Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Interesting tale Snorky - I agree the petition sounds a bit daft but the thing is that if the freeholder of the Oglander has indeed 'relaunched' and 'revamped' it as you say, then he simply hasn't managed to effectively convey that to potential customers. What's the point in spending loads of cash on a refurb if the blinds are permanently closed (during the day, why?) and you can't see what kind of "experience" awaits inside? You don't exactly have to be Philip Green to work that one out.


I live nearby, I love beer and crisps and so should be a regular there but I simply don't fancy the place. I went in once and the look on many of the faces of the "same crowd" was pretty similar to the one the owner apparently adopted on meeting the "middle class female busybodies" you mentioned - ie "Who the f... are you?". Pool balls pretty much stopped mid shot as eyes looked round. Hmmm what a pleasant half hour that was, must recommend the place to friends.


Sorry but the argument that it's too far off the beaten track doesn't hold. The Bellenden area is now chock full of people wanting a nice pint in a good boozer - The Gowlett isn't exactly positioned in a prime position but has managed to become an award winning, friendly (albeit smokey) pub, with simple, good food. The whole La Plancha/Tapas idea at the Oglander was all very well - but for a start the sign is over the wrong bit of the building! What is it? A "local boozer"? Tapas Bar? Both? Neither? Haven't a clue and I walk past it every day.


The BRG are well meaning but I agree with others here that they seem to want to complain about anything going - I suspect the main force for the petition came from residents on Maxted and nearby roads who don't fancy the idea of flats....


The Oglander is a wasted opportunity, the building is great but the money spent on it hasn't been done so effectively.

It is a shame to hear about a local business apparently failing - but ultimately people don't got there for a reason. The idea that they should be doing so out of some kind sympathy is bizarre.

Cuthbert Dibble Wrote:

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

> Snorky - fess up - are you Eileen who runs the

> BRG?



EC, as Eileen is known in the ghetto , fights for her turf. dont mess with EC or you may find yourself visiting Kings one evening tio have that cap removed from your spotty ass mo fo.

just a word in favour of the og, its actually a friendly place, reckon you're more likely to get into a conversation there than at say the gowlett, a place i like and drink in far more than the og. it does look moody though and being a residential area the balance between creating a busy pub and annoying the nieghbours is tricky. its got a very late licence for its location and most of the reg's aren't locals so there lots of car action at night. i reckon let them build flats. isnt there supposed to be a housing shortage?


c

Nothing personal blinder999 and sorry if you were offended. Just found it a bit odd that you lived across the road from a pub for three years and never ventured inside. I used to pop in there very infrequently on an evening and found the people in there very friendly and I always had a good time but I don't think even I've set foot in there for about three or four years.

may also have been connected to the fact that I didn't get out much in those particular three years, as they were my son's first three years.


The sign saying 'Tapas Bar' they taped to the opaque windows at the Oglander didn't convince me the place had come over all continental and baby-friendly - the Gowlett on the other hand successfully adapted to the modern world, so when we had the energy we went there instead :)).

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

    • 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.
    • Actually I don't think so. What caused the problem was the ban on councils using the revenues from sales to build more houses. Had councils been able to reinvest in more housing then we would have had a boom in building. And councils would have been relieved, through the sales, of the cost of maintaining old housing stock. Thatcher believed that council tenants didn't vote Conservative, and home owners did. Which may have been, at the time a correct assumption. But it was the ban on councils building more from the sales revenues which was the real killer here. Not the sales themselves. 
    • I agree with Jenjenjen. Guarantees are provided for works and services actually carried out; they are not an insurance policy for leaks anywhere else on the roof. Assuming that the rendering at the chimney stopped the leak that you asked the roofer to repair, then the guarantee will cover that rendering work. Indeed, if at some time in the future it leaked again at that exact same spot but by another cause, that would not be covered. Failure of rendering around a chimney is pretty common so, if re-rendering did resolve that leak, there is no particular reason to link it to the holes in the felt elsewhere across the roof. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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