We've managed to press the pause button on Busta's plans for the moment. In the meantime, let's not forget the blocked up windows.
The planning department is meant to uphold planning decisions within the Borough. I don't think planning consent was granted to blocking up windows of the building formerly known as The Ship Pub.
Let's remind Greenwich Council that this must be corrected. Letters must be written to the planning department and we want answers and action. If they cannot uphold planning decisions, then why have a department?
Oh, Plumstead Common IS a conservation area.
5 minutes of your time. Write a quick letter and post it to:-
First Floor, Development Planning Reception
Peggy Middleton House
50 Woolwich New Road
Woolwich SE18 6HQ
23 comments:
Noticed this morning (Sat 4th) that some builders are putting up a wall a few feet in front of the building.
Anyone know if they have planning permission do this?
Probably not, but that hasn't stop them so far.
Hello again Plumsteadshire. I am one of your readers; the one who suggested getting more organised, and who created and sent out the SAY NO to busta poster. I have now created an email address: weloveplumstead@ntlworld.com which I'd like to use to help organise people for our common cause. If we can get to know each other in a non-anonymous way and arrange to meet to discuss tactics I think we can better address The Ship question. And, indeed, consider proposals for a co-operative or other positive developments for Plumstead Common (The Ship and beyond). With thanks.
...apparently the way around the Planning Dept is to ignore them??????
Interesting reading on the Greenwich Planning site applications and decisions link:
http://www.greenwich.gov.uk/Greenwich/YourEnvironment/PlanningAndBuilding/PlanningBuildingConservation/ApplicationsDecisionsAppeals/
Applications for Week 19, ending 12 May 2006 (pls note the decision - aren't those the flats that are already built????):
LOCATION 205 Plumstead Common Road Plumstead SE18
PROPOSAL Submission of details pursuant to Condition 13 (Parking) of planning permission dated 11/8/04 (Ref:03/2968/F) for the erection of a 2-storey side extension & conversion of upper floors to form 2 x 1-bed & 1 x 2-bed flats, Alterations to vehicular access to provide forecourt car parking and
APPLICANT/AGENT Solutions in Building Ltd. Suite 7A 71-75 High Street Chislehurst Kent BR7 5AG
DECISION DATE 08 May 2006
DECISION Refuse by Delegation
APPEAL LODGED
(If applicable) - - APPEAL DECISION
WARD Glyndon REFERENCE 05/1587/SD
Something isnt right about this whole thing. Becs
Sorry, maybe I misread that previous application, here are 2 more I found for Sept 2005, which seem to give permission for the flats adjacent in addition to sound insulation (wonder how long some people have known the actual intention for this place) Becs
http://www.greenwich.gov.uk/Greenwich/YourEnvironment/PlanningAndBuilding/PlanningBuildingConservation/ApplicationsDecisionsAppeals/Appeals/Decisions/2005/September/Week37.htm
LOCATION 205 Plumstead Common Road Plumstead SE18
PROPOSAL Submission of details of sound insulation pursuant to Condition 12 of planning permission dated 11.8.04 (Ref.03/2968) for erection of a two-storey side extension and conversion of upper floors to form 2 x 1-bed and 1 x 2-bed flats, alterations to vehicular access to provide forecourt car parking and retention
APPLICANT/AGENT Solutions in Building Ltd. Suite 7A, 71-75 High Street Chislehurst Kent BR7 5AG
DECISION DATE 14 September 2005
DECISION Approve by Delegation
APPEAL LODGED
(If applicable) - - APPEAL DECISION
WARD Glyndon REFERENCE 05/1412/SD
---------------------------------
LOCATION 205 Plumstead Common Road Plumstead SE18
PROPOSAL Submission of details pursuant to Condition 3 (Details of refuse storage/bin store) of planning permission dated 11/8/04 (Ref:03/2968/F) for the erection of a 2-storey side extension & conversion of upper floors to form 2 x 1-bed & 1 x 2-bed flats alterations to vehicular access to provide forecourt car parking
APPLICANT/AGENT Solutions in Building Ltd. Suite 7A 71-75 High Street Chislehurst Kent BR7 5AG
DECISION DATE 14 September 2005
DECISION Approve by Delegation
APPEAL LODGED
(If applicable) - - APPEAL DECISION
WARD Glyndon REFERENCE 05/1428/SD
Some time back I rang the planning department and they suggested that the windows on the ship were only temporarily blocked up for "security reasons" - however now the pub has been painted and the blocked up windows look more and more like they are ready to stay. Now we have a wall appearing round the premises - what is going on?
semi good news .....
busta is no more, the owner has decided to turn them into flats permission has been applied for this week and my next door neighbour knows the guy that owns it ............ still no gastro pub though guys ... we will need to find another location
bye bye busta
apparently the fella that owns 'carpet corner' also owns 'the ship'...if this is true I know where I won't be buying my carpet in future....can anyone confirm?
In answer to WeLovePlumstead - that is of course what the Plumstead Common Environment Group was and is always about. Please come and bring in some new blodd to what is already a thriving and committed group. We have interesting meetings! This year "Local Birds" and A Purse web spider safari for instance and of course a chance to pit some muscle behind things and enhance our beautiful common. We did a huge thing for the dog-poo problem way back by flagging >1000 offending dumps!
best wishes plumsters!
In answer to WeLovePlumstead - that is of course what the Plumstead Common Environment Group was and is always about. Please come and bring in some new blodd to what is already a thriving and committed group. We have interesting meetings! This year "Local Birds" and A Purse web spider safari for instance and of course a chance to pit some muscle behind things and enhance our beautiful common. We did a huge thing for the dog-poo problem way back by flagging >1000 offending dumps!
best wishes plumsters!
To Nick Day and all,
The reason for the idea of having a person to organise action just on The Ship is that in my chats with people in the area about this matter in last month or so, there were overwhelming numbers of people concerned about The Ship, but not all were interested in joining up as a PCEG members. Of course there is overlap in concern over The Ship between Commoners in general and PCEG members, but it would be useful to organise people outside the PCEG on this cause without making them feel they HAVE to join the PCEG to have a voice. I personally support the PCEG and their work. However I am concerned on the matter of The Ship specifically to organise and embrace all those concerned about The Ship developments in order to strengthen the case to prevent inappropriate development of that location. It does seem the applicaton for flats may well alleviate any further need to worry. BUT in any case, it does seem that some people are interested in co-operative action on the Ship (and indeed forming a co-operative!). There have been already a few replies to weloveplumstead@ntlworld.com.
Lots of people come to this blog which is EXCELLENT. The anonymity it offers is its great benefit! Too speak with out worry or care. For those who want to be involved in an organised way without being nameless and faceless, please do get in touch. I would be glad to organise a group of concerned commoners and of course involve concerned PCEG members as well.
My understanding is that the Planning Department has now notified the agent/architect that both the blocking up of windows and change of use from pub to night club would require planning consent.
Most of you will be aware that the Planning Dept. objected to the granting of the licence. The licence application was rejected by the Licensing Sub-committee last Tuesday (due to the withdrawal of the 48-hour membership cooling-off period condition), and my understanding is that the Planning Dept. is awaiting a re-submission of the application before commenting further.
I have been told by a friend in the catering business that planning permission for a restaurant would now not be permissable. The requirement for kitchen extraction fans, for instance, would impact on the new flats to the rear of The Ship. I cannot comment on the reliability of this opinion - but you will understand how easily we all succumb to rumour, hearsay and personal opinion which, in the retelling, becomes "fact".
I would have welcomed a restaurant which offered something new to the area.
My suspicion is that the Planning Dept. has wanted a conversion to residential accommodation all along. Personally, I have no objections in this respect, so long as the result is decent-sized flats with accommodation for parking, rather than the rented rooms/multi-occupancy which is becoming increasingly the norm in Plumstead Common.
As for "getting organised" - let's get a fix on what is REALLY happening first, and go from there.
Hi, I am a Waverley Crescent resident, who must live 201 metres away from the Ship, as, can you believe it, today the 8th November, is the FIRST I have heard about this whole dreadful nightclub idea!!!!! I have been surfing the net IN HORROR and found your blog. I understand that the first application's been turned down - however, they are going to appeal. HAPPY TO HELP IN ANY WAY TO STOP THIS MONSTROSITY! And me and my husband have been desperate for a gastro pub - thank god we're not the only ones!
NEWS FLASH:
"Bus da Rhyme" (as now indicated on the new application) is applying for a license with earlier hours. 11pm week days and midight weekends and bank holidays, i think. So, basically, pub hours, BUT they are still openning as a club. If anyone is STILL opposed to this then representations need to be made IN THE ACCEPTED WAY by 5 Dec (I think). Have a look on the outside of the building for the blue poster displaying the application. IF people are still opposed to this, then it would be great to be organised and work together: to meet up and make sure that everyone writes/petitions in the accepted way.
weloveplumstead@ntlworld.com
oops, sorry, it's midnight weekdays and 1am weekends and bank holidays. representations by 7 dec.
see the following:
http://www.greenwich.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/A6358FDA-CBA9-4074-92B6-97600589BC1A/0/6thNovember2006.pdf
Quick question - is this new application for a Pub or a Member's Club? I am a little unclear.
Either way, I certainly hope the police take this application seriously this time and make representations. Only two "Responsible Authorities" made representations last time: the Council's Environmental Health Dept and the Planning Dept. What about the Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, the enforcement agency responsible for enforcing the Health and Safety at Work Act, the local Trading Standards Dept and the local area child protection committee - all defined as "Responsible Authorities" who can make representations.
Now that the new application has these reduced hours (with the potential of them being back to the original plan later), is our best defense still focused on the opening hours? Since the Council define normal sleeping hours from 11.30pm to 7.00am, the place should be closed and the customers disbursed before 11.30pm, correct? (Not that I am advocating for this to go through with any hours of operation). But as mentioned, we need to make a unified stand and make sure no ones objection gets thrown out.
There was some concern that the technicality the Committee used to reject on the 1st application took the "wind out of our sails", but on second thought, did they use the technicality to then give us the next round of objections? This means we really must be organized and have an even better showing as it looks like this next round is left up to us and our objections.
Dont give up people! We can not let them win. We need to keep control of our neighborhood and make a statement to those who have no intention of making a positive contribution to our neighborhood that they can not just come in here and ruin our lives.
Look forward to seeing you all and good luck to us!
Is that a typo on the hours for the late night refreshment license? Fridays and Saturdays from 12.00 hrs until midnight and on public holidays from 23.00 hours - 0100.
The starting time is 11.00am, not 23.00 or do they mean from 23.00 on Friday night all the way though to midnight the next day. which is either only an hour or 25/26 hours straight - depending on how you read it.
??
I haven't noticed a typo. I have lifted the details of the application from the Council site as follows:
1. Provision of Late Night Refreshment on the premises, Friday and Saturdays from 23.00hrs until midnight and on public holidays from 2300
hours – 0100 hours.
2. The Supply of Alcohol on the premises, Monday to Thursday from 11.00hrs until 23.00hrs and Friday and Saturdays from12.00 noon
until midnight and Sundays from 1200noon until 2300hrs and on public holidays from 1200 noon until 0100 hours.
3. Recorded Music on the premises, Monday to Thursday from 11.00hrs until 23.00hrs, Fridays and Saturdays from 1200 noon until midnight and Sundays from12.00 noon until 23.00hrs and on public holidays from
1200 noon until 0100 hours.
4. Provision of facilities for dancing on the premises, Monday to Thursday from 18.00hrs until 23.00hrs and Friday and Saturdays from 18.00 until
midnight, Sundays from 1800 hrs until 2300hrs and on public holidays from
1800 hours until 0100 hours.
I think I need to get out the colouring pencils to make sense of this timetable! However, unless I am going bonkers (which is more than likely), the times for bank holidays are completely wacko - surely the following day is usually a working day (as opposed to Friday and Saturday)!
What is meant by "late night refreshments"? There seems to be a discrepancy between the original application and the current one (now why doesn't that suprise me?)
To answer another query (kind of) - isn't Carpet Corner the freeholder, rather than the leaseholder?
about the proposed hours -
1. Provision of Late Night Refreshment on the premises, Friday and Saturdays from 23.00hrs until midnight...
- Does this mean they start serving at 23.00 until midnight *for one hour* or do they really mean 11.00 which is in line with the other times?
1.(cont'd) ...and on public holidays from 2300
hours – 0100 hours
again, dont they mean 11.00 AM - 0100, instead of 23.00?
As I was driving down Plumstead Common Road there is another pub with scaffolding up around it, by the primary school on the corner? Perhaps this will suddenly amterialise into gastro-pub-dom and solve all our concerns (except the noise and club thing).
Also are there any pub quizzes in Plumstead?
That is confusing the issue - some other gastro pub is not going to solve my concern with Busta Rhyme setting up in my back yard. I wish it were so simple.
Just to clear up the 'Late Night Refreshment' hours query. The sale of refreshment (ie food and/or hot drinks does not require to be licensed until 11.00pm hence the name 'Late Night' etc
Thanks for the explanation about light/late night refreshments.
The Star has weekly quiz nights. It is also quiz night at Plumcroft School this coming Friday (7.30 pm) if you are particularly keen.
For those living outside the 200m limit (I live within, and have not received a sausage from the Council)- there is nothing to stop you from attending the hearing. The presence of 200+ residents at the last hearing was impressive.
Post a Comment