Sunday 4 December 2011

Press Release - 4/12/11


Campaign for Morden Tavern
Press Release
04.12.11

It would appear that the Morden Tavern application has been dropped from the Planning Applications Committee agenda for the 8th December 2011.

Please find attached correspondence copied to us by Natural England, sent by them to Merton's assigned planning officer.

This may be the reason why the application is not being presented on the 8th December. Clarification has been sought but so far no reason for the deferral has been given.

It is clear from the letter that Natural England agrees with the CMT's position that the legal requirements for habitat surveys have not been satisfied.

“…it would be advisable to conduct further surveys at a more optimum time of year, that is from May 2012 onwards.”

The campaign believes council officers have shown significant lack of judgement in this matter. This raises concerns as to the impartiality and the open and transparent handling of this disputed planning application and the related property transaction by Merton council.

Further, we are aware that the Metropolitan Police Wildlife Protection Unit has begun an investigation into the possible disturbance or removal of a Bat Roost at the Morden Tavern site.

This possibility arose when Reef Estates, the developer applying for planning permission to convert the building and build on the garden land commissioned an industrial cleaning company to enter the site in late August 2011.

The CMT had posted a video on You Tube in early August 2011 to demonstrate the existence of Bats at the Morden Tavern due to constant refusal by council officers to accept the CMT’s and local residents’ statements that Bats were roosting there.

We will continue to hold public officials to account over the many questionable decisions and actions regarding the Morden Tavern.  

CMT

Thursday 1 December 2011

newsletter - December 2011


The Campaign for the Morden Tavern

Central Road Morden [do not write to this address] December 2011

DELAYED!


The Morden Tavern application was not listed on the 8th December planning Application Committee agenda as previously reported. The Campaign understands that the applica-tion may now be either delayed until January or later next year. More details in our next newsletter. Thank you for the huge support with objection letters which now stand at 1,200 plus.

Bats – the on-going saga! (another update)



Our supporters will know that the campaign posted a video on You Tube (Morden Tavern Bats) to prove that there were Bats living at the Morden Tavern. We had received several communications from local residents next to the pub that a roost was present.


The video was posted after council officers had stated that there were no Bats living at the Tavern. They told the planning application committee on June 21st 2011 that a ‘survey’ had been carried out and this concluded there were no bats.

The campaign contacted the company (Arbtech) after the meeting and spoke to the director. He was clear in stating that they had only carried out a ‘scoping report’ and that they had recommended further surveys to be carried out as they could not determine if Bats were present or not just by a walk round the site. Additionally the report they produced completely failed to mention the building in which the Bats were living. The site plan they had been given only had two buildings on it. We also obtained an email from the very ecologist who carried out the survey who stated “in order for the planning permission to be granted further emergence surveys are required (as stated in the scoping report)” and also reported that they had “…indicated that the building had potential for bats to be roosting”.

It is important to note here that the Campaign believes after extensive consultations with experts and English Nature guidance that if the planning application had been approved on the 21st July, the law would have been broken by Merton Council.

The scoping Report has additionally been evaluated by an independent bats expert (BSc Hons MSc MIEEM) and he has agreed that it is inadequate as a scoping re-port and certainly not a Bat Survey as required by the legislation. The Surrey Bat Group also agrees with his conclusion.

The developer carried out a full bat survey ‘proper’ on the 29th September 2011. This concluded that there were no Bats roosting on the site. Case lost you’d think, except that the September bat survey was carried out after an extensive cleaning operation of the Morden Tavern site during the last week of August. It is very likely that evidence of the Bat roost would have been removed at this stage and in fact the roost may itself have been disturbed or removed during this operation. Moreover, failure to protect a Bat habitat is a criminal offence.

The developer requires, for planning permission, two surveys ideally carried out between May and mid-August, the optimum period, although they can occur up to October if conditions are favourable. English Nature has confirmed to the Campaign that the developer has only carried out one survey to date. The planning department have been arguing that the first scoping report counts even when English Nature, the company who wrote the scoping report (Arbtech), the Surrey Bat Group and our own fully qualified ecologists’ say it is not.

English nature have now written to the council inform-ing them that they cannot consider a planning application for the Morden Tavern until two surveys have been carried out after MAY 2012. We wait to see if the council will follow this strong advice from English nature.

It would seem that the Bats have become an inconvenient truth for both Reef Estates and Merton Councils planning department and their desire to rush this flawed and sorry plan through the planning committee. Ironically the council had ample opportunity to ensure that a full bat survey was carried out as we notified them that there were bats living on the site way back on the 2nd June 2010 yet the scoping report was only carried out the day before the July 2011 planning meeting.

It is clear that the law requires the planning application to be placed on ‘ice’ until a second full survey can be carried out next summer. Although the campaign fears that the roost has probably been lost forever.

If you feel strongly about this ‘assault’ on Merton’s wildlife please write to your local councillor and Tony Ryan to complain quoting the planning application number 11P0815.

Valuations, petitions and the Audit Commission…

The Campaign organised a petition during August and September to have the Tavern independently valued. We obtained 1200 signatures and would like to thank all those who supported us.
We had discovered that Merton Council did not obtain an independent valuation for the Council owned Freehold of the Morden Tavern when it negotiated a value with Reef Estates Ltd and is in danger of contravening the 1972 Local Government Act in its duty of obtaining the best value possible for the property by undervaluing the property by up to £1m.

Documents obtained by a Freedom of Information Request indicate that the valuation was carried out by the same council officer who led negotiations for Merton Council with Reef Estates in meetings with no minutes recorded and who failed to take fully into account the additional value of the site if planning permission was granted.

The council responded thus;

“Thank you for your petition. We have highly professional planning and property specialists working within the council. Therefore, we are not currently considering an additional independent valuation.”

The CMT posted the following response;

“The petition clearly asks for an ‘independent’ valuation and the council’s response uses the phrase ‘additional independent valuation’, but…there hasn’t been an independent valuation yet. The current valuation is compromised given the facts. The proposed purchaser was given preferred bidder status by Merton during the leasehold sale and party to information not made public to other leasehold bidders. Therefore there is a clear conflict of interest, agreeing a value ‘acceptable’ to the proposed purchaser to ensure they would be willing to buy. No minutes exist of the ‘negotiations that took place or how the valuation was agreed with the proposed purchaser.”

The process by which the Council arrived at its valua-tion and the murky bidding process that saw one party favoured and others excluded is now the centre of an Audit Commission investigation. We are expecting a report from the Commissioner shortly and we hope it will declare the contract with Reef Estates invalid.

St Helier Councillor Maxi Martin (Labour) informed the Campaign that the Leader of Merton Council has instructed her that she would not be given permission to present our petition to the full council as it could be seen as public criticism of a fellow cabinet member. St Helier Councillor Dennis Pearce (Labour) agreed to present the petition.

Local Government Ombudsman Report


The Campaign has received the LGO’s final report.
The Campaign is pleased that the LGO has confirmed some of the issues which it had raised with them and the contradictory answers given by Merton council. We have summarised these points below:
The council clearly declined the offer to buy the lease-hold or jointly sell the leasehold and freehold which would have raised significantly more value, known as the ‘marriage value’ from the site than was subsequent-ly obtained. The council’s response to this fact that it wasn’t time to sell in the report is difficult to accept giv-en its subsequent behaviour in agreeing to sell the Free-hold to Reef Estates weeks later.

The council also clearly declines an interest from a large property developer whilst at the same time en-couraging and negotiating an agreement to sell the free-hold to Reef Estates. Again missing an opportunity to secure a better value for this council asset.
The Ombudsman's statement then goes on to state that Reef Estates "was the preferred bidder when discus-sions started between it and the council".

This supports the Campaigns charge that Reef Estates Limited where given an unfair advantage by the actions of Merton council in purchasing the leasehold and that this in turn prevented pub companies from being able to outbid the developer. This is in direct contravention to Merton’s pub protection policy L16.

We charge that without council interference there would have been a significant likelihood that more pub compa-nies and entrepreneurs would have taken interest in the Morden Tavern and that it would most likely have stayed as a public house serving the St Helier communi-ty. It is clear that Merton Council did not want this out-come and acted in a manner which prevented it.

The LGO confirms that ward Councillors were in-formed on the 30th June about the likelihood to sell the Freehold and that the decision was taken and signed off on the 1stJuly, less than 24 hours later. 24 hours was insufficient for ward councillors to consider a full re-sponse or consult with local residents. Merton officers do not seem to have acted in a reasonable and transpar-ent manner.

The LGO has found evidence that the Council did not follow correct process in handling the bidding for the Morden Tavern and gave Reef Estates preferential treat-ment. The Council agreed a lower offer for the site than it might otherwise have done - perhaps by £1m less than the site is worth. The Campaign accepts the LGO’s de-cision not to further investigate the complaint against Merton Council given the limited remit in which she has to justify such investigations. The Audit Commis-sion continues its investigation into the Freehold sale agreement.

Say no to Morden Tavern Development - Conservative Party leaflet December 2011


Friday 25 November 2011

Press Release - November 2011


Press Release

Campaign for Morden Tavern – Local Government Ombudsman Report November 2011

The Campaign has received the LGO’s final report following a complaint by Campaign Chairman Mr Smith on behalf of the Campaign for Morden Tavern.

The Campaign is pleased that the LGO has confirmed some of the issues which it had raised with them and the contradictory answers given by Merton council. We have summarised these points below:

The council clearly declined the offer to buy the leasehold or jointly sell the leasehold and freehold which would have raised significantly more value from the site than was subsequently obtained (para 7). The council’s response, point 8, is difficult to accept given its subsequent behaviour in agreeing to sell the Freehold.

The council also clearly declines an interest from a large property developer whilst at the same time encouraging and negotiating an agreement to sell the freehold to Reef Estates (para 10). Again missing an opportunity to secure a better value for this council asset.

The Ombudsman's statement then goes on to state that Reef Estates, "was the preferred bidder when discussions started between it and the council" (para 26).

This supports the Campaigns charge that Reef Estates Limited where given an unfair advantage by the actions of Merton council in purchasing the leasehold and that this in turn prevented pub companies from being able to outbid the developer. This is in direct contravention to Merton’s pub protection policy L16.

We charge that without council interference there would have been a significant likelihood that more pub companies and entrepreneurs would have taken interest in the Morden Tavern and that it would most likely have stayed as a public house serving the St Helier community. It is clear that Merton Council did not want this outcome.

The LGO confirms that ward Councillors were informed on the 30th June about the likelihood to sell the Freehold and that the decision was taken and signed off on the 1stJuly, less than 24 hours later (para 18). 24 hours was insufficient for ward councillors to consider a full response or consult with local residents. Merton officers do not seem to have acted in a reasonable and transparent manner.

The LGO has found evidence that the Council did not follow correct process in handling the bidding for the Morden Tavern and gave Reef Estates preferential treatment. As a result, the Council has agreed a lower offer for the site than it might otherwise have done - perhaps by £1m less than the site is worth. The Campaign accepts the LGO’s decision not to further investigate the complaint against Merton Council given the limited remit which he has to justify such investigations. However, the Audit Commission has reviewed the facts and agreed that the charge is serious to launch a full investigation into the Council's behaviour.

Tuesday 1 November 2011

newsletter - November 2011


The Campaign for the Morden Tavern

Central Road Morden SM4 5RL [do not write to this address] November 2011

December 8th 7pm Civic Centre


December 8th 7pm Civic Centre
Is the next Planning Meeting to consider the Morden Tavern application.
Deadline for registering your objection is:
2nd December 2011
Write or email Merton Council quoting 11P0815.
Tony Ryan, is the planning officer at
Tony.Ryan@merton.gov.uk


The ‘revised’ plans include a tiny proposed bar which will be out of place and is not guaranteed and will not last when surrounded by so many residential properties. To build the bar the oldest Tree on the site which pre-dates the Tavern will be cut down despite having a Tree preser-vation order on it. Another slap in the face for St Helier as we will lose the pub and large garden. Yet more green space gobbled up for corporate greed just like the Willows. 

Own the Morden Tavern...


The closure of the Morden Tavern led to the birth to the Campaign for Morden Tavern, a growing group passionate about keeping a pub in St Helier and safe from conversion into flats. Reef Estates, the developer, does not own the Morden Tavern, the Council does on behalf of residents. If planning permission can be blocked, we can negotiate to buy the leasehold from the developer (and then potentially the freehold from the Council) to set up a pub for the peo-ple of Morden owned by the people of Morden. Free from ownership of the big PubCo's that lock landlords into expensive drink contracts, the new Tavern will be an attractive option to any potential landlord willing to re-establish a thriving community pub.

In the model of a number of other "cooperative" pubs that have rescued community pubs from closure, such as The Hope in Carshalton, we know that the pub will be cleaner, busier and serve better food than the old Tavern. Refurbishment will also see that the large gardens are properly used. We will offer the chance to become a part-owner of the Morden Tavern for as little as £250. Not only will investors get to ensure that the pub survives, but also to share in the profits!

The Morden Tavern is a commercially viable business and our business plan shows that with the correct investment, the pub's future will be assured. The forecast in our business plan for the first 5 years is to get an average annual 5% return on investment - far higher than any bank is pay-ing. We estimate that we require about £200,000 to get the remainder of the leasehold and refurbish the pub, but that could be raised by just 200 people contribution £1,000 each. If you are interested in investing, please send an email to tavern.development@virginmedia.com and mention the amount you would consider investing and we will keep your details on file until we have fought off the developers and can enter into negotiations to buy the lease-hold.

Bats – the on-going saga!



Our supporters will know that the campaign posted a video on You Tube (Morden Tavern Bats) to prove that there were Bats living at the Morden Tavern. We had received several communications from local residents next to the pub that a roost was present.


The video was posted after council officers had stated that there were no Bats living at the Tavern. They told the planning application committee on June 21st 2011 that a ‘survey’ had been carried out and this concluded there were no bats.

The campaign contacted the company (Arbtech) after the meeting and spoke to the director. He was clear in stating that they had only carried out a ‘scoping report’ and that they had recommended further surveys to be carried out as they could not determine if Bats were present or not just by a walk round the site. Additionally the report they pro-duced completely failed to mention the building in which the Bats were living. The site plan they had been given only had two buildings on it. We also obtained an email from the very ecologist who carried out the survey who stated “in order for the planning permission to be granted further emergence surveys are required (as stated in the scoping report)” and also reported that they had “…indicated that the building had potential for bats to be roosting”.

It is important to note here that the Campaign believes after extensive consultations with experts and English Na-ture guidance that if the planning application had been approved on the 21st July, the law would have been broken by Merton Council.

The scoping Report has additionally been evaluated by an independent bats expert (BSc Hons MSc MIEEM) and he has agreed that it is inadequate as a scoping report and certainly not a Bat Survey as required by the legislation. The Surrey Bat Group also agrees with his conclusion.

The developer carried out a full bat survey ‘proper’ on the 29th September 2011. This concluded that there were no Bats roosting on the site. Case lost you’d think, except that the September bat survey was carried out after an extensive cleaning operation of the Morden Tavern site during the last week of August. It is very likely that evidence of the Bat roost would have been removed at this stage and in fact the roost may itself have been disturbed or re-moved during this operation. Moreover, failure to protect a Bat habitat is a criminal offence.

The developer requires, for planning permission, two surveys ideally carried out between May and mid-August, the optimum period, although they can occur up to October if conditions are favourable. English Nature has confirmed to the Campaign that the developer has only carried out one survey to date. The planning department have been arguing that the first scoping report counts even when English Nature, the company who wrote the scoping report (Arbtech), the Surrey Bat Group and our own fully qualified ecologists’ say it is not.

It would seem that the Bats have become an inconvenient truth for both Reef Estates and Merton Councils planning department and their desire to rush this flawed and sorry plan through the planning committee. Ironically the coun-cil had ample opportunity to ensure that a full bat survey was carried out as we notified them that there were bats living on the site way back on the 2nd June 2010 yet the scoping report was only carried out the day before the July 2011 planning meeting.

It is clear that the law requires the planning application to be placed on ‘ice’ until a second full survey can be carried out next summer. Although the campaign fears that the roost has probably been lost forever.

If you feel strongly about this ‘assault’ on Merton’s wild-life please write to your local councillor and Tony Ryan to complain quoting the planning application number. 

Valuations, petitions and the Audit Commission…


The Campaign organised a petition during August and September to have the Tavern independently valued. We obtained 1200 signatures and would like to thank all those who supported us.

We had discovered that Merton Council did not obtain an independent valuation for the Council owned Freehold of the Morden Tavern when it negotiated a value with Reef Estates Ltd and is in danger of contravening the 1972 Local Government Act in its duty of obtaining the best value possible for the property by undervaluing the property by £1m.

Documents obtained by a Freedom of Information Request indicate that the valuation was carried out by the same council officer who led negotiations for Merton Council with Reef Estates in meetings with no minutes recorded and who failed to take fully into account the additional value of the site if planning permission was granted.

The council responded thus;

“Thank you for your petition. We have highly professional planning and property specialists working within the coun-cil. Therefore, we are not currently considering an addi-tional independent valuation.”

The CMT posted the following response;

“The petition clearly asks for an ‘independent’ valuation and the council’s response uses the phrase ‘additional in-dependent valuation’, but…there hasn’t been an independ-ent valuation yet. The current valuation is compromised given the facts. The proposed purchaser was given pre-ferred bidder status by Merton during the leasehold sale and party to information not made public to other lease-hold bidders. Therefore there is a clear conflict of interest, agreeing a value ‘acceptable’ to the proposed purchaser to ensure they would be willing to buy. No minutes exist of the ‘negotiations that took place or how the valuation was agreed with the proposed purchaser.” 

The process by which the Council arrived at its valuation and the murky bidding process that saw one party favoured and others excluded is now the centre of an Audit Commission investigation. We are expecting a report from the Commissioner shortly and we hope it will declare the contract with Reef Estates invalid.

The campaign approached St Helier Ward Councillor Maxi Martin (Labour) to request that she present the petition on behalf of the St Helier residents at a full meeting of the council. Maxi Martin did not responded to our request, but passed the request on to another Councillor. In fact, Maxi Martin has not offered to sign a letter of support or sign the petition on behalf of the campaign to save St Helier’s last pub. Fortunately, Councillor Dennis Pearce (Labour), who has supported the campaign from the start, has agreed to present the petition."

Local Government Ombudsman Report



The Campaign has received the LGO’s final report.

The Campaign is pleased that the LGO has confirmed some of the issues which it had raised with them and the contradictory answers given by Merton council. We have summarised these points below:

The council clearly declined the offer to buy the leasehold or jointly sell the leasehold and freehold which would have raised significantly more value, known as the ‘marriage value’ from the site than was subsequently ob-tained. The council’s response to this fact that it wasn’t time to sell in the report is difficult to accept given its sub-sequent behaviour in agreeing to sell the Freehold to Reef Estates weeks later.

The council also clearly declines an interest from a large property developer whilst at the same time encouraging and negotiating an agreement to sell the freehold to Reef Estates. Again missing an opportunity to secure a better value for this council asset.
The Ombudsman's statement then goes on to state that Reef Estates "was the preferred bidder when discussions started between it and the council".

This supports the Campaigns charge that Reef Estates Limited where given an unfair advantage by the actions of Merton council in purchasing the leasehold and that this in turn prevented pub companies from being able to outbid the developer. This is in direct contravention to Merton’s pub protection policy L16.

We charge that without council interference there would have been a significant likelihood that more pub compa-nies and entrepreneurs would have taken interest in the Morden Tavern and that it would most likely have stayed as a public house serving the St Helier community. It is clear that Merton Council did not want this outcome and acted in a manner which prevented it.

The LGO confirms that ward Councillors were informed on the 30th June about the likelihood to sell the Freehold and that the decision was taken and signed off on the 1stJuly, less than 24 hours later. 24 hours was insufficient for ward councillors to consider a full response or consult with local residents. Merton officers do not seem to have acted in a reasonable and transparent manner.


Morden Tavern - Labour won't listen - Conservative Party leaflet November 2011


Saturday 1 October 2011

newsletter - October 2011


October 2011 newsletter 

Campaign for Morden Tavern

(CMT)

An update from the group dedicated to saving the Morden Tavern site.
During the summer months there has been several developments in the campaign to protect the Morden Tavern.

On July 29th the campaign committee met with Councillor Andrew Judge who’s remit covers the dis-posal of council assets. Our aim at the meeting was to persuade councillor Judge not to accept an offer from Reef Estates rumoured to be around £2.1million for the Morden Tavern freehold. The meeting was arranged by the three local St Helier Councillors who were present.

We were shocked to discover from Councillor Judge that an agreement had already been reached with Merton council to sell the Morden Tavern freehold to Reef Estates.

This initially was a body blow to our campaign however we now believe, but have not yet had confir-mation that this deal is dependent on Reef Estates obtaining suitable planning permission.

We now know that 412 letters of objection were received against the planning application which shows the strength of the local support for the Morden Tavern. We would like to thank everyone who took the time to write in.

We believe that as a direct result of the unprecedented number of letters of objection Reef Estates subsequently withdrew their current application. This is a small but significant victory for you the St Helier residents!

Reef Estates have not yet gone away, but we are aware they have lost a court case which means they are unable to take procession of part of the Morden Tavern site.

They will be making a new application sometime after October and we will again be asking everyone to raise a similar level of objection. If we can obtain even more letters of objection than before this will hopefully make Reef and Merton council realise that the St Helier community have had enough of being taken for granted.

We are also exploring other avenues to make life difficult for Reef, but hope you can understand we are not ready to publicly show our hand.

Reef have taken the diabolical act of forcing the Morden Tavern, a popular and profitable public house to close its doors. This appears to be a vindictive act against our community.

BUT just because its closed doesn't mean it can’t be saved. If we are able to protect the building the community could get its amenity returned to it.

This will be a long and hard campaign for which we need your help.


THE FIGHT CONTINUES — COMMUNITY ACTION WORKS!

STOP THE MORDEN TAVERN DEVELOPMENT

Monday 1 August 2011

August 2011 newsletter


The Campaign for the Morden Tavern

Central Road Morden [do not write to this address] 29th August 2011


The story so far…

The leasehold of the pub (MT), a profitable community pub, was placed on the market in 2009 by Enterprise Inns who have been dumping assets to cover large debts built up during the property bubble. The leasehold was acquired by a development company, Reef Estates. Reef entered into negotiations with Merton Council (MC) who own the Freehold, before acquiring the leasehold. They subsequently signed a contract with MC to buy the Freehold, subject to the grant of 'suitable' planning permission.

They made a planning application in 2010 for 49 dwellings and 3 shop units. This application received 408 objections and was 'withdrawn'. A subsequent similar application in 2011 received 800 objections and was 'deferred' at the Planning Committee on 24th July 2011 with only 14% social housing offered. The pub was forced to close in 2010 by the developer.

There is no community centre on the estate only a small church hall and sports club. The pub did have a troubled reputation in recent times due to the tied tenancy system operated by Enterprise Inns, who made no investment in the pub, but it remained an important social facility with a cherished children's garden, dog training school and 40 social functions pre-booked at the time of its closure. The campaign has established the following facts:

  • Reef Estates were the only company aware that MC would be willing to sell the Freehold during the leasehold auction.
  • MC turned away another developer who enquired about the Freehold at this time.
  • MC has a Pub Protection Policy (L16) which states that public houses should be advertised to the pub sector for eighteen months to two years as a pub before a change of use could be applied for. The MT was advertised for six months.
  • Bids from the pub trade were not successful as Reef Estates 'made the highest bid', contra to L16 policy.
  • Council officers continue to state 'there was no interest' from the pub sector although Siobhan McDonagh MP has produced evidence that there was interest and bids.
  • Council officers have stated – based on hearsay and not evidence - that the pub was 'not economically viable' although 40 social functions had to be cancelled when it was forced to close and serious bidders from the pub sector wanted the leasehold.
  • Merton failed to follow its own 'asset disposal policy' as it 'didn't apply in this case' and have argued that L16 also 'does not apply in this case'.
  • The Campaign has figures which suggest the council has undervalued the property by £1m, a breach of Section 123 of the 1972 Local Government Act.
  • A Bat survey carried out for the developer 'found no evidence of Bats' although the campaign has video evidence of Bats on the site.
  • Council officers kept no minutes for any meetings during negotiations with Reef Estates.
  • The Local Government Ombudsman and Audit Commission have launched investigations after submissions to them by the CMT. They are now co-ordinating these investigations following information obtained so far.
  • The CMT has made a request to the Secretary of State (DCLG) that the planning application be called in as it appears unlikely that MC can take a properly objective decision in the present circumstances.


The Campaign has support from individual members of all the main political parties within Merton, notably Dennis Pearce (Labour), Richard Hilton (Conservative) and Iain Dysart (Liberal), all parties within the London Assembly and Mayoral Candidates, Jenny Jones (Green) and Ken Livingston (Labour).

The CMT has spoken to over 1,000 residents. The general consensus is that there are enough new houses and flats’ being added to St Helier Estate, a new development of over 250 new homes is being built just 100m away. There is no need for more shops, especially Tesco Metro style shops. That the community would like to have a community facility like a day-care centre / youth club / crèche / nursery or OAP club at the site alongside a suitable pub restaurant with the function rooms retained as this is a publicly owned asset which should be kept for the benefit of the community and not sold for private profit.


Planning Matters




The Morden Tavern is a splendid period building, quite typical of its time, by a highly-regarded architect knighted for his services to architecture, Sir Harry Redfern FRIBA. It was 'Locally Listed' by Merton Council in December 2010 as a result of the research undertaken on behalf of the Campaign by Conservation Works, a firm of historic buildings consultants specialising in public houses and brewery buildings heritage conservation.

The planning application is for conversion of the Tavern into retail units on the ground floor, one of them possibly to be used as a small bar – although there is no guarantee that this will happen- and the upper floors to be stripped of their remaining historic finishes and converted into apartments. It also includes development of the large garden with a block of flats to the right of the Tavern on the Central Road side and a range of houses and maisonettes to the side and rear on Abbotsbury and Blanchard Road sides. This development will destroy the special interest and character of the Local List building and its setting, contrary to national and Merton Council's own planning policies on the historic environment.

This was brought to the Planning Applications Committee (PAC) at their 21st July meeting, and because of the tremendous furore created by the Campaign over the Council's handling of both the site disposal and planning processes, including the over 800 written planning objections generated by the local community, was the subject of a long and sometimes heated debate.

The conclusion of the discussion was to 'defer', that is, to put off until a later date, the decision on whether to grant consent, something which not only the Campaign had previously asked for, but several of your local councillors, from both sides of the political divide, too. The application was still incomplete in several respects, not least regarding Reef Estates' attention to historic buildings and wildlife legislation.

While it is true that planning committees must decide development applications solely on their planning merits, taking into account not only local but regional and national planning policies, a duty the Chair of the PAC reminded committee members of on the night, Merton Council cannot be regarded as making a totally independent decision on this one since they stand to make so much money simply from the grant of consent. It is for this reason that the Campaign made an application three months ago to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (the senior central Government body responsible for planning matters) that the application be 'called in', that is, removed from Merton's control and the application determined by the independent Planning Inspectorate.

Whether this happens is decided by the SoS's department after Merton have decided the application. The consent is not final until the SoS decides not to call it in, a process which can take up to six weeks after Merton have issued a decision notice.

In addition, it was made clear by members of the PAC that the scheme as it presently stands must be substantially revised and that the new scheme must be examined by Merton's Design Review Panel (DRP), a committee of professionals which includes architects. The DRP is not due to meet until we believe October, so the earliest the PAC will discuss this again will be November.

Please, do write to the Planning Officer, Tony Ryan, objecting to firstly, the loss of the pub, which should be protected by the Council's own policy L16, and to overdevelopment of the site which the scheme represents. Don't hesitate to get in touch with us if you need help with this.

Dale Ingram,
Director Conservation Works UK Ltd
Planning Consultant to the CMT
SW London CAMRA Pubs Preservation Officer



What Happens next?


Although the current planning application has been ‘deferred’ the future of the MT is still not secure. As well as continuing to resist any application to build homes and shops on the site, continuing to obtain political support for the Campaign and holding Merton Council to account for their failures in following due process over the MT fiasco; The CMT are now working on making an alternative proposal for the site in which a commercial enterprise such as a pub restaurant is re-established along with a commitment to some community enterprise projects.

If you have any suggestions or ideas as to how this publicly owned asset could be used for the benefit of the St Helier Community we would love to hear from you. Perhaps you are a community project looking for a suitable venue or you are a local business entrepreneur who would be willing to work with the community in a private / public project?

We already have some potential private enterprise interest and we will be inviting the current leaseholder to meet with us to see if they will be willing to work with the community.

You can contact the Campaign via email:
tavern.development@virginmedia.com
or via our Facebook Page: Campaign for Morden Tavern.



Help Required!


Until the Campaign for the Morden Tavern came about, I had never been involved in anything like this, but I knew that I had to do something to try to stop the developers destroying part of our community. I had no idea what would be involved or how long the campaign would be, but most of all I did not realise how rewarding it would be.

Because we are a relatively small group the campaign has been fairly time consuming, with a lot of time taken up just trying to keep the community informed of forthcoming events and letting people know of the progress that we have made. We have produced several leaflets and newsletters, each of which have had a print run of 3000 and we have hand delivered them all with the help of some volunteers.

We also managed to return around 800 letters of objection to the recent planning application, by knocking on doors and asking residents to back the campaign by completing the pre-printed forms. This was a very rewarding project, not only because of the large number of letters of objection we secured but because we got to meet local residents who wanted to share their memories of the Tavern or give their views on why the Tavern should be saved and what could be done with the site if the campaign was successful. By going out delivering and knocking on doors I came to realise how few people I actually knew who lived around me and how much the community needs a hub where people can come together and the Tavern could be that community centre.

The Campaign always needs people to help with a large number of jobs and we are actively recruiting volunteers. If you are interested and are prepared to give us some of your time to help with this worthy project we would love to hear from you.

You can do as little or as much as you choose, from spending a few minutes helping to fold leaflets , to becoming a committee member attending weekly meetings.

We always need people who would be prepared to help. It can be as simple as offering to deliver leaflets and newsletters once a month to your street. For those with more time it could be help with canvassing and we would really like to have volunteers with a legal background or people who have experience of running community groups. The work is totally voluntary and you set the amount of time you give, we never pressure anybody.


Nick Brickell, St Helier resident.
If you feel that you would like to help please e-mail us on
tavern.development@virginmedia.com


Watch our video of ‘Bats Morden Tavern Bats Two’: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWgYKbJ9x9M

Thursday 21 July 2011

Planning Application Meeting - 21/7/11


Planning Application Meeting
Thursday 21st July - 7PM
Civic Centre Council Chamber
We need your support!
Despite assurances from several sources including the Leader of Merton Council that the Morden Tavern Planning Application would not be heard until September it has now been placed on the agenda for this Thursday. Why the hurry?

The Campaign Group will be there to urge the planning committee to reject this application which fails several major criteria for planning. We need as many supporters as possible in the public gallery. The council officers believe we represent a minority’ of local opinion, we want you to show them what St Helier’s residents think of more shops and flats.


Thursday 2 June 2011

Public Meeting - 2/6/11


PUBLIC MEETING
Wednesday 2nd June
8pm
St Georges Church Hall
Central Road

To debate the proposed redevelopment of Morden Tavern

Developers have submitted a planning application for Morden Tavern.
They wish to build:
· Sixteen flats
· Ten three bedroom houses and one four bedroom house.
· Two shop units.
· Five flats in the top of the Pub
This will have implications for all those who live near to the Morden Tavern site.

Your local Councillors will be present to hear views and try to answer questions.

You can view the plans at the planning office, or go online to the Merton Planning website and enter the planning reference number: 10/P1231
http://planning.merton.gov.uk/MVM/Online/PL/ApplicationSearch.aspx
You have 20 days to raise concerns with the planning office

Get Your Voice Heard before it is passed at Planning



Sunday 1 May 2011

newsletter - May 2011


Morden Tavern
Please oppose the proposed redevelopment of Morden Tavern

 Developers have submitted a planning application for Morden Tavern.

They wish to build:

  • Sixteen flats
  • Ten three bedroom houses and one four bedroom house.
  • Two shop units.
  • Five flats in the top of the Pub


This will have implications for all those who live near to the Morden Tavern site.

 You can view the plans at the planning office, or go online to the Merton Planning website and enter the planning reference number: 10/P1231
http://planning.merton.gov.uk/MVM/Online/PL/ApplicationSearch.aspx

You have until 22nd June raise concerns with the planning office

WE NEED YOUR LETTERS

Please write to the planning office – the more letters they receive the less likely it will be approved
Councils now have more power to reject this development.
Anyone from anywhere in the world can write in to complain.

Send letters to Jonathan Lewis, with copies to Tony Ryan, Planning Dept. Civic Centre, Morden, SM4 5DX.

See over for reasons to say NO!

Here are some reasons to say no. You may have some of your own. Please use all of them in your letter
  • The development is directly opposite a primary school entrance. The development will lead to an increase in traffic and on road parking. This cannot be in the interest of safety for parents and children coming to and from school.
  • Willows residents and the proposed development at Morden Tavern will be excluded from using the CPZ. This means any surplus cars from these new developments will have to be parked in areas of the estate not currently covered by a CPZ. Lack of off road parking provision will lead to increases in pressure on existing parking areas especially in evenings and weekends. At present weekend and evening parking ‘overflows’ bays on to single yellow line areas of the roads. The changes shortly to be made of the CPZ with all single yellows to become double will exasperate the current problems with parking leading to ‘street conflict’. Many more residents will pave over their front gardens to makes private parking provision, reducing bay area’s even more and fundamentally changing the look and feel of the street and neighbourhood.
  • Style and design of proposed houses do not match existing housing for the street. They will tower over the rest of the street looking completely out of place with roof heights one whole storey above the existing street.
  • Height of houses will cause ‘shadow’ during late afternoons and evenings on to gardens of houses.
  • High raised flats proposed for Central Road will be mean flat residents can look directly down and into existing housing causing a sever loss of privacy currently enjoyed by these homes.
  • Flats on central road will be one and half storeys above the existing housing on that side of Central road.
  • Currently soft landscape of pub garden (trees) absorb noise from the pub. The ‘hard’ surfaces of the proposed housing and flats, removal of trees will cause sound to rebound (echo) significantly around the existing housing causing noise and disturbance from the pub to become a nuisance.
  • The occupation density of the plans is significantly greater than that of the current surrounding streets. The plans are more fitting a central urban development than a residential neighbourhood.
  • It is hard to see how the pub could continue to operate given the close proximity of the proposed housing. The pub is an important part of the local community and enjoys much support. It would be sad to see such a facility disappear as it would destroy the community cohesion of the area. There is also a danger after this that the ‘retail space’ remains empty and the car park etc becomes dilapidated.
  • The application to have the pub use changed from A1 to A4 should be denied to prevent future changes of use to this property away from a licensed premises. This if granted opens up the danger of large commercial supermarkets moving in and opening up ‘express style’ stores. This could force local shops to close, leaving them empty and derelict, costing the community jobs. It also goes against the original covenant for the estate which guarantees a pub premises. This is the only pub left so any change to allow other uses apart from A4 would be a breach of the original covenant.
  • If the development goes ahead as proposed it will have a significant negative impact on property values in the area and a lowering of the overall quality of life enjoyed currently by residents.
  • There are bats roosting in the outbuildings on the site as well as in the main building. A full Bat survey is required and plans need to protect all existing bat roosts. The proposed plans would destroy the bat roosts completely.
·         The development proposal seems designed to maximise the prophets of the developers at the expense of the local community. Although refurbishment and enhancement of the pub area is desirable it should not come at the expense of a hitherto quiet and relaxed suburban neighbourhood.  Development of the pub garden area would not be of benefit to anyone in the community except the developer and force the eventually closure of the pub.

Wednesday 16 February 2011

February newsletter 2011


February 2011


The Campaign for the Morden Tavern

Central Road Morden [do not write to this address] 16 Feb 2011


A Pub Fit for Heroes

This fine 1933 pub in the vernacular revival style by architect Sir Harry Redfern FRIBA for Truman Hanbury and Buxton’s Black Eagle brewery has endured the vicissitudes of many suburban pubs since the inter-war heyday of pub building.

Stripped and altered unsympathetically in 1962 and in 1974, it lost key parts of the wonderful historic interiors that Redfern and his contemporaries like Sidney Clark at Charrington’s, were famous for. When built, it had four large and decorative marble fireplaces, oak panelling, oak plank floors and specially designed lighting, bar and bar back, all now sadly lost.

The loss of these decorative finishes and fittings, much to our chagrin, made an appeal against the Secretary of State’s refusal to 'list' the pub in September 2010, however illustrious the architect, impossible.

Listing, despite common perception, does not ‘preserve a building in aspic’ forever; it merely applies controls over changes that affect the things that make it special – mostly the physical materials it’s made of, but often too its setting, or surroundings.

What survives of ‘the Tav’ is the external walls, windows and roof, internal joinery on the ground floor and original early fittings and fixtures upstairs, such as fine blue and white tiles, enamel baths and Art Deco sinks in the bathrooms. Its plan form, of several public rooms grouped around a central bar area is fundamental to its design.. A really key part of its survival though is its setting- in a very large garden on a corner plot at a crossroads and on a social housing estate. These aspects of the site are most significant.

The Morden Tavern’s special qualities lie in two key features. The first is that it is a notable design by a versatile and highly regarded inter-war architect knighted for his contribution to architecture. More than that, he was particularly a specialist in pubs for inter-war social housing estates, of which St Helier is the second largest by the London County Council (LCC)’s ‘Homes for Heroes’ initiative replacing inner London slums demolished as unfit for habitation during and after the First World War.



Sir Harry enjoys a splendid reputation as the designer of a whole series of inter-war pubs on a major social housing development in Carlisle. There the Government flirted briefly with the notion of state control the retail supply of beer, known as the State Management System. For the SMS Redfern designed no fewer than 14 pubs, seven of which survive and all of which are Grade II listed. Fortunately they have not been quite as brutally treated as ‘The Tav’, although one, like the Morden Tavern, is threatened with conversion to a Tesco.

The St Helier housing estate itself gives the Morden Tavern its second element of importance as the last surviving one of four specially designed Refreshment Houses devised quite specifically for a purely domestic, residential setting and all by Redfern. Their intended purpose was to be a social focus essential to the happiness and well-being of the thousands of disparate residents newly arrived from inner-city slums and were thus removed from their previous social networks.

The 1930s ‘improved’ pub was no working-class beer house. These were a suburban phenomenon, specifically designed to be suitable for residential areas and for the needs of families. They were expected to make a lot of their income – the Morden Tavern was expected to make the majority of its revenues – from the cooking and serving of meals. In addition, there were often dance halls, billiards rooms, children’s play rooms and external garden spaces similarly subdivided for eating, drinking and playing. Rooms could be hired for parties and events, and catering provided for a wide variety of community occasions from weddings to wakes, engagement parties to electioneering.

These important aspects of the Morden Tavern were identified and brought to the attention of Merton Council’s Conservation Officer, Caroline Kearey, in November. She agreed that it was worthy of recognition and in December it was added to Merton’s Local List of architecturally and historically important buildings by Ged Curran, Merton Council’s Chief Executive. While Local List status does not give statutory (i.e. legal) protection under the main Listed Buildings Act, the recent introduction of something called PPS5 means that proper consideration must be given to Locally Listed buildings’ special qualities when applications are made for alterations to the fabric of the building or its setting.

The new scheme is expected to include a bar of some description. This bar is somehow supposed to mitigate against the loss of what is, and was meant to be, a multifaceted hub of social activity for the St Helier community. In reality, it is in effect returning to the days of the Victorian Beerhouse whose sole purpose was to dispense alcoholic drinks, with no facilities for the hospitality needs of a suburban community. To offer a bar as a ‘replacement’ is to miss the point of the Morden Tavern completely.

The history of flats-over-pubs and converted pubs as flats-over-bars is not promising. Lock up bars used mainly as vertical drinking places without food are very often the source of trouble and noise. How long will it be before the new residents object to a licensing application for a bar on nuisance grounds, giving the developer exactly what they wanted all along, retail throughout and residential above?

The Morden Tavern’s survival is down to the fact that for 77 successful years it was the focus of social activity in the St Helier community. Performing the role for which it was originally intended by the LCC and Sir Harry, the Tav is a local landmark, a rallying point, a place of relaxation, of refuge, of celebration, commiseration and commemoration.

Let's keep it that way.

© 2011 Dale L Ingram MSc.,
historic buildings consultant and CAMRA member.


A Nice Little Earner?

The campaign group has been busy since you last heard from us discovering just how a successful historic and Locally Listed public house in the ownership of a local authority should find itself under threat of redevelopment.

The Morden Tavern opened in 1933 as one of the four St Helier Estate’s ‘Refreshment Houses’ which were specifically designed to be appropriate for families and has formed a social hub for the community in just the way it was planned to. That is, until it closed in August 2010 without consultation or notice.

This followed a planning application last May for conversion of the building to shops and flats, and building over the garden with houses and flats, which was refused after huge local opposition generated 412 objections to the scheme.

But how, we wondered (and have been busy on your behalf finding out) has the last estate pub, owned by the very local authority which can give permission for its loss, found itself in this predicament?

Merton Council seem to be very keen to ensure that we don’t find out what actually happened until the next planning application (see ‘New Plans’ on page 3) has been considered and (presumably) approved by its own planning committee. The information we have been able to gather from local councillors and from the Council themselves under the Freedom of Information Act shows a jigsaw from which a number of key pieces of the puzzle are still missing.

Merton Council tell us, for example, that the decision to sell the freehold of the Morden Tavern was taken in July 2009. What we don’t yet know is who took that decision and on what basis.

Was the Freehold offered to Enterprise Inns who in July owned the remainder of the 99 year lease which still has 21 years to run? If Enterprise had bought it, disposing of the lease would have been much easier and imaginably much more financially advantageous.

In October/November 2009, the remaining 7 year lease was offered by Enterprise for sale through AG&G. They are leisure property specialists and estate agents whose website proclaims their ability to sell pub properties for ‘redevelopment’ - I.e. conversion to other uses, such as flats, offices or supermarkets, or for demolition and replacement with, er, flats, offices or supermarkets.

The lease was acquired by Reef Estates, on whose behalf, we are led to believe, AG&G approached Merton Council to ask if the Freehold interest might be available and were allegedly answered in the affirmative. The timing is crucial here. If Reef Estates acquired Enterprise’s lease knowing - perhaps they were even already in negotiations with Merton Council- that they could acquire the Freehold, they were at a significant commercial advantage to any of the other leasehold bidders. No checks appear to have been made by Merton to see that, in the words of their own main Planning policy document, the UDP (Unitary Development Plan):


“4.217 In order to satisfy the tests set out in this policy [L16] applicants need to provide evidence clearly showing that
[1] the public house is no longer economically viable and
[2] that the property has been marketed as a public house for a reasonable period usually no less than a period of 2 years.
This is likely to mean showing evidence of the appointment of property consultant/estate agent to handle the marketing of
the property and records of how and where the property has been marketed.
[3] Applicants may also carry out an assessment of the needs of the local community for community facilities to show that
the public house is no longer needed and that alternative provision is available in the area.”


We know that there was at least one other interested party who would have bought the Tavern to run as a community pub but his bid was allegedly ignored by AG&G. This piece of information runs contrary to the information supplied to us by Merton Council under a Freedom of Information request which stated that no other bidders came forward to purchase the lease except Reef Estates. This provides proof that this statement is untrue and we have filed a Local Government Ombudsman complaint against Merton Council on the strength of it.

The Council has, in its key planning document (the UDP) a Pub Protection Policy, which it is worth quoting in full:



POLICY L.16: PROTECTION OF PUBLIC HOUSES
THE COUNCIL WILL NOT PERMIT THE REDEVELOPMENT OR CHANGE OF USE OF


ESTABLISHED PUBLIC HOUSES TO OTHER USES EXCEPT WHERE:
(i) THE APPLICANT CAN SHOW THAT THE PUBLIC HOUSE IS NO LONGER ECONOMICALLY VIABLE
(ii) THE APPLICANT CAN SHOW THAT REASONABLE ATTEMPTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO MARKET THE SITE AS A PUBLIC HOUSE
(iii) THERE IS ALTERNATIVE PROVISION WITHIN THE LOCAL AREA

It would appear, therefore, that when Merton Council said in their decision document ‘This is a pub for which local demand has clearly been reduced’ and ‘Demand for the facilities that this public house provided has deteriorated over recent years’, what they were actually trying to do was justify their actions by reference to their adopted policy on the retention of public houses. But then they went on to say that these statements were actually:



a/ “just opinions” and
b/ “had no bearing on the decision to sell” and
c/ “required no research as to their validity.”



If this is true, why were they in the decision document at all? We contend that they were inserted deliberately to give a false picture of the Morden Tavern as an unwanted and unviable commercial and community facility, on which Cabinet member Andrew Judge relied to make his decision to agree the Freehold sale.


The Freehold has yet to be sold to Reef Estates. Sites are frequently sold ‘subject to planning consent’. In this case, our understanding is that the sum that Merton Council will get relies on the amount of development Reef Estates are able to secure through planning permission and ranges from £800,000 to £2.3million [page 3]. Given the state of council finances and the lure of such a sum for its coffers we hope that members of the planning committee who will be aware of this arrangement may not be unduly influenced in their decision as to the size of the development granted, or indeed as to whether it is granted at all.


Reef are currently working with Merton’s planning officers on a second planning application for a small bar, shops, flats and housing on the site. We will be responding to this when it is brought for consultation in March but already have our fears for the bar proposal so close to residential properties and the loss of the much cherished garden and its trees. We have a copy of the proposed plans which we hope to make available via our Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/MordenTavern , subject to copyright rules.


The site has deteriorated with vandalism, fly-tipping, theft of copper pipes inside the building and lead from the roof, the subject of much correspondence with Reef Estates and Merton Council. We are very frustrated at the lack of progress in securing the site and any ongoing repairs (the roof still had no lead after
eight weeks).


It is heartening to see the vigour that the leader of Merton Council and champion of Merton’s Pub Protection Policy quoted above has given to defending the Brewery Tap from redevelopment into flats in Wimbledon. We invite him to show a similar level of energy in defending the Morden Tavern which has
an even better case for being left to serve the community as intended, and as protected by provisions under L.15 in the UDP relating to community pubs in residential areas.


What you can do:

We will be organising a public meeting once the new plans have been issued to get residents’ views. Let us know if you want to be notified of this so that you can come along. When you come,
encourage friends and neighbours to come too.

We are always looking for volunteers especially people with researching capacity. We are presently investigating the Reef Estates group and any additional expertise in corporate law or
accountancy would be particularly useful. But all are welcome to help leaflet, canvass or contribute to the Newsletter.

If you too have doubts about the way this matter has been handled by the Council, please write to Chris Lee, Merton Council’s Director of Environment & Regeneration at the Civic Centre or contact your local councillor by phone or letter.



The New Plans

Following the unsuccessful planning application in the summer of last year referred to above, we are now expecting a new application which may be put out to consultation during March, date currently unknown.

The new scheme must take account of the pub’s revised status as a building of Local historic and architectural interest (as an entry on the Local List, as described on page 4). Consequently, demolition and replacement is no longer an option.

The new scheme, as designed, shows that the ground floor of the pub will be given over to retail uses, possibly a Tesco Metro or Sainsbury’s Local and a small bar of some description, with the upper floors converted to apartments.

Joined to the existing building by a glass link building, or double height lobby, will be a 3 storey block of flats, while the rear garden, along Abbotsbury and Blanchland Roads, will be crammed with eight 3 bedroom maisonettes and four 3 bed houses with one off-street parking space per property.

What are the problems with this?

Parking for residents in the flats. Where will they go?


  1. Parking for residents in the large family houses in Blanchland Road. Each house has an off-street parking space, but if let to professional sharers, or a family where both parents drive to work, where will the extra cars go?
  2. Noise nuisance. Vertical drinking establishments without a food option (and there is no kitchen in the new plans) such as lockup bars have a greater incidence of noise and mess than traditional pubs. There is therefore potential for the future residents to complain about this at future applications for licenses to the local authority, with the foreseeable loss of even this small concession.
  3. As you will read elsewhere in the Newsletter, the Council has several planning policies (L.15 and L16) which clearly state that pubs, especially those with additional community use spaces- the Morden Tavern can hardly be a more perfect example will not be allowed to be lost by demolition or conversion to other uses.
  4. Loss of local services and small businesses. The installation of a major retailer in converted pubs on housing estates has the effect of driving small local independent retailers out of business. The parade of shops along Central Road are rightly fearful of the effect this may have on their business.
  5. Heritage issues:



a/ The conversion of the ground floor of the pub to retail will require the front to have enlarged openings to take plate glass shop windows. The site plan also shows that a very large extension of the building to the rear is also intended, to increase the retail floorspace and allow additional living area upstairs. These alterations will cause the loss of important historic fabric, I.e. original windows and brickwork, and is inconsistent with good conservation practice, which states that alterations should be reversible. This is so that it could be converted back into a pub if a new owner wanted to.



b/ the block of flats and development to the side and rear of the main pub building will see the loss of the glazed ‘Winter Garden’, like a big greenhouse but intended as an indoor cafĂ©/restaurant for damp
English weather. It was constructed at the same time as the pub. This has been boarded up on the outside, but has great potential for extra capacity for the pub as originally intended and previously used,
if repaired and brought back into use. It’s the little fat upside-down-L shaped building to the north of the pub, shown left.


c/ The pub was designed to have large green garden spaces around it for two reasons. Firstly, to give good separation between the noise of a busy social hub from neighbouring properties and secondly the
gardens themselves were ‘green rooms’ where customers of all ages and sizes could eat, drink and play. Such large gardens are characteristic of the inter-war ‘improved’ public house, and by
building on the garden, one of its most significant features is being destroyed.


d/ There are still original and historic features of the building surviving upstairs in the living area, especially in the bathrooms, which were kitted out expensively with high-quality decoration and furnishings. It would be tragic indeed to see the further loss of good materials in the building from the conversion works.



Get your objection ready for the planning application which is expected in April, after the consultation in March. If you need help, please let us know.