Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The pub was never very good and The Dulwich Estate have said that the lease still remains with Stonegate Estates.

Stonegate have been trying to get rid of their lease as it was on the market in 2012 but nobody wants it as a pub as it wasn't well used.

Being good in the 60s and 70s isn't a good enough reason to take a risk on it now. It was shit from 80s - 00s. Rubbish location, bad and overpriced food.


I hate to see any pub be closed for more flats, but I just can't see this being a successful pub again, and actually that stretch could probably do with a small supermaket type affair.


But yeah, Dulwich Estate are a bunch of bastards and there is no way at all they should be a charity.

I may of mentioned this before, but in a bid to ease parking around Lordship lane area the

Grove what ever it becomes with its large carpark would be ideal for a Park & Ride Scheme..


I have mentioned it before in fact. There you go. I've said it again..


DulwichFox

it's a good location, next to the entrance to the woods and Dulwich Park. It's got a huge garden which could be a big draw for famillies. it would make a good hotel / pub restaurant. Just because people didn't like it when it was a Harvester, doesn't mean it's not viable.

Hmmm.


Well we'll probably never know, as I doubt it'll ever reopen, but I honestly believe it would go unused and close again if someone took a chance on it.


Unless it was true that Wetherspoons were to close the Capitol and open there, I could see tat working. But that's not happening, so it'll probably be flats.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> it's a good location, next to the entrance to the

> woods and Dulwich Park. It's got a huge garden

> which could be a big draw for famillies.


That's if you want to risk life and limb crossing the road from the woods to the pub. Unless that junction is ever sorted out for pedestrians, it's a no-no.

It was a good location many years ago when you could drive to the pub.. That's why it has a vast car park.


People do not generally drive to the pub anymore..


Its not convenient for a family to walk or get buses to the venue. Especially in winter months..

There is far too much going in East Dulwich proper i.e. Lordship Lane to satisfy the majority of local residents.


Cannot see why people would want to stay in a hotel there. Dulwich is hardly a holiday destination and

with many people here thinking transport links to the West End and such not being ideal.


Would be nice to see a pub back there but cannot see it ever being viable. Most of the walkers in the woods

end up in the Dulwich Wood house but not more than a handful of those at weekends and even fewer during the week.

You can walk from the Grove to the Wood House without seeing a soul...


DulwichFox

I never liked it but we took out the inlaws there once and they loved it and it was very busy. My Father in Law wanted to try it as he saw it on the way to our house. I don't know if it was always that busy (and this was probably almost 10 years ago) but it seemed popular enough that night.

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> Cannot see why people would want to stay in a

> hotel there. Dulwich is hardly a holiday

> destination and

> with many people here thinking transport links to

> the West End and such not being ideal.



I dunno, Dulwich has plenty of families who might not have the space to put up inlaws, and there are regular wedings at Dulwich College, Hornimans or the Gallery, so guests might need a place to stay. Dulwich has always lacked B&B options. But then again they're turning the dog in to a hotel, so maybe that ship has sailed.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> I've never found it particularly difficult to

> cross there I have to say.


Really? Coming from the woods, you can't see if traffic's whizzing round the corner on the South Circular and there's no pedestrian phase. This photo makes it clear how crazy it is to try to cross.


 

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> It was a good location many years ago when you

> could drive to the pub.. That's why it has a vast

> car park.

>

> People do not generally drive to the pub

> anymore..

>

> Its not convenient for a family to walk or get

> buses to the venue. Especially in winter months..

>

> There is far too much going in East Dulwich

> proper i.e. Lordship Lane to satisfy the majority

> of local residents.

>

> Cannot see why people would want to stay in a

> hotel there. Dulwich is hardly a holiday

> destination and

> with many people here thinking transport links to

> the West End and such not being ideal.

>

> Would be nice to see a pub back there but cannot

> see it ever being viable. Most of the walkers in

> the woods

> end up in the Dulwich Wood house but not more

> than a handful of those at weekends and even fewer

> during the week.

> You can walk from the Grove to the Wood House

> without seeing a soul...

>

> DulwichFox



I agree with nearly all of this (you see, it can happen)

Did the Harvester shut down before the fire, or did the fire force it to close? I don't remember.


The reason I ask is that plenty of other Harvesters seem to work (i.e. lots of people like them and go to them). So if it's a good location, why didn't this one work?

The Harvester shut down as a Harvester first, was sold as a business I believe, refitted a bit and then reopened as the Grove Tavern. Shortly after the reopening as the Grove Tavern, the fire occurred in the kitchen/back area of the building and it was then closed as a business for good.

When it was converted into a Harvester, all the original fixtures and fittings were ripped out, completely ruining what had once been a lovely pub. I've many happy memories when I used it as a regular Friday night haunt as a teenager in the mid-70s. Those great long hot summers of '75 and '76 stick in the mind as we'd spend most of the time in the garden (where there was another bar) smoking spliff and tripping on acid. Occasionally, we'd walk up through the woods for a few jars up at The Wood House then maybe back to The Grove for last orders.


I think the pub/B&B option would be best to make it a workable pub again and I'm sure plenty of people would use it up this end, I know I would if the right people were to take it over (Prays for Beer Rebellion or Antic) but sadly it looks like Dulwich Estates have other ideas.

Otta Wrote:

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

> I stayed in a Travel Lodge the other night and

> went to a Harvester next door for breakfast.

> Cracking fry up for a fiver.


It is (IMO) a pretty shit fry-up, but as you say it only costs a fiver which is pretty hard to argue with. And that includes unlimited "continental" buffet too (i.e. jam and toast, and tinned mandarins).

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

    • A A day-school for girls and a boarding school for boys (even with, by the late '90s, a tiny cadre of girls) are very different places.  Though there are some similarities. I think all schools, for instance, have similar "rules", much as they all nail up notices about "potential" and "achievement" and keeping to the left on the stairs. The private schools go a little further, banging on about "serving the public", as they have since they were set up (either to supply the colonies with District Commissioners, Brigadiers and Missionaries, or the provinces with railway engineers), so they've got the language and rituals down nicely. Which, i suppose, is what visitors and day-pupils expect, and are expected, to see. A boarding school, outside the cloistered hours of lesson-times, once the day-pupils and teaching staff have been sent packing, the gates and chapel safely locked and the brochures put away, becomes a much less ambassadorial place. That's largely because they're filled with several hundred bored, tired, self-supervised adolescents condemned to spend the night together in the flickering, dripping bowels of its ancient buildings, most of which were designed only to impress from the outside, the comfort of their occupants being secondary to the glory of whatever piratical benefactor had, in a last-ditch attempt to sway the judgement of their god, chucked a little of their ill-gotten at the alleged improvement of the better class of urchin. Those adolescents may, to the curious eyes of the outer world, seem privileged but, in that moment, they cannot access any outer world (at least pre-1996 or thereabouts). Their whole existence, for months at a time, takes place in uniformity behind those gates where money, should they have any to hand, cannot purchase better food or warmer clothing. In that peculiar world, there is no difference between the seventh son of a murderous sheikh, the darling child of a ball-bearing magnate, the umpteenth Viscount Smethwick, or the offspring of some hapless Foreign Office drone who's got themselves posted to Minsk. They are egalitarian, in that sense, but that's as far as it goes. In any place where rank and priviilege mean nothing, other measures will evolve, which is why even the best-intentioned of committees will, from time to time, spawn its cliques and launch heated disputes over archaic matters that, in any other context, would have long been forgotten. The same is true of the boarding school which, over the dismal centuries, has developed a certain culture all its own, with a language indended to pass all understanding and attitiudes and practices to match. This is unsurprising as every new intake will, being young and disoriented, eagerly mimic their seniors, and so also learn those words and attitudes and practices which, miserably or otherwise, will more accurately reflect the weight of history than the Guardian's style-guide and, to contemporary eyes and ears, seem outlandish, beastly and deplorably wicked. Which, of course, it all is. But however much we might regret it, and urge headteachers to get up on Sundays and preach about how we should all be tolerant, not kill anyone unnecessarily, and take pity on the oiks, it won't make the blindest bit of difference. William Golding may, according to psychologists, have overstated his case but I doubt that many 20th Century boarders would agree with them. Instead, they might look to Shakespeare, who cheerfully exploits differences of sex and race and belief and ability to arm his bullies, murderers, fraudsters and tyrants and remains celebrated to this day,  Admittedly, this is mostly opinion, borne only of my own regrettable experience and, because I had that experience and heard those words (though, being naive and small-townish, i didn't understand them till much later) and saw and suffered a heap of brutishness*, that might make my opinion both unfair and biased.  If so, then I can only say it's the least that those institutions deserve. Sure, the schools themselves don't willingly foster that culture, which is wholly contrary to everything in the brochures, but there's not much they can do about it without posting staff permanently in corridors and dormitories and washrooms, which would, I'd suggest, create a whole other set of problems, not least financial. So, like any other business, they take care of the money and keep aloof from the rest. That, to my mind, is the problem. They've turned something into a business that really shouldn't be a business. Education is one thing, raising a child is another, and limited-liability corporations, however charitable, tend not to make the best parents. And so, in retrospect, I'm inclined not to blame the students either (though, for years after, I eagerly read the my Old School magazine, my heart doing a little dance at every black-edged announcement of a yachting tragedy, avalanche or coup). They get chucked into this swamp where they have to learn to fend for themselves and so many, naturally, will behave like predators in an attempt to fit in. Not all, certainly. Some will keep their heads down and hope not to be noticed while others, if they have a particular talent, might find that it protects them. But that leaves more than enough to keep the toxic culture alive, and it is no surprise at all that when they emerge they appear damaged to the outside world. For that's exactly what they are. They might, and sometimes do, improve once returned to the normal stream of life if given time and support, and that's good. But the damage lasts, all the same, and isn't a reason to vote for them. * Not, if it helps to disappoint any lawyers, at Dulwich, though there's nothing in the allegations that I didn't instantly recognise, 
    • Another recommendation for Lorraine  - if you need help over the holidays, she still has a small amount of availability. Couldn’t recommend her more highly, she’s brilliant with our cat. Message her on 07718 752208 for more details re pricing etc.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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