howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#1
Seems rather a liberty to me trying stop the sale of this pub it was closed the summer before last when I was in St Margaret's so clearly not viable as a pub.
http://www.dover-express.co.uk/Concern-parish-council-fails-pubs-protected/story-25861161-detail/story.htmlGuest 977- Registered: 27 Jun 2013
- Posts: 1,031
#2
Some owners make pubs deliberately non-viable so they can make more money by developing the site - this happened with The Hope in Lydden.
It does seem though that DDC have a problem with supporting communities that want to keep them going, contrary to the spirit (sorry!) of the legislation.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#3
I'm not sure that councils can do anything to stop it Ray if brewers see themselves as property developers. The pub in the link has been closed at least 18 months and nobody has tried to open it as a going concern. The rules seem to be that communities have 6 months to come up with a viable plan to keep the building going if I am understanding the situation correctly and nothing has come forward. It's not as if St Margaret's doesn't have other pubs.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,931
#4
If a pub is viable it will sell if it has not been sold after a couple of years clearly it is a money pit and only an idiot would buy the place.
In the present climate I am not surprised it has not sold especially as it relies a lot on seasonal trade which is only about six months the year it would need many inhabitants of St Margarets to use it several times a week.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy B
- Location: dover
- Registered: 10 Nov 2012
- Posts: 1,829
#5
Some years ago some friends of mine had the Red lion in st margarets but not for long.No matter what they did to entice the customers in,very few came.Dont think they was able to see their contract out and they closed up within a few months.I,m not sure that its still open now.
Guest 977- Registered: 27 Jun 2013
- Posts: 1,031
#6
Not quite right Howard, the pubs have to be listed by DDC as an Asset of Community Value before communities have the 6 moths priority to come up with a bid before they go on the open market.
DDC seem reluctant to give them this status even though it goes against their own and national planning policies.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#7
The law on ACV listings is clear. An application must be lodged while a pub is still a going concern and before any application for development is submitted.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#8
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
#9
I think you'll find that the submission put forward did not give enough information to sustain a challenge. No reason why with an adequate case it could not succeed. The effect of a community asset designation is to delay a sale for at least six months to enable the community to purchase the property. It gives priority at current market value.
Guest 977- Registered: 27 Jun 2013
- Posts: 1,031
#10
At the planning committee where converting The Hope in Lydden to residential use was approved, one of the councillors on the committee asked the chairman why the parish council hadn't applied for an ACV if they were so against the conversion - details of our refused ACV application were in both the documentation and the officers presentation at the start of the item.
There's no hope (literally).
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#11
All sounds rather amateurish with people not doing their preparation, of course the one in Lydden has a much stronger case than the one in St Margaret's where other pubs are thriving. Was the "Hope" the last one to go in Lydden, I seem to remember that they were looking to serve alcohol only with meals which hardly makes it a village pub?.
Guest 977- Registered: 27 Jun 2013
- Posts: 1,031
#12
No Howard, that's the Lydden Bell, it reopened with a good business plan based mainly on restaurant trade and we're glad to see it thriving.
We wanted the Hope to reopen as a micropub with small shop attached, a model that has worked in other rural locations and we gave an example of one in our ACV. It would have been complementary to The Bell not in competition to it but the developers were smarter than DDC cllrs and officers and won the day (my personal opinion, though I think most of the other cllrs would agree).
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
#13
Have to say I don't follow all the planning applications Ray . Did you have a purchaser/funds for your ACV or was it a PC aspiration?
Guest 977- Registered: 27 Jun 2013
- Posts: 1,031
#14
It was an aspiration when we heard of the new owner's intentions in the hope (that word keeps surfacing!) that the application for residential conversion would be refused and it would go on the market again.
It was advertised as an operating public house in a village location with a picturesque view of the outside at a very reasonable price, so not surprisingly over 3,000 applied for an information pack - not surprising either that only 7 of those 3,000 applied for a viewing when they found out it wasn't open and the first thing they would have to do would be demolish the main bar under terms of the 2010 planning applications.
Interesting question that Paul you might be able to answer - if the 2010 planning conditions were that the pub had to be open before the new houses could be occupied, can those houses now be occupied if the pub will never reopen?
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
#15
I'd rather not comment on line Ray. I'll ask the question. I know what my personal view would be.
Guest 977- Registered: 27 Jun 2013
- Posts: 1,031
#16
Thanks.
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
#17
Awaiting a response Ray. Been a little busy dealing with another planning matter in my ward. Not forgotten.
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
#18
Ray, I think you'll find the 2010 permission conditions are only relevant to that scheme. The current application/permission overrides the 2010 permission if implemented. There appear to be no such conditions applied to the latest application/permission. Did the PC request a condition to be applied?
Guest 977- Registered: 27 Jun 2013
- Posts: 1,031
#19
Paul, thanks for looking into it but your reply highlights why residents are totally fed up with planning.
The original scheme approved in 2010 was for four houses to be built on the garden, which required half of the pub to be knocked down to improve the sight-line (ignoring the fact that it had been quite adequate for 100 years or more for customers, deliveries and the resident landlords with no problem).
Because of the high number of objections by the parish council and residents, both in the normal period, at the site meeting when over 30 attended, and at the planning meeting, the committee recognised the desire of the community for the pub to be maintained and set the conditions that it should be open again before the houses could be occupied.
If a later committee can completely ignore this condition then what's the point of having them, you might as well just let the developers do what they want.
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
#20
Just for completeness Ray, did the PC request that condition for this application?