View Full Version : Campaign to save the Maiden Over, Reading
For those who have an interest in pub preservation...
As part of the local CAMRA group (in particular as Vice Chair and a member of the Pub Protection committee) I have been working with the local residents to try and stop The Maiden Over (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/61618/) being converted into a Tesco.
The story so far, in brief:
- Pub closed with very little notice. Enterprise-owned. Pub is more than just a boozer - it is a meeting place, community space and is the only facility within about a kilometre
- Had been trading relatively well (within the usual parasitic conditions Enterprise impose) selling local ale, hosting clubs, societies and opening early to sell coffee and food so popular with the mums!
- An Asset of Community Value (ACV) had been submitted (and accepted) prior to closure by us. This would give the local community 6 months to organise/find a buyer if sold.
- News emerged that Enterprise were going to lease the pub to Tesco for 25 years. This makes the ACV redundant as no sale is taking place. Changing a pub to a shop requires no planning permission, of course. Expect to see tactic employed increasingly by desperate pubcos to overcome ACV-listing.
- More news emerged that a local consortium had previously offered to buy the pub outright but were rebuffed by Enterprise.
- Campaign group organised between local CAMRA branch and local residents: https://www.facebook.com/groups/667522626658772/ . Massively important to have local residents self-organized, motivated and on board.
- Using knowledge of planning system, realised pretty quick our only hope was to gain an Article 4 directive from the local council (Wokingham BC) Article 4 has few precedents of being used in this sort of situation, it removes permitted development rights and forces any change of use through the normal planning process. Article 4 has high risk to a Council - if overturned by an independent assessor they are liable not just for costs but also for compensation.
- Gained support of all three ward Councillors, strictly working under a non-political and cross-party ethos. And as a 'keep our pub!' campaign, not a 'we hate Tesco' lobby group.
- Tapped up the local journalists - https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152360552478460&set=gm.677812318963136&type=1&theater) (you may recognise one of the chaps quoted :D )
- Submitted request, which went to the local Council to their officers (non-elected) who have to make a recommendation based on their interpretation (...) of policy.
- They recommended refusal...
- In the Planning Committee tonight, after we put our case (only allowed three minutes!), the elected members voted in favour of an Article 4!! Wokingham BC is a conservative council (both big and small C) which was also a potential hurdle we overcame.
So we live to fight another day. I'll be posting updates on here as things progress. Hope some of you find it interesting and maybe of use in your area if faced with a similar situation.
Quinno
bcfczuluarmy
21-08-2014, 01:10
Sounds a well fought battle and possible prescient. As you're probably aware a fair few pubs lost to the supermarkets in Bristol so stopping one is a big fuck you especially as I think they will go after them more now as the price war is moving away from big stores to pub sorry smaller convenience stores being acquired.
Rex_Rattus
21-08-2014, 13:42
Interesting story Quinno. Hope you continue to get the bounce of the ball on this one. As you say, an ACV does nothing to extinguish permitted development rights, or indeed demolition - one of our SW London pubs has an ACV but is now a building site. But - what an ACV does do (apart from the opportunity to effect a local bid) is demonstrate to planning committees, if it gets that far, that there is local support for the pub.
Interestingly, in the case of a Hackney pub (Chesham Arms) the owner/developer mounted a legal challenge to the local authority's decision to grant ACV status and the decision went against the developer. That was a welcome precedent. In this case it's turned into a lengthy and bloody battle with the developer. As well as the ACV decision, the developer has been reported to the planning enforcement officer for doing some unauthorised work on, and moving a tenant into, the upper rooms of the pub. Change of use of this kind does require planning permission of course.
An Article 4 Direction is, as you know, the holy grail of pub protection. I too have heard of the potential for a local authority to be sued by a developer/owner over the grant of an Article 4 Direction, but as far as I know that hasn't been tested in the courts (if anyone knows different then I wouldn't mind hearing about it).
These fights are worth the fight, at least in the longer term. I've spoken to the guy leading the Chesham Arms fight, and said that even if they don't end up getting their pub back they are sending out a strong message to developers to keep their hands off pubs. They reckon the new owner of the Chesham Arms won't buy another pub for redevelopment after the fight he's had over that one.
oldboots
22-08-2014, 13:49
Disappointing news about a way round ACV listing but they are probably a not very effective weapon. The support of local communities and politicians is vital in these fights, of two we are fighting at present there are 60 odd local objections to one pub's planning permission and only 1 to the other pub's application so we'll give up on that one. Traffic objections are about the only thing that can work especially if you can convince the Highway Department, we stopped Sainsburys for months using that until the Highways Department caved in for some reason :whistle:
And yes Councils are terrified of using Article 4 because of the risks.
Any thoughts about going to the Britons Protection meeting, Quinno?
Any thoughts about going to the Britons Protection meeting, Quinno?
What's that? :confused:
Aqualung
22-08-2014, 18:33
Disappointing news about a way round ACV listing but they are probably a not very effective weapon. The support of local communities and politicians is vital in these fights.
There's a pub in Chingford called the Royston Arms that recently closed and apparently the Stonegate owners want to demolish it to build flats.
The chances of it being opposed are slim as the only references I can find online are about a drugs raid by the Met and complaints from local people about anti-social behaviour.
It's another case of a large London Suburban pub failing when the only opposition originally was the Prince Albert at Chingford Mount that was a typical large suburban pre-war pub that was demolished post war to provide a branch of Iceland.
After this the pub was relegated to a drug ridden subterranean hell-hole for under age drinkers that was closed years ago.
The three shop conversions at Chingford Mount are now the Wishing Well (Enterprise), The Obelisk (now Stonegate after the failure of another pubco) and the Spoons King's Ford. The closest opposition to these are a Harvester, a GK Hungry Horse and a former Watney John Barras pub that I wouldn't visit if the beer was a pound a pint.
These large pub companies are a joke in that they will blame just about anything for their failure other than their business models to sell mainstream rubbish at inflated prices. When a group of local people turn around to try and do something about their abject failures and they oppose it outright it shows what a bunch of shameless greedy parasites they all are.
Mobyduck
22-08-2014, 19:11
These large pub companies are a joke in that they will blame just about anything for their failure other than their business models to sell mainstream rubbish at inflated prices. When a group of local people turn around to try and do something about their abject failures and they oppose it outright it shows what a bunch of shameless greedy parasites they all are.
Well said
oldboots
22-08-2014, 19:19
What's that? :confused:
Sent you a PM explaining
oldboots
22-08-2014, 19:22
Anyone hear "Lives in the Landscape" on R4 this morning (22/08/14@11:30am)? Community squat in an Enterprise pub in Luton, personally I wanted to hear more about the "relationship breakdown" between Declan and Enterprise rather than the Briggs tosh.
The Roman Way (http://www.pubsgalore.co.uk/pubs/1289/)
Sent you a PM explaining
I haven't got it (and I cleared down loads of old messages a few weeks back so should have space...). Can you try again pls? ta
oldboots
22-08-2014, 21:14
I haven't got it (and I cleared down loads of old messages a few weeks back so should have space...). Can you try again pls? ta
done
london calling
23-08-2014, 20:37
There is alterative view proposed by a noted beer historian that why shouldn't someone who owns a property sell it for the most money he can get.
oldboots
23-08-2014, 21:07
There is alterative view proposed by a noted beer historian that why shouldn't someone who owns a property sell it for the most money he can get.
The general argument is that a pub is not just a shop that sells beer but has a community purpose and value. The social aspect makes pubs more valuable to society fulfilling that purpose than as property. As a property owner I would protect the rights of property in general but if I owned a Grade I listed building I would have to accept certain constraints on my freedom with that property.
The man to whom you allude (M Cornell) is a much respected historian but seems to have gone native with regard to PubCos and cannot see any evil in their activities which I find astounding in view of the evidence - much more evidence than for example for the early history of IPA. He seems to subscribe to the view that only bad pubs run by numpties go bust and get sold off, utter drivel of course. Having huge debts to service mean PubCos will sell a going concern to aid their cash flow regardless of any possible future returns, bird in the hand and all that - I don't knock it, that's business, I don't have to like though. Pub Cos do not have a vested interest in running successful pubs merely in servicing their debts and trying to get a return for their share holders. The same principle led to the closure of a number of successful (profitable) family breweries in the 1980s as the property value exceeded the potential but much less certain value from running the business.
As an aside, the ONLY pubs in my locality with any churn are the PubCo owned pubs; the rest stay in the same hands for years usually until retirement of the licensees but the PubCo pubs have a opening/closing rate made of elastic as they keep trying to find a new mug after bleeding the last one dry.
The general argument is that a pub is not just a shop that sells beer but has a community purpose and value. The social aspect makes pubs more valuable to society fulfilling that purpose than as property.
Agreed, and since the new designation of 'Assets of Community Value' was introduced by the Government it has been public houses that have most often put forward by the public as being of particular importance locally.
Rex_Rattus
24-08-2014, 18:13
Martin Cornell isn't the only person I've heard espouse that view. The basic premise is that the market should decide what ought to happen to a pub, and that if it's better for someone's business to close a pub then so be it. That's all very well if everyone can be relied on to do the right thing, but they can't and that's why we have laws and regulations to influence behaviour for the greater good. That's partly why the National Trust came into being - the owners of nationally important important monuments couldn't always be trusted to treat them with the care they deserve. I'm not saying that pubs are quite as important as the sort of national treasures looked after by the NT, but the principle's the same.
M Cornell also says that CAMRA's campaign to require planning permission for any change of use to a pub will work against pubs. He argues that as soon as legislation appears on the horizon there will be a rush to close pubs before the legislation is enacted, and it will deter people from opening pubs in the first place as it will be too difficult to turn them into something if they really aren't viable. It's just possible that he is right - in the short term at least. I don't suggest that I can predict the capriciousness of the law of unintended consequences; but some protection for pubs under planning legislation seems to me to be the right thing to do.
There's some high level support for a change. I walked past a pub today and saw in the window a copy of a letter from Greg Mulholland MP to the local authority urging them to agree to an Article 4 Direction in respect of that (threatened) pub. Let's hope something is done to stem the current cull of the great British pub.
oldboots
24-08-2014, 19:00
Mr Cornell also says
"If there is one single thing that would increase the chance of survival of the British pub – and I won’t yield to you, Camra or anyone in my desire to see our pubs strong and thriving – it would be a dramatic improvement in the standard of cask beer served in those pubs."
Personally I think that shows just how far removed from modern day reality Mr C is, given that most pub drinkers drink Carling, Fosters or Carlsberg, the quality of real ale is of concern to maybe 15% of pub goers.
The PubCos will only close pubs if there is a buyer with the money to make it worthwhile or they can save more by keeping it shut, as with ACVs there will be loopholes in any new legislation demanding planning permission for change of use away from A4 - he who pays the piper etc.
london calling
25-08-2014, 20:18
We in West London seem to have too many pubs as some decent ones have been shut and converted with no protests about community values or maybe we don't have much of a community spirit.I think Mr C is trying to say Camra should be about beer (which I tend to agree with as a member) but without pubs where will you get it.Maybe Camra should set up a separate pub saving organisation as they seem to be less focused on beer and brewers at the moment.
We in West London seem to have too many pubs as some decent ones have been shut and converted with no protests about community values or maybe we don't have much of a community spirit.I think Mr C is trying to say Camra should be about beer (which I tend to agree with as a member) but without pubs where will you get it.Maybe Camra should set up a separate pub saving organisation as they seem to be less focused on beer and brewers at the moment.
Campaign for Real Ale Pubs :o oops maybe need to work on the name :confused:
Strongers
04-09-2014, 17:47
http://www.camdennewjournal.com/news/2014/aug/pub-re-open-historic-old-white-bear-hampstead
(http://www.camdennewjournal.com/news/2014/aug/pub-re-open-historic-old-white-bear-hampstead)It can be done!
"agreed the authority had been wrong to impose an Article 4"
http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/local-news/fight-save-maiden-over-pub-7792771
Mobyduck
18-09-2014, 18:23
"agreed the authority had been wrong to impose an Article 4"
http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/local-news/fight-save-maiden-over-pub-7792771
Money talks.
Oh god, this requires another massive post (been very busy at work and doing interviews locally for this!). I'll do one tomorrow. This isn't a 'money talks local council blowjob' issue, it is a case study in why national planning laws are effing terrible.
"the Kama Sutra on the pub"
http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/local-news/last-ditch-attempt-save-maiden-7826844
"the Kama Sutra on the pub"
http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/local-news/last-ditch-attempt-save-maiden-7826844
That was a good quote we supplied, just up the tabloid's street. Wokingham's poxy Planning Dept haven't heard the last of this and we shall be back (have FOI'd the correspondence between them and T*sco for starters...)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.11 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.