Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

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

> Assuming that the tenant actually wanted a new

> lease, surely it would be possible for to serve a

> counter notice under the business tenancy

> provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (or

> whatever is the current legislation) requesting a

> new tenancy. The landlord can't just evict a

> business tenant willy nilly and would have to have

> specific grounds to do so.



The Palmerston Instagram post indicates that they ?have not been offered a new lease?, which suggests to me that the lease has expired and Jaime has been invited to leave. It sounds like this is not an eviction, simply one side of the negotiation declining to continue the arrangement.


Not that it makes it any better for all the staff involved, Burt I suppose they have st least got time to look for new work.

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> I don't really understand this. This article

> suggests that the tenants own the actual pub!

>

> https://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/Article/2011/0

> 2/17/Exclusive-Host-turns-tables-on-Enterprise-Inn

> s


Think that implies that Rigby became the owner back in 2011 and it's he, not Enterprise, who were leasing it to the current occupants?

Well this just gets weirder and weirder...



All I?ll say is that Enterprise are one of the nastiest, scummiest group of bottom-feeding pieces of crap you could ever hope to avoid, and if they?re Jaime?s opposition I actually feel sorry for him (there?s a first!).

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> Maybe so Rendel, but it says that he took over the

> pub with his business partner Jamie Younger.



Sorry, missed that bit. Maybe they've fallen out? All seems daft complex. Can't say the Palmerston has ever been a great favourite (though perfectly acceptable for a pint and conveniently positioned right opposite the dentist!) but it'd be really sad to see yet another pub disappear for posh flats or retail.

DovertheRoad Wrote:

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

> Genuine question - what kind of business grosses

> higher takings than a good, well loved restaurant

> on LL?



In hospitality - like all businesses - it?s not so much about turnover as profit margin. And profits in the restaurant world a pretty thin at the best of times. These are not the best of times in that industry.

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> I cant see that site becoming flats. It is in the

> best location, has space for plenty of covers, a

> loyal local clientel and will habe no sitting

> tenant. It must be worth an absolute fortune to

> the right operator.



This is what confuses me about what I?ve been told confidentialy; although I can well imagine Enterprise Inns decideong to take it back for themselves , I can?t really see a better use for that location than what it is right now.


There?s obviously a lot more going on behind the scenes then we can tell, and I genuinely hope this location remains a quality local drinking/eating place. Unfortunately if Enterprise have taken back control they?ll probably maul it, they?re really awful operators.

Loutwo Wrote:

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

> Nando?s maybe?

>

> Louisa.



Something like that is possible. I reckon it?s need deep pockets to redevelop. The more I think about it, the more I just can?t see it being turned residential or retail.

This is highly likely to stay as a pub. Enterprise inns have increasingly moved from a tenanted to a managed model over the last couple of years. Fullers are also doing this. Bermondsey pub company and frontier pubs (eg chandos in Honor Oak) are two of the 'pub groups' owned by EI under which an increasing number of their pubs are being moved.
Is it likely to stay as a pub (noting I agree with comments about the Youngs/Ram chain...). If not will it be the loss of a lovely Victorian pub? If the latter I'll make enquiries my my local 'save historic pubs) person - is it unique enough to be listed?

Maybe speak to the people who got The Ivy House listed at very short notice?


The developers who bought it weren't then able to turn it into flats (I think I've remembered that right).


As a separate issue (I think) it was then listed as an asset of community value, after which it became a community pub


I'm not suggesting in any way that anybody should go down that route with The Palmerston.

I don't think a community owned pub would work in East Dulwich.


But getting it listed might at least save it as a pub. Like The Ivy House, it seems to have an interior well worth saving

Not sad to see it go. Far too expensive. Last time I went in the chef's had their names printed on the menu like it was a Michelin star restaurant.


Food was OK,but cost me than central London for average stuff. Much rather go to SE15 for food now.

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

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

> Assuming that the tenant actually wanted a new

> lease, surely it would be possible for to serve a

> counter notice under the business tenancy

> provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (or

> whatever is the current legislation) requesting a

> new tenancy. The landlord can't just evict a

> business tenant willy nilly and would have to have

> specific grounds to do so.


I think that Jamie and his pal (Freeholders) do own the freehold but I'm guessing there is also a long lease to Enterprise Inns (Leaseholders) and a thirty year sub lease to the restaurant (Tenant). The leaseholders could oppose the granting of a new lease to the tenants on the basis that they need the premises for their own use. There are a pub company so it can't really be opposed by the tenant. So it's goodbye much loved and valued local restaurant and pub, albeit with not very good beer in it but probably not the fault of the pub as they may be tied in to buying beer from the leaseholders, and hello to another pubco in Lordship Lane. In France they have laws against this sort of thing but I expect the authorities are powerless to anything about it.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • If you’re into nature or just love trees, this lovely program is worth catching up on https://www.channel5.com/show/the-secret-life-of-trees It’s one of those quietly fascinating watches that leave you thinking about the world a bit differently. I had no idea that trees are connected underground by fungal networks. They use them to share nutrients, water, and even to send signals to each other. They can recognise their kind and give more support to their “relatives” than to other trees nearby. They can also remember things like droughts or pest attacks and change how they respond in the future. No wonder so many cultures and spiritual traditions view trees as sacred. In some belief systems, cutting one down is thought to carry serious karmic consequences. When you learn about how they live, communicate, and support one another, it makes sense. The natural world is far more aware and interconnected than we tend to realise.
    • I installed an all-in-one air conditioning unit at my holiday home since I wasn’t allowed to have an external fan unit outside. It actually works just as well, was easier to fit, and although it’s slightly noisier, it’s a good solution overall. https://www.orionairsales.co.uk/all-in-one-air-conditioning-142-c.asp?srsltid=AfmBOopZSVZj1_utAO-Hr4m5M323nRZru6Zmf1YuT4KP2touJ2OLaruU
    • Having enjoyed a day with Sayce HolmesLewis, I understand what you’re saying.  I appreciate your courage responding on here. 
    • Thank you to everyone who has already shared their thoughts on this. Dawson Heights Estate in the 1980s, while not as infamous as some other estates, did have its share of anti-social behaviour and petty crime. My brother often used the estate as a shortcut when coming home from his girlfriend’s house, despite my parents warning him many times to avoid it. Policing during that era had a distinctly “tough on crime” approach. Teenagers, particularly those from working-class areas or minority communities, were routinely stopped, questioned, and in some cases, physically handled for minor infractions like loitering, skateboarding, or underage drinking. Respect for authority wasn’t just expected—it was demanded. Talking back to a police officer could escalate a situation very quickly, often with harsh consequences. This was a very different time. There were no body cameras, dash cams, or social media to hold anyone accountable or to provide a record of encounters. Policing was far more physical and immediate, with few technological safeguards to check officer behaviour. My brother wasn’t known to the police. He held a full-time job at the Army and Navy store in Lewisham and had recently been accepted into the army. Yet, on that night, he ran—not because he was guilty of anything—but because he knew exactly what would happen if he were caught on an estate late at night with a group of other boys. He was scared, and rightfully so.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...