I thought this recent article from The Dulwich Estate looked interesting. As the lease on the former Grove Tavern had reverted back to the Estate last year, they are now considering demolishing the former pub and installing an outdoor amenity on the site while the economic conditions settle (the process called ‘meanwhile use’). The cost of repairing the badly damaged building for hospitality use are no longer economically viable and the building is continuing to deteriorate.
The site was once The Green Man pub owned by John Cox after whom Cox’s Walk is so-named. Afterward it became Dr. Glennie’s Academy, and it is here Byron was at school for about 1 and a half years before his mother removed him to Harrow. I will deal with the extensive significance of this on a separate history topic.
The current building dates only to 1923 (apparently) as was noted by Steve Grindlay.
Obviously this is not a matter for Forest Hill Society directly, but I know how much this corner is a psychological gateway to entering and leaving Forest Hill that it will affect us whatever happens.
Its still a significant building and I’d really like to see surveys indicating it is structurally compromised to the extent that it cannot be refurbished..There doesn’t appear to be any such evidence obvious on the exterior.
I don’t feel it should be demolished without any consideration of what will replace it longer term.
The issue is that the Dulwich Estate continued to allow the dilapidation of The Grove Tavern while the former pub owner continued to have the lease which has led to this situation.
An absolute travesty that the building is likely to be demolished so that when the market is better, the Dulwich Estate can sell the site for housing that is likely to have very little affordable housing and I’d be shocked if any has social rent.
Personally I think the builsing should be refurbished as affordable housing with a community centre for the over 60’s and youngsters on the ground floor level.
But then I’m an idealist
I also really hope the skatepark remains its great to see the kids there and much healthier than having them sat staring at computers.
The location is historic, the building is not really. If there was still an older version of the public house (the one that had the enormous gardens behind it) then it might make sense, but I don’t think there is much value in listing this building and therefore making it survive as a structure, but making it harder to turn into something useful.
I don’t disagree that it is a shame it has got to this stage, but it was always an awkward spot for a pub/restaurant in the era of the South Circular, so it would be better if it could be repurposed to add real value to the community in some way.
I say this in part as I have recently toured Stanstead Lodge here in Perry Vale which is exactly this - a listed building with historic significance, converted to be a community space (aimed at 55+). But it is struggling to survive in the current economy as councils are no longer willing or able to fund community spaces, so they need to be self-financing.
In the interim, we are desperately in need of social housing, so a combination of community space (not restricted to any particular group) with affordable residential spaces, would be ideal - I just don’t think that this will happen since it is likely to be sold off for building more premium value property with a “Dulwich” address.
That end of Lordship Lane hasn’t seen the gentrification that the East Dulwich end has seen, where you’re more likely to use Toolstation or the two Chinese takeaways compared to the posh shops. The new Persian restaurant on the corner of Melford Road seems nice though and may break the curse of nothing working down there.
The structural survey is in the planning application documents. With many photos. It does look as though the external bricks and chimneys are not beyond repair. But inside the report says much of the timber frame will need replacing, as for the roof, walls, floors and ceilings, electrics and everything else internal, photos show that it is all in a right old state due to Fire and Water damage over all these years. More or less a complete internal rebuild?
Yes but surveyors make no argument that it is structurally unsafe at all…In fact quite the opposite with only minor repairs externally or to timbers.
There is some internal damage shown to areas of ceilings & joists due to water ingress which has purposely been allowed to happen, but only the ground floor was inspected.
Fire damage was restricted to kitchen area.
Their own argument being made is not at all that the structure is unsound, but that it is economically unviable which a quite a different matter and may be judged against ‘opportunity cost’ proposals that we are just not being told about.
It is in SE21 but significant to the wider area and in an important Conservation area with 4 listed buildings nearby..
The Grove Tavern has a SE22 address as it’s at 520 Lordship Lane rather than SE21 and as Derek mentions, it’s literally just across the border from FH.
My suggestion is FHS contact Penny at the Dulwich Society who deals with planning to find out what if any view they may be taking over the proposed demolition, with a view to whether we may be of any support.
It is a landmark building in a prominent corner site, supposedly part of the Conservation Area, of some architectural merit in an Arts & Crafts style and as Andrew said a psychological gateway to entering and leaving Forest Hill.
Allowing unquestioned demolition of a heritage asset following a long period of purposeful neglect is not a message I’d personally like to send to other developers in the area.
Personally I would be happy to see this building demolished and a suitable housing development put in it’s place. But I wouldn’t want the Forest Hill Society to take such a position if it didn’t align with the views of the Dulwich Society (and conversely I wouldn’t want the Forest Hill Society to advocate for retention if the Dulwich Society felt it should be bulldozed).
I still remember the difficulties when a local civic society (not the Forest Hill Society) wanted to retain a building in Forest Hill even if that meant the continued closure of the swimming pool as a swimming pool. Just like swimming pools, pubs have little value sitting empty and looking like an eyesore (unless you happen to be a squatter).
Happy to make contact if given authority by FHS to do so..
I’m not aware we’ve ever supported demolition of a heritage asset in Conservation Areas and worry about the precedent that would set..Doubt if Dulwich would either but happy to at least find out.
Local history buffs might enjoy Ian McInnes of Dulwich Soc’s comprehensive history of that site. https://youtu.be/-MTZk3fGLf0
I think we normally leave it to the planning group to discuss and decide if Forest Hill Soc takes a position. I don’t think it should - I doubt there is any kind of consensus among members and this type of situation always splits opinion, those who feel strongly either way can make individual responses.
I agree it would be interesting to know the Dulwich Soc view - it looks from Ian’s take 3 yrs ago that demolition and development always looked likely after Stonegate’s lease ran out. And that discussions between Dulwich Estate and their council have been stuttering on for many years.
