was the Sydenham Society. The Sydenham Society has posted a record of our meetings with them on their website ( www.sydenhamsociety.com/02-07%20Greyhound.html ) which you are free to access. The Society’s take on the meetings is, perhaps understandably, biased by the Society’s objective, which is the preservation of the Greyhound as a building with history rather than as a pub or even as building of architectural merit. This is a position on which they appear unwilling to compromise in order to engage with us in discussions regarding how the site could be redeveloped and contribute the most to the ongoing improvements to the High Street.
The design proposals that were presented to the Sydenham Society were a series of very early sketch designs, showing how a replacement pub/bar, another restaurant or similar use, and housing could be arranged on the site. These were illustrated by simple models of the mass of the elements which have regrettably and unfairly been branded ‘bland’ by the Society. These proposals were put together by our architects following a thorough process of investigations of the site’s constraints and opportunities and were designed to allow the maximum level of comment on the ideas. All of the designs respected the key features of the site and were designed to maintain the privacy of the adjoining residential properties, retain and enhance the line of mature trees, and provide a revitalised high street frontage.
Our latest proposals do not include “back-to-back” flats - no front windows of any of the proposed flats would face directly onto the rear of Peak Hill Gardens and there is certainly not a “huge four storey wall of flats” confronting the residents of Peak Hill Gardens. Neither are we seeking to “build right up to the ‘building lines’ on all four sides”. The design does include, as noted earlier, a replacement pub/bar and other “high street” uses.
Access to the site is proposed from Spring Hill, separated from the rear of Peak Hill Gardens by a broad strip of landscaping including the existing, mature trees. The level of parking has been dictated to us by Lewisham’s planning policies, which seek to restrict parking on sites such as The Greyhound that are in very close proximity to a wide range of amenities and public transport. Similarly, Lewisham’s planning policies place the site within the Sydenham Sustainable Living Area and Secondary High Street Frontage, which promotes mixed use, higher density development.
I hope that people will give us 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”. I ask that you bear with us for a little longer while we get our temporary office accommodation organised and then I’ll post again with further details of our latest proposals and design ideas.
Lee Barker
Head of Architecture & Planning
Milford Group Ltd.
Lee,
Thank you for what was a very informative and valuable contribution to the debate. I must apologise if my previous posting gave an unfair impression of your company. As you realise The Greyhound is an important, if neglected, part of Sydenham and emotions will run high if it were to be unsympathetically re-developed.
I think you have at least answered my other question in that you are interested in dialogue. I do hope you will continue to use the website to put forward your views and plans so we can all make our own judgements. No doubt you will come in for some flack. Certainly the Sydenham Society does too sometimes!
However, in the end openess is a lot less risky than not knowing what is happening and naturally fearing the worst.
BTW I don't think most people regard The Greyhound of great architectural merit. More important to those of us who pass by everyday is the scale of the building and openess of the area around the 'wobbly' roundabout that is a breath of (not quite) fresh air rather than the omnipresent oppressive frontages on most London Streets. A photograph of that space is what typifies and identifies Sydenham (see top of this webpage). Try finding an equivelent scene for Forest Hill, Penge or Crystal Palace and you will see why many regard this as a particulary important site.
Thanks again,
Stuart
Thank you for what was a very informative and valuable contribution to the debate. I must apologise if my previous posting gave an unfair impression of your company. As you realise The Greyhound is an important, if neglected, part of Sydenham and emotions will run high if it were to be unsympathetically re-developed.
I think you have at least answered my other question in that you are interested in dialogue. I do hope you will continue to use the website to put forward your views and plans so we can all make our own judgements. No doubt you will come in for some flack. Certainly the Sydenham Society does too sometimes!
However, in the end openess is a lot less risky than not knowing what is happening and naturally fearing the worst.
BTW I don't think most people regard The Greyhound of great architectural merit. More important to those of us who pass by everyday is the scale of the building and openess of the area around the 'wobbly' roundabout that is a breath of (not quite) fresh air rather than the omnipresent oppressive frontages on most London Streets. A photograph of that space is what typifies and identifies Sydenham (see top of this webpage). Try finding an equivelent scene for Forest Hill, Penge or Crystal Palace and you will see why many regard this as a particulary important site.
Thanks again,
Stuart
I think the Greyhound is the most important historical landmark in the whole of Sydenham. Even though the current building is of no "great architectural merit", the location, name and type of business has been the same for almost 300 years; the Greyhound is Sydenham's oldest Inn! It's synonymous with the center of Sydenham--the crossroads where Sydenham Road met Sydenham Common and several important trackways--featured on the front cover of the book Sydenham And Forest Hill Past (by John Coulter). Anyone passing through historical Sydenham would have no doubt stopped at the Greyhound during their travels. I believe the pub would have also served bargemen from the nearby Croydon Canal. If the Greyhound gets destroyed then we lose Sydenham's most central and important landmark. I would rather lose St Barts Church. Again, the current building representing the Greyhound has no significance ever since the rear part got demolished; if the rest of the building was demolished but replaced with a smaller modern day pub that retained the name then Sydenham would still keep it's most important icon--this would be the best solution in my opinion!
Whilst the Greyhound's historical significance may be the main appeal for some I think it is completely wrong to say that it is of no architectural significance. The current building is a very attractive Sydenham icon.
I understand the the older timber building has more or less been totally obscured but don't let that blind you to the beauties of the rest of the building. As well as the attractive exterior, inside there is still an amazing tiled room – certainly not insignificant. Surely it would be a big mistake to knock it down.
Whatever happens lets not forget that this is very much the gateway to Sydenham and whilst the developers may have good intentions (as well as wanting to make some money) they are not the ones that are going to have to look at it day in and day out.
This is such an important site that it demands high quality, landmark building - whilst retaining the Greyhound.
I understand the the older timber building has more or less been totally obscured but don't let that blind you to the beauties of the rest of the building. As well as the attractive exterior, inside there is still an amazing tiled room – certainly not insignificant. Surely it would be a big mistake to knock it down.
Whatever happens lets not forget that this is very much the gateway to Sydenham and whilst the developers may have good intentions (as well as wanting to make some money) they are not the ones that are going to have to look at it day in and day out.
This is such an important site that it demands high quality, landmark building - whilst retaining the Greyhound.
Last edited by Juwlz on 27 Jul 2007 20:19, edited 1 time in total.
It is heartening to see so many people taking an interest in the fate of the Greyhound, but disappointing that so few have come out strongly in favour of keeping it going as a pub. It has been a terrific pub in the past (many years ago) and could be again in the right hands. There are people out there who know how to run a pub that does not attract the noisier and more troublesome elements of society. We just need to find them.
And despite some negative comments posted by some people, the Greyhound most definitely IS a building worth protecting from demolition. There are a number of noteworthy features but far and away the most striking is the amazing lobby entrance (currently not accessible by customers) which contains some spectacularly beautiful wall tiling, a mosiac floor, overhead skylight, some original mahogany joinery and more. It is a grand survivor of the golden age of Victorian pub building, when interior decor was taken to almost palatial levels of excess. If the pub was sympathetically restored by a pub owner who cares about such things, and if this lobby entrance (so large it is really a small room) was restored to its rightful stature, it would become one of 'the Seven Wonder of Sydenham'.
Sydenham has already lost the Man of Kent and the Duke of Edinburgh, and now the Fox and Hounds has just shut down too. We do not want to lose another pub. We should be proud of our pub heritage, and campaign to keep it alive. The Borough of Lewisham has lost 40% of its pubs in recent years - it's an appalling statistic. Let's not allow another one - and in this case a very special pub that is a local landmark - to go the same way.
Property developers like Milford - who I dare say probably built very nice flats - must realise that we have seen far too many of our historic pubs getting demolished, and enough is enough. They must look elsewhere for their sites.
THE GREYHOUND SHALL NOT DIE!
And despite some negative comments posted by some people, the Greyhound most definitely IS a building worth protecting from demolition. There are a number of noteworthy features but far and away the most striking is the amazing lobby entrance (currently not accessible by customers) which contains some spectacularly beautiful wall tiling, a mosiac floor, overhead skylight, some original mahogany joinery and more. It is a grand survivor of the golden age of Victorian pub building, when interior decor was taken to almost palatial levels of excess. If the pub was sympathetically restored by a pub owner who cares about such things, and if this lobby entrance (so large it is really a small room) was restored to its rightful stature, it would become one of 'the Seven Wonder of Sydenham'.
Sydenham has already lost the Man of Kent and the Duke of Edinburgh, and now the Fox and Hounds has just shut down too. We do not want to lose another pub. We should be proud of our pub heritage, and campaign to keep it alive. The Borough of Lewisham has lost 40% of its pubs in recent years - it's an appalling statistic. Let's not allow another one - and in this case a very special pub that is a local landmark - to go the same way.
Property developers like Milford - who I dare say probably built very nice flats - must realise that we have seen far too many of our historic pubs getting demolished, and enough is enough. They must look elsewhere for their sites.
THE GREYHOUND SHALL NOT DIE!
I agree it would be nice if The Greyhound kept the same building with it's impressive Victorian lobby entrance, completely untouched, but then buildings cannot last forever. If the building must go then atleast a new building should be constructed in it's place as part of the development, in the pub/hotel tradition, thus keeping "The Greyhound" name alive. Again, I'm not saying the current building should be demolished, but it's not just the building that's in danger here.
Well nothing lasts forever when it comes down to it.
But since there's nothing wrong with the Greyhound building there is no 'must' about knocking it down. Its not like its worn out or anything.
Its the easy and lazy option to sweep it away.
When you look at your history books don't you ever think 'What a shame that lovely old building was knocked down' and wish you could've gone back in time to warn people what a mistake it would be. Too late – you can never bring it back again.
But its not too late for the Greyhound.
But since there's nothing wrong with the Greyhound building there is no 'must' about knocking it down. Its not like its worn out or anything.
Its the easy and lazy option to sweep it away.
When you look at your history books don't you ever think 'What a shame that lovely old building was knocked down' and wish you could've gone back in time to warn people what a mistake it would be. Too late – you can never bring it back again.
But its not too late for the Greyhound.
nasarocnasaroc wrote:The stance of the Sydenham Society starts with our membership. At a well-attended Sydenham Society AGM, there was a unanimous vote aginst demolition of the Greyhound. We were supported in this by our local MP and councillors. As you will see from above we now want to test local feeling by running a petition (supported and run by the way by the Sydenham Traders' Association) and by organising a meeting of local residents.
We do not believe that it is inevitable that the Greyhound will be demolished. The fact that someone owns something and can maximise their profits by destruction simply isn't a factor in planning law otherwise most of London's assets would have been flattened by now to build blocks of flats. If you look back on Town Museum you will see plenty of evidence that many of Sydenham's terraced streets would now have been demolished in the 60s and 70s if developers/local authorities had their way.
And yes, we do believe that the Greyhound can be redeemed by proper management (just as The Dolphin has).
There are those who, when faced with an issue such as this say" yes knock it down!" And the roundabout as well! In the real world outside of Sydenham Town you then have to face the question of what you put in its place and thankfully that's what the Sydenham Society along with local residents is now trying to tackle. And it won't be a police station!
Thanks for your reply and explanation.
We could debate this all day (and night) but I not..........however I would just like to make a few comments. The Sydenham Society sometimes likes to think that it represents what all Sydenham residents feel. It often disregards how it affects the local people (the ones whos lifes are affected everyday); these are the ones who live nearby not the people who live out the way in Beaulieu Avenue, Longton Grove/Avenue or the Thorpes.
Being supported by the MP and Councillors does not make it right. If the vast majority of local people wanted it demolished (or similar) who would they be supporting then?
As for your comments about what would I put in place instead of that roundabout ......................apart from maybe its size what was wrong with the other one..................... many people enjoyed the flowers as they entered your Sydenham Gateway.
Although it might have been said tongue in cheek when you say it won't be a Police Station, I assume once again you have consulted local residents?
|
I was delighted to see the posting from Lee at the Milford Group. I too very much hope that Milford will be able to construct dwellings which everyone in this area can welcome and enjoy.
There are a number of points of clarification that I'd like Lee to answer if he will.
1. Closure of the Greyhound.
In his posting Lee states that "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. We have no interest in the site becoming derelict or remaining disused for any length of time."I understand that Milford take over ownership of the pub from Barter Inns on August 12th. Will Milford continue to operate the pub? If Milford don't do this surely they, as owners of the pub, are responsible for it "remaining disused?" Or am I missing something?
2. Type and size of flats
In his posting Lee states that "Our latest proposals do not include “back-to-back” flats - no front windows of any of the proposed flats would face directly onto the rear of Peak Hill Gardens and there is certainly not a “huge four storey wall of flats” confronting the residents of Peak Hill Gardens." I have a set of the preliminary drawings Milford submitted to Lewisham council on the 5th April in front of me. All of the proposed blocks are either four or five storeys in height and on all of the plans a block four storeys in height runs parallel to the gardens to the rear of Peak Hill Gardens. In their rejection of these preliminary drawings on the 14th April Lewisham’s urban designers stated that "single aspect north-facing [dwellings] are unacceptable." There is only one direction which is north on the site and that is towards Peak Hill Gardens. There do therefore appear to be “back-to-back” flats on your diagrams and there will be a huge four storey wall of flats facing Peak Hill Gardens. Have I or Lewisham’s planning department misunderstood your drawings?
There are a number of points of clarification that I'd like Lee to answer if he will.
1. Closure of the Greyhound.
In his posting Lee states that "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. We have no interest in the site becoming derelict or remaining disused for any length of time."I understand that Milford take over ownership of the pub from Barter Inns on August 12th. Will Milford continue to operate the pub? If Milford don't do this surely they, as owners of the pub, are responsible for it "remaining disused?" Or am I missing something?
2. Type and size of flats
In his posting Lee states that "Our latest proposals do not include “back-to-back” flats - no front windows of any of the proposed flats would face directly onto the rear of Peak Hill Gardens and there is certainly not a “huge four storey wall of flats” confronting the residents of Peak Hill Gardens." I have a set of the preliminary drawings Milford submitted to Lewisham council on the 5th April in front of me. All of the proposed blocks are either four or five storeys in height and on all of the plans a block four storeys in height runs parallel to the gardens to the rear of Peak Hill Gardens. In their rejection of these preliminary drawings on the 14th April Lewisham’s urban designers stated that "single aspect north-facing [dwellings] are unacceptable." There is only one direction which is north on the site and that is towards Peak Hill Gardens. There do therefore appear to be “back-to-back” flats on your diagrams and there will be a huge four storey wall of flats facing Peak Hill Gardens. Have I or Lewisham’s planning department misunderstood your drawings?
Dear Eagle - the Sydenham Society (whose members live all over the town centre by the way) isn't preventing anyone from following their own agenda on the Greyhound site. You have a perfect right, if you want to, to organise and run a campaign demanding that the site be replaced by a police station. The Sydenham Society isn't like a political party - it is an amenity society (registered with the Civic Trust) which represents its membership.
There seems to be confusion about who actually owns the Greyhound at the moment. I understood that Milford had already bought it. However. Lee Barker's comments suggest otherwise.
It is currently leased to Barter Inns, who employ the staff who are running it at the moment. But Barter have been asked to leave by August 13th. I thought that Barter were leasing from Milford. Is that not the case?
Could somebody - Lee perhaps - please clarify who is the current owner?
It is currently leased to Barter Inns, who employ the staff who are running it at the moment. But Barter have been asked to leave by August 13th. I thought that Barter were leasing from Milford. Is that not the case?
Could somebody - Lee perhaps - please clarify who is the current owner?
-
Greg Whitehead
- Posts: 474
- Joined: 11 Apr 2005 15:44
- Location: SE26 5RL
I must say I'm not quite sure where I stand on the future of The Greyhound. There are clearly some strong and well-thought arguments put forward here and I wouldn't necessarily want to see something so synonymous with Sydenham lost forever. I appreciate there are a good many people who have fond recollections of a pleasant and well run pub and that quite rightly evokes thoughts of what could be again. In a similar vein Juwlz, Falkor and I saw first-hand the Milton tiles and they are really quite arresting so I wouldn't want the wreckers-ball taken to that either.
Setting all that to one side I think we would perhaps all agree that the Greyhound has been something of a blight on the landscape for some time (both in terms of the state of disrepair of the building and problems associated with those who frequented it) and as such I'm potentially rather pleased with the news.
Certainly The Dolphin is a glowing testament to what can be achieved with some sympathetic renovation and proves there are plenty of those in residence for whom a bottle of WKD and chicken in a basket holds no allure. If we are to resign ourselves to the loss of the building I'd like to reconcile myself with the fact that the tiled entrance might be retained. It would certainly lend some all-important kerb-appeal to the development if one were to access the building through the old hotel entrance.
It would be a shame to lose an important landmark but of late The Greyhound has been anything other than an icon and more of an embarrassment in the five years I have lived here so I greet the news very much with mixed feelings.
Setting all that to one side I think we would perhaps all agree that the Greyhound has been something of a blight on the landscape for some time (both in terms of the state of disrepair of the building and problems associated with those who frequented it) and as such I'm potentially rather pleased with the news.
Certainly The Dolphin is a glowing testament to what can be achieved with some sympathetic renovation and proves there are plenty of those in residence for whom a bottle of WKD and chicken in a basket holds no allure. If we are to resign ourselves to the loss of the building I'd like to reconcile myself with the fact that the tiled entrance might be retained. It would certainly lend some all-important kerb-appeal to the development if one were to access the building through the old hotel entrance.
It would be a shame to lose an important landmark but of late The Greyhound has been anything other than an icon and more of an embarrassment in the five years I have lived here so I greet the news very much with mixed feelings.
-
annabel mclaren
- Posts: 115
- Joined: 1 Oct 2004 19:55
- Location: thorpes
Welcome back Greg - good to see you are still in circulation! Re the Greyhound - in my opinion its refurbishment is key to the regeneration of Sydenham as it forms an essential piece of the jigsaw of the proposed Sydenham Gateway. The pub has obviously got into a terrible state as a result of indifferent and continually changing ownership, but there is still a beautiful building there struggling to get out - as Rodney so eloquently describes in his posting above. I disagree (obviously!) with Lee when he says the building is of no architectural merit: in fact Gavin Stamp, the architectural historian, has described it as 'an important community landmark' and a recent leaflet from Lewisham called 'Sydenham Secrets' (available in the library) puts it first on the list of iconic buildings in the area. A bit of tender loving care of the kind the Dolphin has benefited from (and more recently the Two Brewers on Perry Hill), plus a decent management, and the situation could be turned round. A number of posters have taken the view that a new pub or bar would somehow solve the problem of the anti-social nature of the clientele - but how can this be guaranteed? Why should a new bar attract a different customer base? You could easily have new licensed premises and exactly the same clientele - the solution lies with the management of the pub, and with the example of Dolphin and the Two Brewers close at hand who can deny that what the pub needs is proper management? Incidentally, whatever new scheme Milford comes up with the chances are that they will want to come right up to the building line, thus leaving very little outdoor space and losing the context that Stuart describes in his posting.
I have thought long and hard before posting this reply and I fear that some of what I say will not be popular. It may even mean not being invited to play cricket again if it ever happens. A risk I am afraid I am prepared to take!
Firstly I hope we can agree this site is the most important brown field site in Sydenham. However it is developed, it offers the oportunity for substantial residential and commercial development which will bring jobs and money into the area. Get it right and this is the a great chance for the regeneration of the area. Get it wrong and we lose the oportunity for a generation.
So to the Greyhound building itself. There is no doubt that some of it is good, but it is a mish mash of extensions many of which are of no merit at all. I am afraid most people only seem to look at the front. I suggest you look down Spring Hill past the old lobby entrance. Or the car park side past the rear entrance. Or even worse the back where there is a combination of 60's utilitarian extensions and a totally unremarkable double bay Edwardian Facade. The buildings on the other side of the road are so much better. So I am afraid that in reality most of it is not worth saving.
The presumption in British planning law is in favour of development as I learned when I was closely involved in the planning process. As such the answer should almost never be 'no' when negotiating with a developer but rather 'yes but.' And next to the bit that will really make me unpopular. I have been wondering why I ahve not rejoined the Sydenham Society. Was it simple laziness or something deeper and this has crystalised to me that it is the latter. I am afraid that the Sydenham Society is essentially ludite, committed to preserving the area in the hope of returning it to somesort of golden age, that I have certainly not experienced all the time I have known the area over the last 20 years. Be it Bell Green or this site, the presumption is against the economic realites of high land values in London and the economic realites of building in the capital. Building will happen and all we can do is to seek to get the best design we can.
If we are going to get this site we need to widen the group that is consulted away from the Sydenham Society to all those affected and particulalry those in the area immediatley surrounding the site. And whilst attending meetings may be a part of that, it means that the developer putting the plans on the net to ask for views and delivering outline plans to everyone. I may also mean doing door knocking, perhaps jointly with local people so that theri views really are included. Take a leaf from the process around the development of Crystal Palace Park and really engage the community.
Firstly I hope we can agree this site is the most important brown field site in Sydenham. However it is developed, it offers the oportunity for substantial residential and commercial development which will bring jobs and money into the area. Get it right and this is the a great chance for the regeneration of the area. Get it wrong and we lose the oportunity for a generation.
So to the Greyhound building itself. There is no doubt that some of it is good, but it is a mish mash of extensions many of which are of no merit at all. I am afraid most people only seem to look at the front. I suggest you look down Spring Hill past the old lobby entrance. Or the car park side past the rear entrance. Or even worse the back where there is a combination of 60's utilitarian extensions and a totally unremarkable double bay Edwardian Facade. The buildings on the other side of the road are so much better. So I am afraid that in reality most of it is not worth saving.
The presumption in British planning law is in favour of development as I learned when I was closely involved in the planning process. As such the answer should almost never be 'no' when negotiating with a developer but rather 'yes but.' And next to the bit that will really make me unpopular. I have been wondering why I ahve not rejoined the Sydenham Society. Was it simple laziness or something deeper and this has crystalised to me that it is the latter. I am afraid that the Sydenham Society is essentially ludite, committed to preserving the area in the hope of returning it to somesort of golden age, that I have certainly not experienced all the time I have known the area over the last 20 years. Be it Bell Green or this site, the presumption is against the economic realites of high land values in London and the economic realites of building in the capital. Building will happen and all we can do is to seek to get the best design we can.
If we are going to get this site we need to widen the group that is consulted away from the Sydenham Society to all those affected and particulalry those in the area immediatley surrounding the site. And whilst attending meetings may be a part of that, it means that the developer putting the plans on the net to ask for views and delivering outline plans to everyone. I may also mean doing door knocking, perhaps jointly with local people so that theri views really are included. Take a leaf from the process around the development of Crystal Palace Park and really engage the community.
My personal views on the Greyhound are as follows:
Milford Homes attempt to marginalise the Sydenham Society on this forum are unwelcome. The Syd Soc, like other democratic groups, is here to represent the community. If anyone feels the Syd Soc is unrepresentative of the wider community, then join, and change it from within. They are attempting to represent YOU.
Sydenham should have a 'landmark' type development to welcome people to the area on the site of the Greyhound. Milford homes website displays photographs of some of their previous works. These all seem to smack of 'Prisoner, cell blockH'.
On a professional basis, I have some previous experience of Milford Homes and their strategies for seeking planning approval. There are a wide variety strategies they adopt, and these may not seem immediately apparent to the local community.
I would urge everyone to analyse the facts presented to them and to consider their judgement carefully. Any new development is going to remain for our lifetime, and once built, we'll have to live with it.
I think the term is " for better or worse"
Alib
Milford Homes attempt to marginalise the Sydenham Society on this forum are unwelcome. The Syd Soc, like other democratic groups, is here to represent the community. If anyone feels the Syd Soc is unrepresentative of the wider community, then join, and change it from within. They are attempting to represent YOU.
Sydenham should have a 'landmark' type development to welcome people to the area on the site of the Greyhound. Milford homes website displays photographs of some of their previous works. These all seem to smack of 'Prisoner, cell blockH'.
On a professional basis, I have some previous experience of Milford Homes and their strategies for seeking planning approval. There are a wide variety strategies they adopt, and these may not seem immediately apparent to the local community.
I would urge everyone to analyse the facts presented to them and to consider their judgement carefully. Any new development is going to remain for our lifetime, and once built, we'll have to live with it.
I think the term is " for better or worse"
Alib
Last edited by ALIB on 30 Jul 2007 14:36, edited 1 time in total.
-
Steve Grindlay
- Posts: 606
- Joined: 4 Oct 2004 05:07
- Location: Upper Sydenham
The view of the Sydenham Society is made clear <in an article> from their latest newsletter that states: "The overwhelming feeling [of members at the AGM] was that The Greyhound should be retained and refurbished ... and that any residential development in the car park should be small, of a high quality and with a higher level of car parking."simono wrote:I am afraid that the Sydenham Society is essentially ludite, committed to preserving the area in the hope of returning it to somesort of golden age
In general this means attempting to preserve the best of what is there while ensuring that development of the rest of the site is of high quality. This may be an ideal but it is one worth aspiring to and which I, as a member, support.
The Luddite approach you accuse the society of is not borne out. If you had remained a member you would have learnt of two recent proposals, both involving the demolition of 19th century buildings, of which the Sydenham Society is generally supportive, provided the gains outweigh the losses.
-
Steve Grindlay
- Posts: 606
- Joined: 4 Oct 2004 05:07
- Location: Upper Sydenham
Incidentally, I have a lot of sympathy with the Luddites. They were working people desperate to protect their livelihoods. Wealthy mill owners, who only wanted to increase their profits, were imposing wage reductions and using unskilled labour. The popular view, that Luddites were simply opposed to progress, was advanced by the government and the very people whose profits were at risk.
The most impassioned speech in support of the Luddites was made by Lord Byron in the House of Lords in 1812. By delightful coincidence, Lord Byron may, or may not, have had a drink in the Greyhound when he went to visit Thomas Campbell, who lived on Peak Hill. Byron wrote on 15/12/1811: "Yesterday I went with Moore to Sydenham to visit Campbell. He was not visible, so we jogged homeward merrily enough."
The most impassioned speech in support of the Luddites was made by Lord Byron in the House of Lords in 1812. By delightful coincidence, Lord Byron may, or may not, have had a drink in the Greyhound when he went to visit Thomas Campbell, who lived on Peak Hill. Byron wrote on 15/12/1811: "Yesterday I went with Moore to Sydenham to visit Campbell. He was not visible, so we jogged homeward merrily enough."