Wouldn’t the Council have something to say about change of class?
Although, on reflection, the developers of the old Greyhound pub site in Sydenham were given permission for the development, with a condition being that the Greyhound pub was retained. They, the developers, then demolished the pub, resulting in a concerted effort by residents for the pub to be restored, which it has been, to the very successful and popular new Greyhound pub.
Again, I stand to be corrected if I have not got the correct facts.
This may clarify Lewisham Council stance regarding pubs.
The funny thing about this is that the planning department at Lewisham attempted to protect the pub as it was their local.
An Article 4 direction removes permitted development rights in a conservation area. They wanted to retain the pub & prevent it becoming residential.
I’m not sure Catford Bridge is a CA.
I remember that there were protracted discussions with Sainsbury’s about the redevelopment. I’m not sure if the Greyhound had any protected status, but it was rebuilt in the style of the original building
The Greyhound in Sydenham is a very special case, involving very shady operations by the developer followed by the most vocal and concerted public campaign I’ve seen locally in nearly 20 years of living in the area. I doubt the result of the pub being rebuilt would serve as an example of Lewisham’s planning approach to retaining pubs in general.
The Greyhound’s ultimate saving factor was the fact that SydSOC, to their credit, persuaded the then named English Heritage to deploy their newly invested powers to apply an “instant listing”. EH decreed that the mural, which if I recall was located in the hallway of the original building, merited such a listing.
The fact that the listing thereby existed offered a cornerstone for all actions against the developer who had elected to prematurely demolish the building. Many will view the tenacity of everyone involved in the reconstruction of the Greyhound as being meritorious - there are very few critics of this successful outcome and particularly the appropriate and measured use of the planning laws in full.
However in recent years local councillors, amongst others, Cllr Liam Curran and Cllr Tom Copley have publicly pronounced that permitted development rights represent a loophole in planning processes and have furthermore have advocated the application of Article 4 Directions where the properties and structures involved do not meet the criteria for such an application.
To suggest that there is such a loophole and that owners and developers egregiously mis-use their permitted development rights is factual, logical and political nonsense and frankly represent a form of populist politics that pursues any votes wherever they may be found.
Further pronouncements have been made about “generalising” the application of some type of Article 4 Direction to all local pubs. This simply is not feasible. The pub market is shrinking and in a Lewisham wide context a number of pubs, some with real qualities and customer loyalty have failed and been closed.
Permitted development rights are essential in the UK and are applied in ALL of our major service provider, transport infrastructure and communication sectors. It is essential that our providers have the capability to build and develop infrastructure networks, industrial processing plants and such ancillary buildings as are required to manage and operate these assets in the fullness of their life-cycle.
Naturally the proposals to erect and build such assets will be subject to the exigencies of the UK planning procedures. There are very few exceptions - in recent times I can only think of one major example - the Docklands development, where all planning decisions were delegated, if my recall is not faulty, to an independent Development Board.
To the point, when these assets become life-expired or redundant and require demolition (irrespective of whether a modern equivalent replacement is required), the owner must be permitted (and possibly required, under enforcement) to demolish any asset that is deemed redundant. The absence of of such permitted development rights could probably result in a much smaller portion of redundant assets being demolished, particularly if the owner calculates that it is cheaper to to let the asset rot, irrespective of the blight it may represent to its neighbours.
The Article 4 Directions are applicable to buildings and structures within the boundary of a Conservation Area (CA), which are not listed but may have specific characteristics that merit prevention of demolition.
AIO is not in a CA. Under normal rules an Article 4 Direction is not applicable. The values that must be weighed when considering a change in rules must be be contemplated carefully. It is an example of what could easily become subject to many unintended consequences.
If the new owner of AIO develops plans that include a pub restaurant on the GF is there a sufficiency of desire or need to retain the existing building ? What if the (as yet undeveloped) plans include the extension of the restaurant footprint into the first floor ? Is there sufficient customer demand for any such extension ?
I have said before, I am sorry Richard and Julia are moving on. But even if the existing building were to be retained on its existing footprint by the new owner, the building would undoubtedly be remodelled, naturally new teams would be managing the pub and restaurant elements and as sometimes can happen these changes may or may not be well received by customers.
Therefore, irrespective of whatever measure of success emerges, does it really make any difference to whether the re-modelled pub is in the existing building or is part a new envelope?
If however the developed plans eliminate the the pub restaurant element, show me the petition, I’ll sign.
So… am I right in thinking that there will NOT be a pub there anymore, provided CRIB 11 gets approved?
I’ve no problem with a good pub being part of a new development especially if it comes with modern HVAC and good natural lighting. But I think a pub loses something without some decent exterior space be it a small beer garden or sheltered patio.
I don’t see that in the CRIB 11 drawings.
There is no statement, private or public, that I know of that says what the new owner will or will not do.
With the complications of Change of Use rules and other factors it might be more effective for the owner to guarantee the presence of the replacement AIO. And thereby smooth the transition of the new proposals through planning.
But these are my thoughts only - I have no other insight.
Can’t see anyone wanting to live in an apartment over a pub, to be honest… especially with an outdoor space… noise etc.
I was under the impression that it is very difficult to get a mortgage on a flat above a pub or other commercial premises.
It would be possible for a well used pub to be recognised as an asset of community value, which would at least any change of use of the current pub until the community was offered a chance to take on the ownership for continued community use. This has been used relatively effectively in the case of The Windmill (still closed). The Honor Oak pub is already listed as an asset of community value since it was requested by the Forest Hill Society.
Timely reminder Michael.
This potential outcome may add weight to any thoughts the new owner has about retaining the equivalent of AIO within his new development.
However the The Windmill may better be referred to as an example of why a community should NOT seek to have a pub listed as as an asset of community value. Our counterparts on STF make frequently negative comments on whatever problems exist there. It is also my recall that these forms of listing have a limited life-span.
it might also be anticipated that Julia and Richard have sold at the peak of their cycle and any effort to have it listed as as an asset of community value would come at a price that reflects its current market value - as tested by the completion of the purchase in recent weeks and thereby the transaction has become the market maker…
it would require significant fund raising on the part of the community to match or better that market value.
The Ivy House in Nunhead, Peckham was the first pub in the UK to be listed as an asset of community value, with the help of the Peckham Society and others, in 2012, and appears to operate very successfully as a co-operative. The economic situation was different then, of course.
Seems like the AIO sold out to me. I guess the pub just wasn’t profitable enough.
I can’t imagine any developer is not going to use the maximum footprint for development, so the beer garden is surely gone. Likewise as others have pointed out, having a pub in the bottom of your development is unlikely to help attract most buyers. So unless forced to via some exceptional circumstances, I can’t see how a pub survives, especially when the Perry Vale is licensed but sat unused almost next door.
It’s very sad for this side of the tracks and was nice while it lasted.
The Sylvan POst has flats on top. Seems to be doing ok
How are the flats on top of the Sylvan Post doing?
a couple of images Steve Grindlay has on his flickr site showing the All Inn One , next to the dairy.
and this is the next door Forest Hill Brewery before its buildings were taken over by United Dairies as a bottling plant. Bottle shops are not a new thing in Perry Vale.
The whole lot was beyond repair from bomb damage after WWII according to the bomb damage map books.