Grove Tavern Harvester

[ricci]

Same old question but does anyone know what's happening to the Grove?

Seems to be some action there now portacabins and new gates?

Just wondering if it has finally been decided what to do there.

[Anne Stanesby]

No it hasnt been decided. Stonegate ( owned by private equity ) are deliberately leaving the place closed up as they want to knock it down and build luxury flats on the entire site. The Dulwich Society ( a charity ) are acquiescing in this as they are getting the rent paid. Southwark turned down the application to build the flats as they want the existing building to be retained and for it to be re-opened as a pub. Which is what local people want to. Anne

[Louisa]

It?s a shocking mess. A site of significant cultural and historical importance to Dulwich, left to rot. No one seems to be doing anything about it either. Too many stakeholders involved, so limbo seems to be the default position.

Even those of us who would like the venue to reopen, are realistic about the unlikely success of another pub in this location. Ultimately, it?s gone on too long and I?m sure many would be happy to just see the site put back to good use again. Regardless.

Louisa.

[Sue]

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1929521,1929521#msg-1929521

[flocker spotter]

Louisa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It?s a shocking mess. A site of significant

> cultural and historical importance to Dulwich,

> left to rot.

>

>

> Louisa.

hyperbole r us

[Louisa]

It?s hardly an exaggeration. Anyway, at least the car park is going to be used for something, judging by the recent planning application.

Louisa.

[Lynne]

The Dulwich society owns the Harvester?

[alice]

Dulwich college owns it and gets ?100000 pa in rent from stonegate who want out but contract has several years to run.

[mikeb]

Historical importance: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/old-new-london/vol6/pp286-303#p46

Cultural importance: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?30,967199 (though any more reliable sources than Jah Lush would be welcome!)

[rendelharris]

Lynne Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The Dulwich society owns the Harvester?

Estate, not society (technically not the College, which is funded by the Estate).

[flocker spotter]

hardly a place of note is it?

[flocker spotter]

I think you good folk of ED need a refresher on what is worth of consideration as a place of historical interest. A pub from the 1920s that Thatcher may have driven past really doesn't make the grade, however you spin it.

it died out as it is in a terrible location and cannot economically justify being a food and drink outlet - no one with any sense would trek up to this polluted wasteland for a night out.

[Louisa]

The building and the site it sits on is important. The Plough was given a fate worse than death when it?s name was unceremoniously changed in the mid 90s. Fortunately the pub company saw sense and changed it back. The likes of The Plough, The Grove, The Dog- they?re all a really important part of our pub heritage in a country where pubs are closing. Once they?re gone, that?s it, no return.

Louisa.

[alice]

Course it won?t be a pub again and it?s fake old. Anyone on council here? How hard would it be to compulsory purchase?

[Louisa]

What?s so difficult to understand. It?s not the current building that?s necessarily important. It?s the site, the name, what stood there previously. All interconnected over numerous centuries. Not many people (as far as I?m aware), are arguing for the pub to reopen. But something sympathetic to the history of location wouldn?t go amiss. We all just want to see the site/building reused again.

Louisa.

[flocker spotter]

Why is the building important ? half of London is 1920s stock. I fail to see why the site is any more important that any other long established road junction in the manor. There are more bars and cafes serving alcohol on LL than at any time I can remember since the late 80s.

Can anyone provide a cognisant argument for its rehabilitation as F&D outlet ?

[flocker spotter]

Louisa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What?s so difficult to understand. It?s not the

> current building that?s necessarily important.

> It?s the site, the name, what stood there

> previously. All interconnected over numerous

> centuries. Not many people (as far as I?m aware),

> are arguing for the pub to reopen. But something

> sympathetic to the history of location wouldn?t go

> amiss. We all just want to see the site/building

> reused again.

>

> Louisa.

facts not waffle - what is so special about this site.

[EDOldie]

There's been a pub on that site (previously the Green Man) for hundreds of years. It's clearly seen on Roques map of London. These sites are very important as reference points to our community history. It's also where I started drinking as I'm sure many other locals did.

[Louisa]

flocker spotter Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Louisa Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > What?s so difficult to understand. It?s not the

> > current building that?s necessarily important.

> > It?s the site, the name, what stood there

> > previously. All interconnected over numerous

> > centuries. Not many people (as far as I?m

> aware),

> > are arguing for the pub to reopen. But

> something

> > sympathetic to the history of location wouldn?t

> go

> > amiss. We all just want to see the

> site/building

> > reused again.

> >

> > Louisa.

>

>

> facts not waffle - what is so special about this

> site.

When it comes to waffle, you?re the expert. You seem to spew BS quite regularly on here, most of which is a poor attempt to troll. Boring.

Back on topic, the site is important and the facts speak for themselves. The link provided above explains the history of this site, and to at least retain the name, aspects of the building would be good. Look at lost locations such as The Kings Arms, where a ugly block of flats now stand.

Louisa.

[flocker spotter]

the pub / history issue is a bit moot - there is no harm in wanting the location to be used properly but weak historical justification isn't helpful. Its a terrible, dirty polluted location, potentially dangerous for pedestrians to access with the present layout and subject to the whims of the landowner - what realistically could be built there that would provide benefit?

[flocker spotter]

Louisa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> flocker spotter Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Louisa Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > What?s so difficult to understand. It?s not

> the

> > > current building that?s necessarily

> important.

> > > It?s the site, the name, what stood there

> > > previously. All interconnected over numerous

> > > centuries. Not many people (as far as I?m

> > aware),

> > > are arguing for the pub to reopen. But

> > something

> > > sympathetic to the history of location

> wouldn?t

> > go

> > > amiss. We all just want to see the

> > site/building

> > > reused again.

> > >

> > > Louisa.

> >

> >

> > facts not waffle - what is so special about

> this

> > site.

>

> When it comes to waffle, you?re the expert. You

> seem to spew BS quite regularly on here, most of

> which is a poor attempt to troll. Boring.

>

> Back on topic, the site is important and the facts

> speak for themselves. The link provided above

> explains the history of this site, and to at least

> retain the name, aspects of the building would be

> good. Look at lost locations such as The Kings

> Arms, where a ugly block of flats now stand.

>

> Louisa.

I am a troll because I ask for some kind of reasoning behind your stance? utterly bizarre

[JohnL]

Where the Kings on the Rye was is a lovely spot for a pub - and in the day that would have looked out over the old Peckham Lido. But I hear rumours about that pub before it closed, dark things (before my time) :)

The Grove will be a huge loss if it disappears permanently without any kind of replacement (even if some of it becomes something else).

[flocker spotter]

Kings OTR was terrible TBH. when the taxi office next door had a sign up saying *no drug runs* you knew this was a bad place

[nxjen]

The flats on the site of Kings on the Rye are a conversion of the pub built in the late 1950s to replace the Victorian (?) pub destroyed in World War II.

http://www.closedpubs.co.uk/london/se15_kingsarms.html

[Louisa]

The Kings on the Rye was a big old gin palace back in the day. Became a proper boozer and was totally destroyed during the Blitz. A lot of people were killed at that spot. The post war rebuild was not at all sympathetic to the original building, but it was still a great pub for some years. Started to decline into the early 80?s and was awful by the time it eventually closed. The buses used to have ?Kings Arms? references for as long as I can remember. All that history has now been lost forever, that?s what happens when development is allowed to happen without any understanding or appreciation of the history of the site. It?s not all about keeping a boozer, it?s so much more than just that.

Louisa.