Campaign to save the All Inn One pub

perry-vale

#116

Apologies OscarJ.

Share the overheads over a larger volume of business - increase the prospect of profitable success.


#117

Both petitions continue to attract support and numbers appear to be ratcheting up in a consistent fashion - unlikely to be a glitch.

As of this morning the “SAVE” number is 91 and the “Support the Redevelopment” number is 52 with 16 link clicks for each option from this site.

Not huge numbers but reflective of a healthy debate on an important local issue.


#118

I am in principle in support of the hotel redevelopment proposal with two important conditions:

  1. An independent pub space is retained in a manner which would make it an attractive and fit-for-purpose space for a pub (cellar area for kegs, disabled toilets, ideally outside drinking space etc.) rather than a token gesture that’s not appropriate as a pub and sits idle until either being converted into additional hotel rooms or yet another nail bar moves in.
  2. That under no circumstances if the plans are approved are the dimensions of the hotel, specifically the height, allowed to increase. It’s already a couple of stories higher than I would prefer to see in that spot, it certainly should not be allowed to suddenly become an 8 story building by stealth following initial planning approval.

Briefly, on why I don’t support the campaign against the development:

  • As others have said, what makes a pub special tends to be the owners/management. The current owners I understand are leaving in any event.
  • The Perryvale area keeps taking one step forward, two back (Waters, The Perryvale etc.) and a hotel could be the foundation to (re)generate that side of the tracks (and who knows maybe we’d even get a pedestrian crossing… :roll_eyes:).
  • I don’t regard the current pub’s architecture as of sufficient uniqueness or interest to warrant its preservation.

#119

I’m not sure that it necessarily, logically follows that, just because the current owners (who are great!) are leaving, all subsequent owners are going to be absolute idiots that run the place into the ground! Who knows, dare I say it, they may do an even better job!!

I hope we’re not pinning all of our hopes for this side of Forest Hill being transformed on the erection of hotel/s? I’m sure that the developers would have us believe that in a few short months we’ll all be driving around in Porsches as shown on their artist’s picture.

As much I wish things were this simple, I fear that we may need to be a little bit more creative when it comes to thinking about regeneration. Taking advice on the complex issues around urban regeneration from commercial property developers, no matter how much they want ‘help’ Forest Hill, feels a little naive to me.


#120

Good observation.

Some might argue that the change in the commercial dynamic created by the actual sale of the pub is so significant that fundamentally, the rent or indeed purchase price for a pub is just too great for a new single strand business to succeed. Irrespective of the calibre of any new licencee.

On the transformation front Forest Hill Society published a consultation proposal for the Development of the Town Centre and gathered in feed back from many sources.

It was not foreseen at the consultation stage that a rapid expansion of the potential foot print of change would grow into an area that now embraces the All Inn One site, the Co-op site and the former Portacabin site.

Perhaps a publication of the feedback would be appropriate and then conduct a review embracing the new sites.

Just a thought.


#121

I notice the equivalent thread on the Sydenham Town Forum is only about redevelopment of the pub and makes no great mention of the hotel or the issues of a large building on that site. The thread simply urges signing the petition to support redevelopment.


#122

Thanks for posting a mention of SE23.life on STF. I hope this doesn’t get you in trouble with their mysterious “admin”

Getting back on-topic I noticed someone mention the following:

Has the sale definitely completed as argued by previous commenters in this topic?

If the permission is being sought by Richard and Julia, that changes my opinion on things a lot. I want to support them and I wouldn’t want to oppose the development if it meant Richard and Julia were materially hurt.


#123

Yes, I saw that, Chris, and was sorry. I don’t know what it was about, but clearly they didn’t like your setting up a rival message board.

My reference to this board seems to have had no consequences, but I don’t know why it would have.


#124

My view is that I am in full support with @AllInnOne Julia and Richard and their reasons for selling and moving on next year. And also who they have sold too.

Wishing Julia, Richard, and Josh all the best in the future when they move on :slight_smile:


#125

Neither would anyone else, I’m sure - but that doesn’t make this design, at this scale, a viable one that shouldn’t be challenged and then amended. I would love them to sell to a developer that would listen to the very valid concerns of the immediate locals who consider this plot to be too small to accommodate the scale and ambition of this new enterprise. I don’t get the impression that a company with “Vanquish” in their title are going to do that, sadly, but a girl can dream.


#126

A portion of a response made that addresses the questions posed albeit by another correspondent. It additially comments on how the property was marketed - or not.

Section 2 of the Application Form defines the name and address of the applicant - and that is NOT Richard and Julia Channon.

Section 3 of the Application Form defines the Agents Name and Address.

It is very precise of you to to say that anyone can make a planning application.

It is also accurate to state that the process of making a Planning Application does have some very effective checks and balances.

Some of these are very specifically defined in Section 25 of the Application Form which states:

Section 25
CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP - CERTIFICATE B - Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 Certificate under Article 14
I certify/The applicant certifies that I have/the applicant has given the requisite notice to everyone else (as listed below) who, on the day 21 days before the date of this application, was the owner* and/or agricultural tenant** of any part of the land or building to which this application relates.

  • ‘owner’ is a person with a freehold interest or leasehold interest with at least 7 years left to run. ** ‘agricultural tenant’ has the meaning given in section 65(8) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

This Decalaration provides protection from fraudulent submissions being made for a property without the owner being notified. This prevents just anyone from making ad-hoc Planning Applications that may blight the property or its value.

In practice it works this way. The planning authority can check the Declaration made by the Applicant about the ownership details and will notify the Land Registry. The authority also may notify the registered owner. The Land Registry in turn can advise the registered owner that an application has been made with an option to respond if they have not received formal notification in line with the applicant’s declaration at Section 25. Equally if the registered owner has received formal notification, they need do nothing.

As I understand it the registered owners in this case received the required notifications from all parties.

It is interesting that you positively state your regret that the pub didn’t go on the open market. If you do have insight about how it was marketed perhaps you can share those details with us.

Armed with that knowledge, how would you have preferred it to be done and how different do you think the outcome would have been ?

Oh, and please do not feel obliged to take my views as being the authoritative or definitive version of the matters of fact around the sale. The declarations of Mr Mark Harris of Vanquish ID on both their company’s web-site and in the local press are unequivocal about the sale.

As is Julia Channon’s post about the sale on a local forum.


#127

save our pubs!