Jump to content

Recommended Posts

im a resident right next door to this eye sore. The skateboarder have cleaned up the place and brought back a little bit of community spirit. Yet u wanna eveict em so why evict em then still leave the place in such a state. When are you going to fix it up look how long weve had to live with that squalor.no one want to answer about what happening with it yet leave us to live next to rat infested place
Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/259539-re-grove-tavern/
Share on other sites

It's the usual developer tactic of buying a place which doesn't have planning permission for residential and then leaving it derelict until the council wave through a change of use application. What should happen, is that they should be made to maintain it or face compulsory purchase. Instead, the council crumble and give them what they want just so they don't have to live with an eye sore.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> It's the usual developer tactic of buying a place

> which doesn't have planning permission for

> residential and then leaving it derelict until the

> council wave through a change of use application.

> What should happen, is that they should be made to

> maintain it or face compulsory purchase. Instead,

> the council crumble and give them what they want

> just so they don't have to live with an eye sore.


The site is owned by Dulwich Estate. They have had a deal going for years with the leaseholders, who pay the rent and do nothing. A pub has to be rebuilt on the site.

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

    • It's called The Restorative Place. Also, the Fired Earth storefront is under offer too, apparently. How exciting...!
    • Perhaps the view is that there are fewer people needing social housing in London, going forward, or to cap it as it is rather than increasing it. We already see the demographic changing.
    • But actually, replacing council housing, or more accurately adding to housing stock and doing so via expanding council estates was precisely what we should have been doing, financed by selling off old housing stock. As the population grows adding to housing built by councils is surely the right thing to do, and financing it through sales is a good model, it's the one commercial house builders follow for instance. In the end the issue is about having the right volumes of the appropriate sort of housing to meet national needs. Thatcher stopped that by forbidding councils to use sales revenues to increase housing stock. That was the error. 
    • Had council stock not been sold off then it wouldn't have needed replacing. Whilst I agree that the prohibition on spending revenue from sales on new council housing was a contributory factor, where, in places where building land is scarce and expensive such as London, would these replacement homes have been built. Don't mention infill land! The whole right to buy issue made me so angry when it was introduced and I'm still fuming 40 odd years later. If I could see it was just creating problems for the future, how come Thatcher didn't. I suspect though she did, was more interested in buying votes, and just didn't care about a scarcity of housing impacting the next generations.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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