The All Inn One pub

The historic All Inn One AKA The Forresters Arms750×562 104 KB

Dear Friends,

The campaign to prevent the demolition of the All Inn One pub (formerly The Forresters Arms) in Perry Vale has begun in earnest. We have a short time in which to submit our objections. If you have an objection please submit it to planning@lewisham.gov.uk citing Planning Application DC/18/109536 THE FORRESTERS ARMS, 53 PERRY VALE, LONDON, SE23 2NE.

If you do submit an objection, or want to play a role in the campaign, I would be really grateful if you could let me know via email liamcurran33@hotmail.co.uk

There are many justifications in planning rules to protect pubs from redevelopment but a good one to mention would be The Mayor of London’s London Plan Policy HC7 Protecting public houses.

There will be more information coming but it would be good to start getting individual objections in now.

Best wishes

Councillor Liam Curran
Chair, Sustainable Development Scrutiny Committee

Welcome to SE23.life, @CllrLiamCurran - great to have you onboard.

I would very much like to see the All Inn One retained as a pub (although sadly without Richard and Julia I fear) and I wish you well in the campaign

Did I misunderstand the planning application but isn’t a pub being retained on the ground floor elevation?

May I ask if the petition could be amended - or for another one to be drawn up - to the effect that any new development would have a pub on the ground floor and the current landlords would be given the opportunity to move back in on similar terms to their existing arrangement? (Perahps I’m being naive though?).

There are three issues here:

1. Should a pub be retained on the site
2. Should the building be retained
3. Is the replacement building appropriate

The planning application includes the retention of the ground floor as a pub/restaurant - similar to the Greyhound, the Slyvan Post, the Honor Oak, and every other successful pub in the area. I don’t think there is an issue on the first point.

On the subsequent points there are various opinions but the building is not in a conservation area, is not listed, and has no other protection (other than protections offered to pubs but not to their buildings specifically). But that still doesn’t mean that demolition is the best solution, just that there is little protection or planning grounds for objecting.

Whether the replacement building is appropriate, and whether a hotel above the pub/restaurant is right for the site, is likely to be the main issues discussed.

For the record:

1. I have spoken to the developer by phone on a few occasions
2. I regularly drink and have meetings in the All Inn One

I hear your other points and respect your knowledge here. On this subject of the proposed pub - the developers would have an vested interest in minimising the “pub” aspect of the development, though, wouldn’t they?

Do they want to? I understood they gave it up to pursue a different lifestyle.

No, they call it a pub but it’s a bar area a fraction of the current square footage and the loss of all the attendant pub facilities. It’s likely a trojan horse application that will not even have a pub in the end. I am afraid it’s a pattern that I have seen all too frequently.

Hello Michael,

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. No.

The planning application is like none of those that you cite as it removes a purpose-built public house with all the attendant facilities expected of a pub. i.e. beer garden etc. There are planning rules that can definitely be used to protect the pub and there are many grounds on which to object. These rules are able to specifically to cover those pubs that might not be in a conservation area etc.

There are enough reasons on retention alone to protect this marvellous, purpose-built, historical, landmark building that provides a fantastic community hub of enormous social and community significance.

Furthermore, many applications like this turn out to be ‘trojan horse’ applications that are followed by a new application.

Finally, the design stinks.

Best wishes

Liam

I’ll need to have another look at the latest plans. The previous application had the same floor area for the pub. I was surprised and tried a few ways to measure it, and it seemed to be true. There are good reasons why a hotel would value a restaurant/pub on the ground floor - assuming the council don’t take most of the rooms as temporary accomodation for homeless people.

I’m not trying to champion the development - i value hearing different views about this proposal so that the Forest Hill Society can best represent local opinion and properly consider the appropriate planning issues.

Post(s) from this topic were temporarily removed as they may have broken our community guidelines

SE23.life aims for transparent moderation. Members are able to view the conversation around this intervention by opting in here.

Thank you for providing the details of the planning application, that is very helpful. It makes it much easier for me and others to submit a statement of support of the proposal. I can’t wait to have a decent hotel locally. Increasing the urban density will also strengthen Forest Hill’s position as a distinct local centre and hopefully encourage other developments to follow, particularly on that side of the railway.

There’s an argument that it is not the building that creates a community hub but the people who run it. There’s no point in retaining the pub just for the sake of it if there isn’t a visionary local landlord also ready to take forward the legacy of the All In One.

I can see real economic benefit to having a hotel on that site. Specifically, there is the potential to provide the restaurants and other amenities on that side of the station with regular trade spread over the week. This would allow these ventures to stabilise and flourish, surely a huge boon to locals.

There is a difference between replacing a pub with housing (although much needed) and a commercial building that should bring extra spending to the area.

This is not to minimise genuine objections that might arise from the design of the hotel and other issues, of course. But that’s a different issue from whether or not we should try to save the current tenantless building.

I echo the above; it is the hard work of R&J that has made the All Inn One, and without that level of dedication and drive then this risks becoming yet another wasted space. We already have one long standing pub in FH that has stood closed for over a year once the landlord moved on, another that has changed hands numerous times and at least two more that have appeared on these pages as being under threat of closure or up for sale.

I will miss the All Inn One, it is a nice pub, good venue, and mostly I’ll miss the people, but I certainly don’t object to a development that could well add to the area.

I’ve had a chance to look at the plans and there is a substantial reduction in the size of the pub (from 360 sqm to 274 sqm - a loss of 24%). This is as a result of squeezing more bedrooms onto the ground floor to keep 66 rooms when a floor was removed from the plans.

The loss of 24% is roughly equivalent of not having the dining room. There will still be something of a pub/restaurant, but it won’t be quite the same, and there will be the loss of all the outdoor space, which is also a shame.

I’m not sure if planning policies relating to pubs includes the loss of floor space or outdoor areas, or just shutting entire pubs - which I know @CllrLiamCurran has done great things to prevent across Lewisham.

In Forest Hill we have seen a successful pub open in the post office, so I don’t think it would be impossible to have a good pub below a hotel. But I’m also aware that this is the only sizable pub garden in central Forest Hill - which gives it a special character (but also makes it more valuable to a developer).

We are fortunate in Forest Hill to have a number of good pubs in the town centre and I suspect if somebody was to propose turning the Capitol into a cinema there would be few objections.

The All Inn One planning application has lots to be said in favour and against.

just to clarify, are you representing the views of the Council’s Sustainable Development Committee in this campaign?

y

If we are talking about campaigning to keep pubs in historic buildings, let’s put our energies into getting the Hill reopened. It’s in the centre of FH and in the most amazing building. It could be an incredible anchor for Dartmouth Road.

@anon5422159 You really should stop posting links to articles in the News Shopper as if they are sound sources of information (and yes, I know I was quoted in the one about Sainsburys recently).

“Met with fury’ turns out to be one bloke who used to go to the pub twenty years ago and Liam Curran taking the opportunity to do some PR for his campaign. If his original tweet was met with so many responses, how come none are quoted in the article?

If there is a genuine groundswell of support for retaining the pub, I wish the campaign well. Whatever the outcome, we need a thriving commercial venture on that site.

Posted for interest only (not necessarily endorsement), and I think members ought to be entitled to post from local news sources if they choose to.

The forum will help build a rounded view on how residents feel about the demolition, provided people feel safe and welcome to post, and are not judged or criticised unnecessarily.

@anon5422159 My tone was intended to be lighthearted, I should have added an emoji.

In all seriousness, though, posting without comment suggests endoresment of the source. If you are just posting a link for information, it’s probably a good idea to say so.

Hello Rachael,

I have been contacted by local residents who have already sent in a 50-strong petition and asked for my support.
There are more besides:

image484×656 140 KB

There’s more but I don’t want to fill this space!

Cheers

Liam

Hello Thor Nogson,

You have cheered me up as when I was a child I used to love Noggin The Nog!

Are you sure you’re Thor Nogson? You could be Nogbad The Bad. That’s the trouble with anonymous posters!

Cheers

Cllr Liam Curran
Chair of Sustainable Development Scrutiny Committee

Delighted to be of service

I don’t doubt it, Liam. It’s just a shame, for the campaign’s sake, that the News Shopper only quoted one response, and not even one that really supported it’s headline of ‘fury’.

If your campaign does succeed, what do you envisage for the future of the pub? I’m wondering, with the ‘Hill’ still empty and the Railway Telegraph struggling to re-establish itself after its refit whether there is an issue with getting people to take on these ventures. It is the provision of a pub that you are concerned with or preserving the building? Or both? As others have pointed out, the current landlords have been exceptional in keeping the place relevant - their regular programme of pop-up kitchens has been very popular indeed. The pub would need landlords with similar vision to keep it going.

Hello Rachel,

Alas, although I am happy to talk to the press, I recall that even when I used to be a reporter on local papers, I was unable to control the sub-editors’ hyperbole. I try not to walk 'round in a fury as it’s very tiring.

On the main point I totally agree - the current landlords are doing a brilliant job and there’s nothing to stop another team doing so in the future. Many things can make it difficult to run a pub - especially the pubcos which screw the licensees into the ground through outrageous contracts/leases. This is happening up and down the country. I would have to know, therefore, the individual circumstances affecting The Hill and The Telegraph.

I do know that I was told back in 2007 that The Greyhound in Sydenham was being closed and would have to go as it was unable to make a profit. After having campaigned for a decade alongside many others and after having had to force the owners to rebuild it after they illegally demolished the pub, it reopened this year and is now thriving and very popular pub.

The Blythe Hill Tavern down the road on the south circular is an incredibly popular pub and keeps winning awards. I cannot find a seat in The Dolphin on most Friday nights. A few years’ ago The Lord Northbrook in Lee was voted SE London’s worst pub by the aformentioned NewsShopper. It was taken over by a new owner who turned it into a thriving pub and sold it on to Fullers for a tidy sum.

To me most pubs that are left in Lewisham are fine landmark, Victoria or Edwardian pubs that are important to our past and our present. I wish to both preserve the building and the opportunity for the public house business to continue.

Cheers

Liam

glad to be of good cheer! Was not being intentionally bad. Just that in passing, the local Dragons’ Friendly Society (which has a portfolio of investments including pubs) wanted to know if your signoff indicates that you represent the SDS Committee in this campaign… if so, fair play, because that’s how it looks.

The rebuilt Greyhound has been a success for Sydenham, as evidenced in this poll:

https://se26.life/t/poll-sydenhams-best-pub-2018/891

Such good results do not happen automatically, and often require local campaigning, and fighting very wealthy and powerful interests.

That’s why I want to hear Liam out on this issue. He’s got a good track record.

In this case, they being the “wealthy and powerful interests” of Barry White, owner of Purelake. Worked on one of his sites and he’s widely known as the biggest dickhead in Bromley.

The decent size pub garden is definitely one of the reasons we like the All Inn One so much (alongside the great food and good atmosphere of course!). In the summer you have the option of sitting outside, and the climbing frame was really handy for children to burn some energy while waiting for food to arrive, without bothering anyone else. Every time we’ve been my children have made friends with other kids on the climbing frame.
Most other pubs cram their small gardens with tables so it was nice the All In One had this.

A bit of a treck with kids in tow, but have you ever been to The Fox on the Hill in Herne Hill? Massive pub garden.

I wouldn’t be too quick to cite the Greyhound as a model for this sort of thing as it was a very singular case. If the current success of that pub could be replicated at the All Inn One, I’d be more than happy to see the pub stay, but the circumstances were and are very different.

You could equally refer to the Windmill on Kirkdale, which was protected as a community asset after a similar campaign and then stood empty for years. My point being that each case has to be considered on its own merits and take into account the idiosyncrasies of each site and locale.

That said, the campaign to get the Greyhound rebuilt was fantastic and as a leading voice in that campaign, Liam deserves much credit. I may be a bit biased as the Greyhound does the best Sunday lunch for miles, and it’s just ten minutes walk from my house.

Not having a pop but were you living in Forest Hill/Sydenham during The Greyhound’s original incarnation? It was widely regarded as a dive patronised by drug dealers and their unpredictable clientele. Its reincarnation’s success has, in my opinion, only been made possible by the drive of gentrification Sydenham has enjoyed over the last ten or so years.

That’s exactly my point (and yes, I was). The local economic circumstances when the pub reopened compared to when it closed are completely different and it is a success now as much because of good timing as anything else. The campaign to get it rebuilt was not the same as the campaign to get it reopened / retained. The fact is that the illegal demolition did us all a favour because it was rebuilt to a very high standard as a restoration project and the new landlords got a beautiful building in an area with a growing market for what they offer.

Which is why I say the campaign to save the Greyhound cannot be used as a model for saving the AIO.

Thanks Rachel.

There is no such thing as a bad pub only a bad publican. The druggies had been driven out by the time it had closed in 2007 but these things were allowed to deliberately happen by pubcos and owners etc. They run the pub down so that people want to see it go. It is happening now at certain pubs in the area witness The Perry Hill pub formerly The Two Brewers. The owners of the Dutch House on the A20 put in their least able licensee, and put in an application for a McDonalds. They saw that the community campaign was successful so closed the pub and removed the roof tiles on purpose so that the weather would ruin the building. We’re expecting an application before long to say that the building is not fit for operation.

I have to go back to comments I made on an interminable twitter discussion - The Greyhound, The Dolphin, The Lord Northbrook etc - all pubs that were written off at one point only to be revived and turned into a successful pub by the right people.

Glad to see this campaign. Far too many pubs are being closed. Just a shame that nobody cared when the Forest Hill Hotel was closed. Hopefully this one will be saved.

Just to remind, the choice to close this successful pub and sell the freehold was made by the current owners and operators of the All in One. There is no nefarious activity in that regard.

At present, I can’t see an issue if a new hotel has a ground floor pub. The role a campaign could have, or at least one reasonable objective is to ensure the new owners are not simply paying lip service to planning to get their proposals through. Given a choice (though I know no choice is offered) this location seems wholly more appropriate for a hotel and has the opportunity to reinvigorate business on this side of the tracks.

The Forest Hill Society planning committee met this evening at the All Inn One to discuss this application (as well as other development opportunities in the area). There was a lively discussion looking at a number of issues raised around the table as well as referring to discussions we have had here, via email, and in person with local residents.

The outcome is that we will be opposing this application on a number of grounds (much of which has been covered in this thread and the associated thread) and once we have turned this into a formal objection it will be made available on our website.

For me there are so many variables for people’s wants/needs for any change in or new establishment that it would be impossible to say this is what the community want/feel without “misrepresenting” people (whether it be that they are unaware of these things, that they have a need/want for a hotel and have never used the all in one etc.) and this will always be the case.

However, from visiting quite a few establishments in FH and reading the thread here I think there are two objective key things that the pub have that others don’t seem to.

1. A decent outdoor space, including area for children
2. The pop-ups in the restaurant (although i guess it could be argued there are pop-ups at the Archie Parker and are many good restaurants around)

I wonder whether any “campaign” or want for new landlords to takeover the pub should focus on these aspects? By my count there are 6 pubs within a 10 minute walking distance which is more than enough I reckon (?!) and although offer varying fayre from cheap booze to fancy cocktails and food or events they are all still at the heart of it drinking establishments. The thing that makes all-in-one different/unique are those things and focusing on them may mean people support objections to the plans more than a relatively non-specific we don’t want another pub closing/I used the drink in here for years which may not resonate for some people who either do not know much about the pub or who see 6 other pubs within a 10 minute walk.

The reason I’m writing this isn’t because I live on “the other side of the tracks” or have personal reasons (like kids or hate hotels!) but it feels a little similar to the Windmill on Kirkdale (someone already mentioned it). I moved in nearby that location during its final weeks and the ongoing campaign to save a “local valuabal asset” (or whatever the official term is). It is now 5 years on and has remained closed/empty since with work fairly recently commencing on flats with two shop/studio units at the bottom (I believe). I could be wrong (and please do correct me) but unlike the all-in-one I don’t think it was very well attended, however it did have one specific thing that made it unique - wheelchair access to the whole pub (it also had a number of pool tables but the two pubs within 5 minute walk both do aswell - foxes and the bricklayers). This never appeared to be a focal point of any campaign I saw and as a result even though new to the area and wanting as much “stuff” nearby as possible I saw two other pubs within a few minutes walk and nothing of any significance (especially as the campaign from my view wasn’t well supported online with many believing that it shouldn’t be “saved”).

Anyways, apologies for bit of a long one but felt so wanted to say my two cents worth

As a further follow up to ensure any statistics I provide are accurate, I have been in touch with the developers and his architect and they have explained that the previous size included a large basement area that we not fully utilised. The changes planned would allow the toilets to be located downstairs, allowing the drinking/dining/bar area to be virtually identical to the current pub.

In terms of loss of pub, assuming that the developer can find somebody to run the new pub below a hotel, this application should not result in the loss of a pub, just the outside area. I suspect that this would be enough to satisfy Policy HC7, but @CllrLiamCurran probably has a better understand of this than I do.

There certainly remain two broad questions that people will have different answers to:

• Should the building be retained?
• Is the replacement building appropriate?

Thank you for the explanation Michael.

Does this mean that a disabled toilet would also be in the basement?

Presumably not. There are no details on the internal layout of the pub, so it is quite possible that a single toilet for disabled customers would be on the ground floor.

My policy Nogbad - no responses to anonymous posters.

Hello Jon,

Thanks for this and they are all valid points. A few observations in response:

There were many points during the decade-long battle for The Greyhound when some people said ‘Give it up. We don’t want that boarded-up eyesore around any longer’. In many instances, this is what developers are relying on so people give in, whether their case is meritorious or otherwise.

Secondly, in many of those cases the developers are trying to establish a precedent and it is important to ensure planning rules are observed. If we don’t challenge them, the planning rules for conserving and regenerating our high streets will be trampled upon.

Thirdly, some of the pubs you refer to are in shopfronts etc. While some of these are brilliant establishments, created through hard work and something to be cherished, they are generally more transient, located in non-special units and will have less planning rules available to keep them going when an owner moves on, is booted out through rent rises etc etc etc. This was part of the problem for The Windmill and the application for it to be registered as an ACV did certainly include the fact that it had a disabled toilet.

Furthermore, the pubs that are generally fought over are fine, historic landmark buildings that have shaped and graced our environment since Victorian/Edwardian timesand, once lost, cannot be recreated. They are also purpose-built, having the facilities vital for running a pub.

By the way, on planning committees I have often voted for change, new buildings etc. I am not opposed to new developments per se. One of my relatives is a developer/house-builder and I know from the inside how difficult it can be and would not put objections in without thought or reason.

Have no idea what the measurements of the existing disabled toilet are, but it is sizeable.

Would the developer be looking for someone to run the pub as well as someone to run the hotel, or is the idea for it all to be managed by one person/entity?

The fact that pubs are crowded does not always mean that they are profitable. What has made the All Inn One thrive economically is that Richard and Julia have from the outset been hands on throughout, working all hours of the day and night and sacrificing much of their family life… With the difficulties experienced by pubs etc in finding and retaining good staff, particularly chefs, co-owner Richard’s input as the pub’s chef together with Julia’s input in all other aspects has contributed enormously to the financial success of the All Inn One. Plus, of course, the pub is not tied.

In my opinion, it may well be extremely difficult if not impossible to find a person/persons/entity capable of running the pub on a profitable basis.

On a personal note, I feel sad that, having worked so hard for so long to make the All Inn One such a success, there is now the potential for Richard and Julia to be deprived of reaping the rewards of such success.

Hi Councillor… in case you weren’t aware SE23.life verifies members who are those that the SE23.life team (moderators/owner) have met confirming their identity in real life. This has gone to great lengths to ensure fake profiles aren’t created, or sock puppets engaged, something which the site owner tries to keep on top of.

So Thor is not really anonymous though he chooses to use a screen name other than his own. In fact eight of the contributors to this thread are using some form of screen name, either a nickname (as in mine), first names only or initials. Most have been verified as real people by the site team.

IMHO opinion it is this system of verification which makes this site work somewhat better than others. If you ever had any concern about my identity you can call me Jason. I’ll happily PM you my full name and even a link to my professional credentials. Or you can talk with some of your other councillors who know me well.

Continuing the discussion from comments made on a se26 forum:

Julia and Richard have sold the property. The planning application is not in their name nor I they involved in the application.

The hotel on the Coop site has not been approved by the council. The applicant is continuing to submit documents as recently as yesterday, so I think they are working with the council to find ways to get approval, once a number of concerns are addressed.

The loss of floor space in the pub is NOT one of the reasons the Forest Hill Society will be opposing the development (see discussion above about floor space). We will make our objection public once it is written.

Thanks for the correction about FHSoc’s position, Michael. This position wasn’t clear from the comments above and I’ll await the final statement (will also edit my comment on SE26.life)

This is an article written from the developer’s point of view:

No endorsement implied, just shared for interest.

I think this hotel is a great idea and will hopefully bring much needed custom and jobs to the area. With the car park opposite and the station nearby it’s a great location. A road crossing would need to be put in I imagine.

I am really in two minds about this as well. I don’t drink out much but when I do I go to the All Inn One and I love it there. Nice beer, great hospitality, good food and a lovely atmosphere. That is all down to the current owners and staff and as such is already gone as the pub is sold and Richard and Julia want to move on. They work really hard in there and I can’t imagine it makes them a fortune. There is also a lot of competition around the area so I imagine selling it as a going concern will be hard.
So whatever happens next it wont be the same so while I would love to still have a pub to go to I am also quite keen on seeing a hotel here especially if it retains a pub element. There have been several times it would have been really handy for me esp recently when we were putting friends up.
So I won’t be supporting a campaign to save the pub but I wish good luck to those that do…

Thank you Starman, if people are happy to let me know their real identity, I would be happy to engage with them. I would be grateful if you could PM me as indicated.
Best wishes

Liam

topofthehill

The drawings do not currently have a layout for the spaces allocated to be the pub areas. It might be anticipated that when a new licencee is secured, an interior/pub designer will be appointed to do the detailed design.

On the provision of a disabled toilet, legislation now mandates that one must be provided with no derogations and no weaseling out… The lower part of the two areas is currently only serviced by stairs and hence that smaller part may not be deemed accessible - however it may also become a basement/kitchen area - who knows.

Could not agree more. The hard work, perseverance and the endurance of what frankly were very difficult times for Richard and Julia in the first years should not be under-estimated.

Their foresight and planning as they converted what was a failed and some-times violent pub into the success it is now is tribute to their skills and expertise. I recall that on the expulsion of one un-desirable he returned in the night to throw bricks through their windows. Some of you may remember the pub being robbed at the point of a gun.

So I am one of a long line of regulars who will readily extol Richard and Julia’s virtues and will also declare an interest, both have become the closest of friends with the BH and me.

Their successors will need to have the requisite hard work ethic combined with the expertise to convert the new business into what they want. And they deserve every good luck in their potential successes - whatever building they find themselves occupying.

And candidates with those skill sets are not to be found queuing to take a pub in south London. Sure there are good examples of successful establishments but by comparison with say the Railway Telegraph where an existing footprint was upgraded and has passed through several occupants who have tried their best, it does not always work.

So let this case run it’s course - it needs to be a bigger establishment integrated with a wider offer if it is to succeed commercially.

There are other real at risk candidates, two already with the shutters up, another offered for sale that does not guarantee its longevity, all within the Forest Hill area. Perhaps efforts would be better directed to those premises and their potential for success.

This is what happens. The owner of The Rutland Arms retired and sold it to a private developer. It was only boarded up after it was sold. The developer promised a pub would be retained and the rest of the site developed.

This is what it looks like now:

Rutland%20Arms%20Perry%20Hill%20After896×561 601 KB

Once the original pub has gone there is no protection and the developer will put in an application for flats.

We are all agreed on one thing - Richard and Julia had every right to sell their pub and I wish them all the best in the world.

Now they are selling and moving on, the debate is not about Richard and Julia. It is about a public house that has served the area for around 170 years and should not be tossed aside lightly.

The notion that there is no-one else willing, available or able to run this or many other pubs does not stand up.

Land values in London are so high that developers can make a lot of money and pubs have been a relatively easy target, to do this time and time again.

There is currently protection for this pub in law but if it is demolished there is no guarantee in law that there will be a pub there in the future.

If a handsome, historic landmark pub can be demolished then no pub is safe.

Just following up on Thor’s question. Is your representation on this matter as a Councillor for Sydenham ward and Chair of the Sustainable Development Scrutiny Committee? Or as a private citizen?

As you use a personal email but sign off your post with your professional credentials it’s difficult to tell.

@CllrLiamCurran’s credentials are visible as I have verified his identity. This was not necessarily a deliberate statement on his part.

Your question is sincere and relevant I’m sure, but it sounds loaded.

Please note that no councillor is obliged to use local forums like ours. I’d like councillors to be treated in the same friendly and constructive fashion that we treat all members of this forum.

It’s a historic building lending a sense of community to that part of Perry Vale. The last thing we need a multi-storey hotel. Who signed off on that dreadful idea?

It’s not a loaded question and apologies if it felt that way. I’m not the first to have thought this Campaign was ‘official’ in the sense it was driven by the Council’s SDS Committee. Whether it is or not has no bearing on the Campaign but as with all these things it is important to know who is leading it. I’m sure you can appreciate that. In this case is it a Council Committee or a private group of citizens, or maybe both.

I’m sure you can see where there may be some confusion.

New article by @SamHancock (posted here for information, not endorsement):

Thanks for linking to this website

I think everyone complaining should put their money where their mouths are and either:

• buy the pub yourselves
• spend more money in there to prove it’s sustainable as a pub

Otherwise you could try being optimistic about what a big hotel could do for the local economy. So many local businesses have closed due to lack of trade and the All Inn One was heading in that direction too despite all the bleary eyed nostalgia.

A new hotel could be a lifeline to our local traders so I think we should let Richard and Julia get on with the sale so they can move on and we can think positively about injecting more life into own high streets.

The question I keep asking myself is: What is there in Forest Hill (besides family and friends) that would warrant staying overnight to enjoy?

Excellent transport links and D&Ds

You could ask the same question regarding Penge, which has a Travelodge - although described as being in Crystal Palace!

It has become a strategic location, when once it was simply on a branch line. Land values, yields etc

With the redevelopment going on in Croydon & its proximity to Canary Wharf, it is potentially a savvy investment. Plus there are tighter controls in place on AirB&B

This post is really sad and needs a some correction to make it more accurate. And Cllr Liam’s account does not describe events.

This is what happened.

The publican owner, Trevor in fact passed away when still running his pub and whilst working in his cellar.

He was the publican in The Rutland Arms and prior to that in The Prince of Wales on Perry Rise.

He was ably assisted by his wife Chris who was an elegant lady and whose Sunday lunches were delightful.

I live a few hundred yards equidistant from both pubs and in the time I knew them, they ran perfectly orderly houses selling good beer. Trevor was a real musician and his pride and joy was his grand piano at The Rutland. Only selected musicians from the many jazz bands who appeared there were permitted to play it and there will be many of you who enjoyed the twice weekly jazz sessions.

In the period after his passing, Chris attempted to continue running the pub without Trevor whilst at the same time trying to find a buyer for the pub and her home above in which they had lived.

Over quite some time, there was no success in finding a publican purchaser for the going concern and Chris was advised to sell the property at auction. It was rumoured that the hammer fell on a price substantially less than the valuation.

Once more after some time, a developer submitted plans for the conversion of the site and included the promised floor-space for a pub.

The work was completed and the floor-space created.

The flats were sold off but still there was no publican to be found for the pub and after several years a thriving business from a few doors down expanded its business, relocated and took over the floor space.

Economics drove the decision. Not the retirement of the publican as described by Cllr Liam.

Equally interesting, is the matter of the pub across the road, The Perry Hill, formerly the Two Brewers.

Two successful pub entrepreneurs invested substantial sums in refurbishing that establishment, setting up as a very well appointed bar and restaurant. There is a substantial garden, car parking and the Atrium in which the restaurant was set is one of the most elegant examples of its kind.

It failed within months and had a brewer’s tenant installed with the restaurant aspirations abandoned.

Economics also drove that outcome. Even though there was no competition in the immediate locality, customers did not return in the numbers for the offer to succeed.

It would have taken no time to consult with Cllr Alan Hall and former Cllr Ami Ibbitson about these matters and would have provided confirmation of what I describe here.

Looks like the type of thing that happened to the Forest Hill Hotel. The space below was left as a small bar but nobody ever took it over. Think it is finally being converted into flats/

I have gone to the pub about three times in the last year due to various events and would in principle support the idea of retaining the pub but my principles will not make it a commercial success. It would be interesting to see if those people petitioning to keep the pub actually spend any money there. There will be many people who just see it as a way to stop development but that will just put off the inevitable. It is better that we accept a reasonable development that keeps a pub than retain a pub that will just be a bus stop name in the future like The Woodman, first estate agent then cafe.

I too live in the area and interestingly enough, I can confirm that MOST of what you have written is factually correct - except for some very important details that have led you to draw the wrong conclusions. I will absolutely refute your conclusions tomorrow because I have just spotted this and it is getting late and I have to be exact and careful in what I write. Just for now though I will share this - I can give a few examples of pubs that were written off in south east London but, because the right people took them over, they have gone on to become successes. I will just add one more thing - land values, land values, land values.

I have no doubt that the right sort of hotel in Forest Hill could make money. But a block of flats on this site will make much more. And that’s what will be built there eventually if the pub is demolished. But I am determined not to be proved right and, like many others, will continue to fight for this pub, which is successful now, so there’s no reason why it should not continue to be.

for context, not specific to the All Inn One case, a timely article today about the reasons why we are gradually losing pubs, at quite a rate.

beer duty … rose by 42% between 2008 and 2013, a period in which beer sales fell by 24% and 5,000 pubs closed

From the figures in the article, I read it as indicative that alcohol duty on beer is to blame for the decline, but it doesn’t provide any costed examples. Looking at the figures for a pint of 5% beer, duty is only 54p per pint, which is less than I expected.

I don’t think you quite understand the internet… This isn’t a councillor’s drop in session…

Anyway - I undertand that developers of flats often have a “ghost” retail premise on the ground floor to get the planning application through, which they disgracefully have absolutely no intention of renting out, but I genuinely can’t see the same being the case with a hotel. Most hotels do have a pub on the ground floor (albeit usually run directly by the hotel), and guests often expect this. The ground floor pub would definitely add to the appeal of the hote, in the way a pub or retail premise beneath a block of new build flats wouldn’t.

@HOPcrossbun Thank you for your post. The thing is this is the internet and a forum that is for the people connected to SE23. We welcome all here as long as they are decent to each other.

We particularly invite our councillors to post as they have influence over this area and in coming on this forum they are given a voice and also a platform to hear your concerns.

I am sure you had no issue with Maja when she did a fantastic job as a councillor and no-one (that I am aware of) told her that SE23.Life was not a drop in session. So can we please extend the same courtesy to @CllrLiamCurran and all other Councillors.

Pubs are closing because drinking habits change. More people drink at home these days even though pubs are much nicer without the smoke. And there are other opportunities to drink alcohol in Cafes and bars. I don’t have a “local” anymore. If we’re talking about where I’ve eaten and had a drink most frequently of late it’s been Donde. And I agree a hotel is likely to have a bar.

First of all hat’s-off to everyone who’s doing their bit because they believe in the cause.

I knew this pub from 45 years ago when I used to pop in there with my friend’s parents, who lived in Hindley’s Place, and many years later when the Forest Hill Traders Association used to have the odd meet. Apart from that, I only know what people have posted on here, which portrays it as a nice, friendly local pub.

Although I’d sympathise with the next-door neighbour, who would undoubtedly feel the additional bulk of the proposed much-larger building, the retention of a smaller pub/bar within this hotel (not hostel!) development seems fine to me - so I’d support it.

I don’t see any reason why it would be difficult to find an operator, nor to doubt the commercial viability of the pub/bar (providing the rent isn’t hiked-up too much). On the contrary. A big empty bar is never gonna be appealing but this place would have the benefit of being able to rely on the fact that at many times of the day and evening there will be the odd (!!!) guest of this 66 room hotel - or even guests of the guest - who’ll be popping in for a swift arf or a glass of the finest Blue Nun or Lambrusco on their way out or on their return from a trip up town. Add a few local punters into the mix and… Where do I sign-up? (for the Blue Nun that is!)

A lot of ‘woulda’ ‘shoulda’ ‘coulda’ on here but largely speculation. Destroying a purpose-built, busy, successful public house, which is a fine, handsome, landmark building that has all the facilities that make a pub successful - makes no sense.

The developer may make more money from this as a “hotel” (but more likely it will end up being a housing development). The original application had no proper pub facilities. They keep getting changed when people point it out, which would drop a hint that this is no serious application for a pub i.e an application that leaves out a pub and only includes it when people point out “Hang on! There’s no pub in this application.”

Meanwhile, I don’t think I have ever heard anyone say: “Fancy popping down to the Travelodge for a great night out” or “Let’s go to the Travelodge this Sunday afternoon, we can take the kids and sit in the beer garden. Oh wait, we can’t because there isn’t one, because they built this Travelodge all over it”!

If the building is no longer being used and there’s no interested parties other than developers then I say knock it down and build a block of luxury apartments to attract more money to the area.

South East London CAMRA have set up a petition backing the campaign to save the pub. It can be found here: > https://bit.ly/2SeAoPs
As local residents we would be very sad to see it go. It’s a lovely pub and we’ve had many happy times there. We also think it’s crucial to have businesses that serve the community on this side of the tracks. Pubs do thrive in Forest Hill. The Hob changed ownership and became The Signal and appears to be very successful.

Let’s turn everything in Forest Hill into a hotel. That way we’ll bring even more money into the area!! Never mind the fact that it will end up becoming one of those lifeless, soulless transient ‘through-road’ towns that nobody would dream of stopping in anyway.

Do you have an example of a London suburb that has been ruined by having two (or more) hotels?

Do you have an example of a London borough that has been dramatically transformed as a result of having one (or more) hotels built on much loved and treasured pubs?

You talk about speculation but isn’t it speculation on your part that this will in fact turn out to be flats?

Here’s the perspective from a long standing, local business owner. Nearby Finches Emporium supports the redevelopment of the site.

Finches have served Forest Hill for as long as I can remember (49 years since I was 11) and for a long time before that, and their business continues to be THE commercial anchor for that side of the station, not to mention it being of significant importance to the town centre generally. I hold them in the highest regard and anything I can possibly do to support them is a given.

I had visitors from Austin in Texas over the weekend. They specifically wanted to visit Finches to look for specialist snowboard stuff. Their reputation is international.

A ski instructor friend of mine visited from Iceland. He said it’s one of the best ski shops he’s been in.

Gentle nudge to recent posters to keep this on-topic please. We’d welcome a new topic discussing Finches.

I come from a place of thinking Forest Hill already has plenty of viable pubs. Over the years I have seen good pubs fade with the wrong management and bad pubs thrive with the right one. However, a hotel is lacking in these parts and I am sure a pub/hotel would do well and bring in new custom for the local shops. Can the planning department not stipulate that the hotel/pub application be strictly adhered to when built as was a similar case in sydenham when the Greyhound pub had to be rebuilt but the developers were hoping they could demolish it. Planning won the day I think and it is now a great albeit new version of the previous Greyhound.

I agree with the Councillor’s campaign. For my part I object to another historical landmark being knocked down to make place for a new building. A lot of our Victorian built heritage is being destroyed by stealth and as someone pointed out you just end up with a soulless row of purpose built flats instead. Obviously in an ideal world it would be good if the pub could be retained but if that is not commercially viable then at least let’s prevent it from being destroyed. Heritage and architectural variety are what gives an area its character.
In dealing with developers bear in mind that their main motivation is greed.not the enhancement of an area.

I understand this sentiment, but i this case the original features of the pub are pretty much destroyed or hidden from view. It would be great if someone were to return the building to its original glory, though probably its usefulness as a pub would be lost. There is a time to protect heritage, but there isn`t much of this heritage left here. I wonder if FHS will have a view on this.

image750×562 155 KB

Given the strong arguments made by both sides, let’s run a straw poll to get a rough idea of what forum members think:

I haven’t made up my mind yet. I’d like to see the FHS position.

Ditto. The two petitions so far:

71 votes (three days)

44 votes (a day)

Neither is generating a huge response

The “save” petition jumped to 86 votes in the hour since I posted the link here!

(Possibly a glitch in the 38 degrees website).

Thank you for giving us these voting options.

My vote in favour of the hotel is with it retaining an independently run pub.

To avoid any doubt or ambiguity.

My support is predicated on there being a comparably sized pub within the development.

A garden space is desirable.

But any subsequent walk back or change of use, post granting of planning permission or indeed before such permission is granted, will be resisted.

It just does not seem feasible that, given the matter of the sale being behind us, that any new licencee will see any prospect of commercial success in any venture that requires the retention of the existing building.

Success needs the offset of overheads, not least of all, shared and proportionate lease charges distributed across both ventures, in the enlarged form and commercial support of the hotel element of the proposal to secure a profitable success.

anon5183jd. It sounds like you’ve made a good point. However, for all of us on here that are not budding commercial property lawyers could you put that into laymen’s terms?

Apologies OscarJ.

Share the overheads over a larger volume of business - increase the prospect of profitable success.

Both petitions continue to attract support and numbers appear to be ratcheting up in a consistent fashion - unlikely to be a glitch.

As of this morning the “SAVE” number is 91 and the “Support the Redevelopment” number is 52 with 16 link clicks for each option from this site.

Not huge numbers but reflective of a healthy debate on an important local issue.

I am in principle in support of the hotel redevelopment proposal with two important conditions:

1. An independent pub space is retained in a manner which would make it an attractive and fit-for-purpose space for a pub (cellar area for kegs, disabled toilets, ideally outside drinking space etc.) rather than a token gesture that’s not appropriate as a pub and sits idle until either being converted into additional hotel rooms or yet another nail bar moves in.
2. That under no circumstances if the plans are approved are the dimensions of the hotel, specifically the height, allowed to increase. It’s already a couple of stories higher than I would prefer to see in that spot, it certainly should not be allowed to suddenly become an 8 story building by stealth following initial planning approval.

Briefly, on why I don’t support the campaign against the development:

• As others have said, what makes a pub special tends to be the owners/management. The current owners I understand are leaving in any event.
• The Perryvale area keeps taking one step forward, two back (Waters, The Perryvale etc.) and a hotel could be the foundation to (re)generate that side of the tracks (and who knows maybe we’d even get a pedestrian crossing… ).
• I don’t regard the current pub’s architecture as of sufficient uniqueness or interest to warrant its preservation.

I’m not sure that it necessarily, logically follows that, just because the current owners (who are great!) are leaving, all subsequent owners are going to be absolute idiots that run the place into the ground! Who knows, dare I say it, they may do an even better job!!

I hope we’re not pinning all of our hopes for this side of Forest Hill being transformed on the erection of hotel/s? I’m sure that the developers would have us believe that in a few short months we’ll all be driving around in Porsches as shown on their artist’s picture.

As much I wish things were this simple, I fear that we may need to be a little bit more creative when it comes to thinking about regeneration. Taking advice on the complex issues around urban regeneration from commercial property developers, no matter how much they want ‘help’ Forest Hill, feels a little naive to me.

Good observation.

Some might argue that the change in the commercial dynamic created by the actual sale of the pub is so significant that fundamentally, the rent or indeed purchase price for a pub is just too great for a new single strand business to succeed. Irrespective of the calibre of any new licencee.

On the transformation front Forest Hill Society published a consultation proposal for the Development of the Town Centre and gathered in feed back from many sources.

It was not foreseen at the consultation stage that a rapid expansion of the potential foot print of change would grow into an area that now embraces the All Inn One site, the Co-op site and the former Portacabin site.

Perhaps a publication of the feedback would be appropriate and then conduct a review embracing the new sites.

Just a thought.

I notice the equivalent thread on the Sydenham Town Forum is only about redevelopment of the pub and makes no great mention of the hotel or the issues of a large building on that site. The thread simply urges signing the petition to support redevelopment.

Thanks for posting a mention of SE23.life on STF. I hope this doesn’t get you in trouble with their mysterious “admin”

Getting back on-topic I noticed someone mention the following:

Has the sale definitely completed as argued by previous commenters in this topic?

If the permission is being sought by Richard and Julia, that changes my opinion on things a lot. I want to support them and I wouldn’t want to oppose the development if it meant Richard and Julia were materially hurt.

Yes, I saw that, Chris, and was sorry. I don’t know what it was about, but clearly they didn’t like your setting up a rival message board.

My reference to this board seems to have had no consequences, but I don’t know why it would have.

My view is that I am in full support with @AllInnOne Julia and Richard and their reasons for selling and moving on next year. And also who they have sold too.

Wishing Julia, Richard, and Josh all the best in the future when they move on

Neither would anyone else, I’m sure - but that doesn’t make this design, at this scale, a viable one that shouldn’t be challenged and then amended. I would love them to sell to a developer that would listen to the very valid concerns of the immediate locals who consider this plot to be too small to accommodate the scale and ambition of this new enterprise. I don’t get the impression that a company with “Vanquish” in their title are going to do that, sadly, but a girl can dream.

A portion of a response made that addresses the questions posed albeit by another correspondent. It additially comments on how the property was marketed - or not.

Section 2 of the Application Form defines the name and address of the applicant - and that is NOT Richard and Julia Channon.

Section 3 of the Application Form defines the Agents Name and Address.

It is very precise of you to to say that anyone can make a planning application.

It is also accurate to state that the process of making a Planning Application does have some very effective checks and balances.

Some of these are very specifically defined in Section 25 of the Application Form which states:

Section 25
CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP - CERTIFICATE B - Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 Certificate under Article 14
I certify/The applicant certifies that I have/the applicant has given the requisite notice to everyone else (as listed below) who, on the day 21 days before the date of this application, was the owner* and/or agricultural tenant** of any part of the land or building to which this application relates.

• ‘owner’ is a person with a freehold interest or leasehold interest with at least 7 years left to run. ** ‘agricultural tenant’ has the meaning given in section 65(8) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

This Decalaration provides protection from fraudulent submissions being made for a property without the owner being notified. This prevents just anyone from making ad-hoc Planning Applications that may blight the property or its value.

In practice it works this way. The planning authority can check the Declaration made by the Applicant about the ownership details and will notify the Land Registry. The authority also may notify the registered owner. The Land Registry in turn can advise the registered owner that an application has been made with an option to respond if they have not received formal notification in line with the applicant’s declaration at Section 25. Equally if the registered owner has received formal notification, they need do nothing.

As I understand it the registered owners in this case received the required notifications from all parties.

It is interesting that you positively state your regret that the pub didn’t go on the open market. If you do have insight about how it was marketed perhaps you can share those details with us.

Armed with that knowledge, how would you have preferred it to be done and how different do you think the outcome would have been ?

Oh, and please do not feel obliged to take my views as being the authoritative or definitive version of the matters of fact around the sale. The declarations of Mr Mark Harris of Vanquish ID on both their company’s web-site and in the local press are unequivocal about the sale.

As is Julia Channon’s post about the sale on a local forum.

save our pubs!

Good news about the All Inn One. Officers have recommended refusal of the latest application and it has now been withdrawn. I fully expect another one to be forthcoming but this is a major knockback for demolition, for now. Please get in touch if you wish to join the campaign to permanently prevent the loss of this fine pub.

The message has also gotten out to others as the owner of The Perry Hill (formerly the Two Brewers) has now put out an advert for a free-of-tie lease for 15 years. It means that presumably he has recognized that his policy of running the pub down and letting it rot - literally - may no longer procure the planning application for housing that he may well have been expecting and that it would be best to run the premises for the purpose for which it was built.

Thank you for the update @CllrLiamCurran

I’ve amended the title of the thread to reflect the different views regarding the pub. Whilst there is a campaign as discussed above by @CllrLiamCurran , it’s important to also reflect that the current landlords wish to sell after many years of service to the FH community, and it is important that is also understood.

But haven’t they already sold? I assumed they had sold and we’re staying on as tenants in the pub till the new owners got planning permission?

Not as I understand it - no. They have agreed a sale but it is not completed so they still own the business and the building. They certainly are not tenants.
The All Inn One pub, as we know it, is gone as they have decided to sell up and move on. What replaces it is the question. Could be another pub but it wont be the “All Inn One”.

It would be nice to see all the people who think of it as “this fine pub” actually go in for a pint and support some fine local people in a tricky time…

Does this mean it’s open for a bit longer? Although it’s bad news for Richard and Julia from a selfish perspective we’ll get a few more months in their lovely beer garden, so…

Yes - till the end of the year I think…

Pubs will only remain open if the local community uses them. From what I understand the new proposed Hotel would not only have included a pub and restaurant, but would have brought more employment to the area as well. To say nothing of the additional local spending by guests of the establishment.

To those who try to preserve in aspic, go and use the pubs, and stop pontificating.

Are you able to reveal the grounds on which Officers made their recommendation?

Just got back from having a drink in the All Inn One and having spoken with Juila and Richard they are now staying put as the buyer has pulled out. So its business as usual. I hope to see you all back in there supporting this wonderful independent pub.

Awesome!

Any chance they’ll be starting up the kitchen again?

Sadly, I understand no plans to reopen kitchen, unless things have changed since I last spoke to Julia and Richard.

I’m not entirely sure this is good news.
Even if you ignore the fact that we now won’t have a hotel there with any positives it may have brought - we now have a pub that is a bit of a shadow of its former self. No kitchen, all the old staff are gone, the owners who want to “retire” and a pretty quiet pub whose customers have already found alternative drinking places.
I haven’t been in for a few weeks myself and I haven’t spoken to Julia\Richard - I could be wrong and it might be they are happy to stay on but that certainly was never the impression I got previously…

Do you know, I heard pretty much the same arguments running through this thread way back in 2007 when they closed the Greyhound in Sydenham. During a 10 year community-wide battle the developers actually demolished the pub but the Council forced the developer to rebuild it.

It is now thriving and busy and gets lots of praise.

Ten years would be a very a long time to wait for the All Inn One to thrive again, and I think that may be part of @Foresthillnick’s point - we’ve lost something through the attempted sale and hotel plan, and gained nothing in the process.

I hope something amenable to the owners and community can happen soon. In the meantime I still find it a very nice place giving some good character to that side of the tracks.

I feel that an opportunity has been missed, not only did the Hotel plans include a pub and restaurant, but would have brought more employment and regenerated the east side of the tracks. Still what do I know, I have only lived here for the best part of 40 years, and seen the decline of this end of Perry Vale, it would seem that the council favours nail shops and coffee shops above all else.

I wonder whether something like The Ivy House in Nunhead might be possible: it’s a co-operative owned by individuals in the community. What both pubs have in common is that they are great venues for music, meetings etc. and of inestimable value to the community.

I was not suggesting there is a need to wait ten years, I was making the point that The Greyhound was making money in 2007 and here is is in 2019, a very popular successful venue. There’s some important things to remember here:

1. The All Inn One was a success and can continue to be so.
2. We would have definitely lost the pub had the plans gone ahead.
3. The developer has never built a ‘hotel’ - always flats.
4. Licensees have given evidence to the Council that a financial success can be made of any of the small numbers of pubs left in Lewisham, by keeping them as pubs (see 1 above)
5. Planning experts told me they doubted that the hotel would have gone ahead. Building flats is far more profitable and this process fits a pattern.
6. As mentioned previously, The Rutland was a successful pub. The developer that took it over eventually submitted a plan to include a pub, that was turned into flats and an office.

Tony, in answer to your point please see my other reply.

Cheers

Liam

The Ivy House is indeed a great pub and is a testament to the power of cooperation. However, whoever runs the pub can make a success of it.

So it would seem that this was all just a ‘Trojan horse’ to extract as much profit from the area as possible without giving anything back after all!

Well, I never! It’s worrying to think that they managed to convince some people that we should, so readily, tear down a successful pub on the back of that glossy plan (with the pictures of Porsches an all…Ha-ha!!!).

Next time we’d do well to remember a lot of these people don’t give two hoots about what’s best for our postcode. The only code they care about is the Account & sortcodes to their own bank accounts. Once a pub is gone, it’s gone. RIP ‘The Rutland Arms’.

To the people mourning the loss of a potential hotel - did you actually look at the plans in detail? The hotel itself wouldn’t have on-site dining facilities, so there would have been no breakfast provision apart from a ‘breakfast in a box’ (similar to Travelodge’s offering of a pot of cereal, carton of milk, carton of fruit juice and a muffin, for £5.25). The pub/kitchen was a completely separate unit (there was no internal access to the hotel) and if it were operated by a separate company there would be no obligation for them to provide breakfast for the hotel’s guests.

What was proposed was the lowest quality provision possible and I’m not aware of any hotel chain other than Travelodge that operates that model. In fact I don’t know if any of Travelodge’s London hotels are without a restaurant - there are 47 listed as ‘London’ hotels with a restaurant on their website (they don’t list their hotels that don’t have one) and the hotel being built for Travelodge in Lewisham will have a restaurant. So I’m not surprised Travelodge didn’t want the proposed All Inn One hotel.

Also, the proposed hotel on the Co-op site includes a bar/restaurant, so why would a second hotel operator want to compete nearby with a lower quality product?