Going over old ground - The Hound that is Grey

Eagle · Post by **Eagle** » 28 May 2014 14:32

Amazing

This has been longer than even the Tower Hamlets election.

Something is very rotten in the state of the developer. To quote The Bard.

I would have thought , especially as they rely on good will to gain other contracts , they would cut their losses and comply with what is required.

In the long run it will be cheaper and make them heroes. Could be a statue of Mr P in the roundabout at Cobb's

hairybuddha · Post by **hairybuddha** » 28 May 2014 15:30

I had always assumed they were playing the long game, waiting for the Council to cave and grant them permission to demolish it. But the completion of the mural doesn't fit with that at all. Perhaps they are just incompetent?

Tim Lund · Post by **Tim Lund** » 28 May 2014 16:02

hairybuddha wrote:I had always assumed they were playing the long game, waiting for the Council to cave and grant them permission to demolish it. But the completion of the mural doesn't fit with that at all. Perhaps they are just incompetent?

Maybe they were having to pay storage for it somewhere, and this was the cheaper option?

sugahill cafe · Post by **sugahill cafe** » 28 May 2014 16:08

My no.1 wish for Sydenham right now would be to have this eyesore come to a conclusion, tired of looking at this everyday.
Chris

angela53 · Post by **angela53** » 28 May 2014 18:11

Me too, fed up looking at it

marymck · Post by **marymck** » 28 May 2014 19:14

If, as sadly seems likely, the mural gets damaged it will prove that Purelake can't even do basic project management on their core business ... building construction. But I'm not really surprised at that. At a one of their housing developments they installed the windows upside down. Utterly incompetent.

owlwise · Post by **owlwise** » 29 May 2014 07:17

Can this not go to Construction Arbitration in order to sort out this stalemate shambles between Lewisham council and Purelake??

owlwise · Post by **owlwise** » 29 May 2014 07:46

http://www.constructionarbitrators.org/

biscuitman1978 · Post by **biscuitman1978** » 29 May 2014 08:15

owlwise wrote:Can this not go to Construction Arbitration in order to sort out this stalemate shambles between Lewisham council and Purelake??

owlwise wrote:http://www.constructionarbitrators.org/

Thanks, owlwise.

At the moment this is not really a construction issue - there are wider issues at play. I have suggested to the Council that they consider an RICS mediator - http://www.rics.org/uk/join/member-accr ... mediation/

And just to be clear, the stalemate is not really between Purelake and the Council - it's between Purelake and other parties who need to be signatories to the deed of variation.

Robin Orton · Post by **Robin Orton** » 29 May 2014 10:00

Who are these 'other interests'?

biscuitman1978 · Post by **biscuitman1978** » 29 May 2014 10:14

Robin Orton wrote:Who are these 'other interests'?

The retail concession and Hexagon housing, as previously reported by admin (go to http://sydenham.org.uk/sydenham-assembl ... mber-2013/ and scroll down to 'The Greyhound' sub-section).

biscuitman1978 · Post by **biscuitman1978** » 29 May 2014 10:49

rod taylor wrote:
Sydenham Assembly wrote:...the Deed of Variation has been signed off by the council and is now with Purelake and the other signatories (the retail concession and Hexagon housing). It was hoped, but not promised, they would sign off by Christmas.
Does anyone have any idea why this is taking so long?

Basically:
- 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)

That's about all I can say for now, other than to note that our ward councillors have just been elected. If the Greyhound is important to you, please urge them to make sure that it is at the top of both their in trays and officers' in trays.

southernmoose · Post by **southernmoose** » 29 May 2014 20:41

I second that. Thanks for the updates biscuitman.

It's just amazing that this isn't further up the council's priority list - anyone who comes to visit me from out of town comments on the state of the Greyhound - it's a public disgrace.

Tim Lund · Post by **Tim Lund** » 30 May 2014 09:40

biscuitman1978 wrote:
Robin Orton wrote:Who are these 'other interests'?
The retail concession and Hexagon housing, as previously reported by admin (go to http://sydenham.org.uk/sydenham-assembl ... mber-2013/ and scroll down to 'The Greyhound' sub-section).

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?

sparticus · Post by **sparticus** » 30 May 2014 10:33

As above. I can't see any of the commercial interests wanting the Greyhound to be rebuilt. As the local authority cannot or will not enforce rebuilding of the pub, and as Purlake appears to be prepared to spin it out for as long as it takes, then sadly it might be time to accept the fait accompli and demolish the sordid remains. Sad, but realistic. There are a lot of pubs falling down around London at the moment. The market is consolidating and changing and whilst there are exceptions- the good news about the Alexandra elsewhere for example- we just have to accept that we won't have the number of neighbourhood pubs we used to. The good news is that niche operators like Antic and Late Knights are taking over some of the ones that are left. I've also come to the conclusion that a rebuilt Greyhound would look out of place surrounded by what can only be described as a very second-rate new development. It sticks in the throat to let a bunch of crooks like Purlake win, but best to pull it down, create a worthwhile open space and get the retail unit occupied.

owlwise · Post by **owlwise** » 30 May 2014 10:52

Who is actually meant to be pushing this process along?? Is it someone at Lewisham council? Yes, there are several parties involved but there must be one person surely who should be project managing it. They should be contacted to pull their finger out of their a*** and chase the process along. We need a name and we need to contact them. Too many jobworths just do not care and as a local resident I am fed up to the back teeth with looking at this embarrassment on my doorstep. Anyone as annoyed as I am with this should take action and confront whoever is responsible and get the Greyhound up and running and the leaseholder at the back, if it's still Sainsbury's Local, open as soon as possible.

Eagle · Post by **Eagle** » 30 May 2014 10:59

I suspect the leaseholder may not open until Greyhound demolished.

I believe they probably signed lease on the understanding that is what would occur and they were very nearly proved correct.

dickp · Post by **dickp** » 30 May 2014 12:01

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."

biscuitman1978 · Post by **biscuitman1978** » 30 May 2014 12:18

Tim Lund wrote: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.

sparticus wrote:As the local authority cannot or will not enforce rebuilding of the pub...

Where have you got this information from?

owlwise wrote: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.

dickp wrote: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."

As I indicated in a recent post, I have recommended to Cllr Best that officers and Members reach a view as to:
- Whether it is possible to take enforcement action to force Purelake to rebuild the pub
- Whether the Council is willing to take enforcement action

Eagle · Post by **Eagle** » 30 May 2014 12:33

Rod
I have no evidence just theory.

When the original agreement signed possibly the retailer advised they would not sign if derelict building in front remained as blocked the view of their proposed store from the road . What if developer advised that would not be a problem...

Leave then rest to you.... Of course there could be no foundation at all to this theory.

Sydenham Town Forum

The Community Voice for London SE26 since 2004