Jump to content

Grove Tavern Harvester

ricci

By ricci
in General ED Issues / Gossip

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 4 weeks later...
Anne Stanesby

Anne Stanesby

Posted
Posted
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

Louisa

Posted
Posted

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.

flocker spotter

flocker spotter

Posted
Posted

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

Louisa

Posted
Posted

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.

Louisa

Louisa

Posted
Posted

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

flocker spotter

Posted
Posted

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

flocker spotter

Posted
Posted

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.

Louisa

Louisa

Posted
Posted

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

flocker spotter

Posted
Posted
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

flocker spotter

Posted
Posted

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

JohnL

Posted
Posted

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).

Louisa

Louisa

Posted
Posted

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.

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
 Share
Go to topic listing
  • Advertise Here

  • Latest Discussions

    • malumbu
      Is Rachel Reeves becoming the new Liz Truss?

      By malumbu · Posted

      If you read my post I expect a compromise with the raising of the cap on agricultural property so that far less 'ordinary' farmers do not get caught  Clarkson is simply a high profile land owner who is not in the business as a conventional farmer.  Here's a nice article that seems to explain things well  https://www.sustainweb.org/blogs/nov24-farming-budget-inheritance-tax-apr/ It's too early to speculate on 2029.  I expect that most of us who were pleased that Labour got in were not expecting anything radical. Whilst floating the idea of hitting those looking to minimise inheritance tax, including gifting, like fuel duty they also chickened put. I'm surprised that anyone could start touting for the Tories after 14 years of financial mismanagement and general incompetence. Surly not.  A very low bar for Labour but they must be well aware that there doesn't need to be much of a swing form Reform to overturn Labour's artificially large majority.  But even with a generally rabid right wing press, now was the opportunity to be much braver.
    • Rockets
      Is Rachel Reeves becoming the new Liz Truss?

      By Rockets · Posted

      And I worry this Labour government with all of it's own goals and the tax increases is playing into Farage's hands. With Trump winning in the US, his BFF Farage is likely to benefit from strained relations between the US administration and the UK one. As Alastair Campbell said on a recent episode of The Rest is Politics who would not have wanted to be a fly on the wall of the first call between Angela Rayner and JD Vance....those two really are oil and water. Scary, scary times right now and there seems to be a lack of leadership and political nous within the government at a time when we really need it - there aren't many in the cabinet who you think will play well on the global stage.
    • SpringTime
      Do others hear the lady singing, in her home at the top end of Copleston Road?

      By SpringTime · Posted

      Funerals, for example.
    • vladi
      Is Rachel Reeves becoming the new Liz Truss?

      By vladi · Posted

      I look to the future and clearly see that the law of unintended consequences will apply with a vengeance and come 2029 Labour will voted out of office. As someone once said 'The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money'. 

East Dulwich Forum

Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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