Pub to become houses despite Cllrs attempts to block

7:30am Tuesday 26th June 2012 in Business News By Simon Farr

Pub to become houses despite Cllrs attempts to block Pub to become houses despite Cllrs attempts to block

A PUB is to be transformed into residential properties after council chiefs were left powerless to stop the plan from going through.

The Live and Let Live in Booker Common will be extended and converted into a residential dwelling, with two further properties - a two bed bungalow and three bed detached house - to be built on the car park.

The proposal divided members of Wycombe District Council’s planning committee, with a six-six voting split and one abstention.

Reluctantly making the deciding vote, Chairman Cllr Neil Marshall said: "I don’t believe we have made a good enough case for refusal".

The drama followed a passionate debate in the council chamber, with members accusing the pub’s owners of "deliberately running down" the former watering hole in a bid to make a profit from the property market.

Cllr Tony Green suggested the pub should have been named the "Leave and Let Die" and called the plan "speculative development at its worst".

Members told last Wednesday’s meeting that they felt the pub had "not been marketed as a going concern" and feared this "growing problem" of pub closures would have a detrimental effect on the community.

These claims were refuted by applicant James Noble, who stated during public speaking that the pub had not been profitable, despite attempts by numerous landlords, and there had been no interest in taking it over.

Cllr Simon Parker revealed he sent out 200 letters to residents asking them what they thought of the proposals. He received 20 back, with 17 pleading for the pub to be reopened and not one backing the plan.

One of the replies came from a man who said he was born in the pub in 1945 and whose family ran the boozer between 1903 and 1968.

Cllr Parker said the man was left "heartbroken" after a recent visit to the derelict site, which has been vandalised and stands empty.

Leeds North West MP Greg Mulholland, chair of the Save the Pub Group, warned Cllr Parker that if the pub closed it would be ‘permanently lost to the community’.

But despite the majority of councillors seemingly against the proposals, it did not contravene the council’s own planning policies, effectively tying members’ hands.

WDC’s development manager Alastair Nicholson said the council would "expose themselves to costs" at appeal if members attempted to reject the plan by giving the reason of 'protecting a community facility'.

The council planning officer’s recommendation for approval was put to members, who were divided, before Cllr Marshall made the final decision.

Comments (16)

9:30am Tue 26 Jun 12

wayneo says...

Similiar with the old sun in Lane End. Despite being in a conservation area, was sold at an inflated price to greedy people who want to build in other people's villages while they remain in their own green and leafy, parts of the Country.
Similiar with the old sun in Lane End. Despite being in a conservation area, was sold at an inflated price to greedy people who want to build in other people's villages while they remain in their own green and leafy, parts of the Country. wayneo

9:51am Tue 26 Jun 12

Darren Hayday says...

I think that more should have been done to save the pub.

It's a shame that the Cllr's on the committee didn't vote against.

But then again I know from experience that some are told which way to vote, depending on what the lead officer recommends.

A big loss to our community.

Who is next - the Squirrel?
Pubs and petrol stations are all seeming to turn into flats or houses these days..
I think that more should have been done to save the pub. It's a shame that the Cllr's on the committee didn't vote against. But then again I know from experience that some are told which way to vote, depending on what the lead officer recommends. A big loss to our community. Who is next - the Squirrel? Pubs and petrol stations are all seeming to turn into flats or houses these days.. Darren Hayday

10:05am Tue 26 Jun 12

JP80 says...

better that than it sit empty for three years then mysteriously catch fire one night
better that than it sit empty for three years then mysteriously catch fire one night JP80

10:54am Tue 26 Jun 12

Wycid says...

Pubs are closing because beer its now to expensive to drink in them, two of the pubs in loudwater/ Wycombe marsh charge over four pounds for a pint, this combined with the fact that people don't go drinking in them means they will inevitably close, if the residents didn't use the pub they can't moan when it closes, and by use I don't mean popping in in boxing day and new years eve.
Pubs are closing because beer its now to expensive to drink in them, two of the pubs in loudwater/ Wycombe marsh charge over four pounds for a pint, this combined with the fact that people don't go drinking in them means they will inevitably close, if the residents didn't use the pub they can't moan when it closes, and by use I don't mean popping in in boxing day and new years eve. Wycid

10:54am Tue 26 Jun 12

wayneo says...

JP80 wrote:
better that than it sit empty for three years then mysteriously catch fire one night
Yes, odd how a little arson appears to 'move things along' with respect to planning applications :-)
[quote][p][bold]JP80[/bold] wrote: better that than it sit empty for three years then mysteriously catch fire one night[/p][/quote]Yes, odd how a little arson appears to 'move things along' with respect to planning applications :-) wayneo

12:16pm Tue 26 Jun 12

Wycid says...

It be allowed to fall in to such a state of disrepair that the "roof becomes dangerous as with what used to be the halfway house
It be allowed to fall in to such a state of disrepair that the "roof becomes dangerous as with what used to be the halfway house Wycid

1:50pm Tue 26 Jun 12

geoffW says...

As I drive round the county I see many empty pubs. Some are for sale and some for let. Many have been like that for some time.
.
If nobody will buy or rent them from the owners then they are going to deteriorate.
.
The reason that they are empty is because they do not get enough use.
.
We no longer have dairies in towns and villages any more. Their demise started with the advent of daily house deliveries and refridgeration in shops and homes. Now the daily delivery of milk, etc, is dying out because people buy their own from the supermarkets.
.
It is called progress. Whether it is a good thing or not, whether we like it or not, doesn't matter. If places are not used they don't make money. If they don't make money they are closed.
As I drive round the county I see many empty pubs. Some are for sale and some for let. Many have been like that for some time. . If nobody will buy or rent them from the owners then they are going to deteriorate. . The reason that they are empty is because they do not get enough use. . We no longer have dairies in towns and villages any more. Their demise started with the advent of daily house deliveries and refridgeration in shops and homes. Now the daily delivery of milk, etc, is dying out because people buy their own from the supermarkets. . It is called progress. Whether it is a good thing or not, whether we like it or not, doesn't matter. If places are not used they don't make money. If they don't make money they are closed. geoffW

2:46pm Tue 26 Jun 12

wayneo says...

geoffW wrote:
As I drive round the county I see many empty pubs. Some are for sale and some for let. Many have been like that for some time. . If nobody will buy or rent them from the owners then they are going to deteriorate. . The reason that they are empty is because they do not get enough use. . We no longer have dairies in towns and villages any more. Their demise started with the advent of daily house deliveries and refridgeration in shops and homes. Now the daily delivery of milk, etc, is dying out because people buy their own from the supermarkets. . It is called progress. Whether it is a good thing or not, whether we like it or not, doesn't matter. If places are not used they don't make money. If they don't make money they are closed.
I beg to differ, some are purposely run down because as commercial entities they attract a lesser price than as development 'opportunities'. The Ols Sun was a prime example where despite unrealitic rents being asked for, it started to turn a profit yet was sold at an inflated price for development. A landlord will not pay over the odds for a public house when to recuperate costs, will take considerable time.

It's unfortunate that Breweries and property developers use the old, commercial viability gag to get around the planning rules on amenities. It's not progress, it's pure GREED.
[quote][p][bold]geoffW[/bold] wrote: As I drive round the county I see many empty pubs. Some are for sale and some for let. Many have been like that for some time. . If nobody will buy or rent them from the owners then they are going to deteriorate. . The reason that they are empty is because they do not get enough use. . We no longer have dairies in towns and villages any more. Their demise started with the advent of daily house deliveries and refridgeration in shops and homes. Now the daily delivery of milk, etc, is dying out because people buy their own from the supermarkets. . It is called progress. Whether it is a good thing or not, whether we like it or not, doesn't matter. If places are not used they don't make money. If they don't make money they are closed.[/p][/quote]I beg to differ, some are purposely run down because as commercial entities they attract a lesser price than as development 'opportunities'. The Ols Sun was a prime example where despite unrealitic rents being asked for, it started to turn a profit yet was sold at an inflated price for development. A landlord will not pay over the odds for a public house when to recuperate costs, will take considerable time. It's unfortunate that Breweries and property developers use the old, commercial viability gag to get around the planning rules on amenities. It's not progress, it's pure GREED. wayneo

3:09pm Tue 26 Jun 12

BOOKERite says...

Although I realise that something had to be done with the building as it was becoming dangerously derelict and attracting drug users and vandals, it was at the heart of the community and will be a great loss to the area.
.
My concern is that the Planning Department changed it's use from public house to retail - I guess so that it could then be changed to development land - when it was quite obvious that it would not, now or in the future be used for retail. Is that ethical?
.
I do also think that to build a three bedroom house and a bungalow in that small car park is over development.
Although I realise that something had to be done with the building as it was becoming dangerously derelict and attracting drug users and vandals, it was at the heart of the community and will be a great loss to the area. . My concern is that the Planning Department changed it's use from public house to retail - I guess so that it could then be changed to development land - when it was quite obvious that it would not, now or in the future be used for retail. Is that ethical? . I do also think that to build a three bedroom house and a bungalow in that small car park is over development. BOOKERite

6:59pm Tue 26 Jun 12

Cheshamist says...

Wycid wrote:
Pubs are closing because beer its now to expensive to drink in them, two of the pubs in loudwater/ Wycombe marsh charge over four pounds for a pint, this combined with the fact that people don't go drinking in them means they will inevitably close, if the residents didn't use the pub they can't moan when it closes, and by use I don't mean popping in in boxing day and new years eve.
Spot on, these pubs close due to lack of use by the locals. These are the same locals that complain when it's change of use is granted. Use the pubs and they won't close. The cost of a pint isn't the issue, it's the owners running it properly. I would rather pay £4 for a quality pint than a coffee, of which outlets are popping up all over the place.
[quote][p][bold]Wycid[/bold] wrote: Pubs are closing because beer its now to expensive to drink in them, two of the pubs in loudwater/ Wycombe marsh charge over four pounds for a pint, this combined with the fact that people don't go drinking in them means they will inevitably close, if the residents didn't use the pub they can't moan when it closes, and by use I don't mean popping in in boxing day and new years eve.[/p][/quote]Spot on, these pubs close due to lack of use by the locals. These are the same locals that complain when it's change of use is granted. Use the pubs and they won't close. The cost of a pint isn't the issue, it's the owners running it properly. I would rather pay £4 for a quality pint than a coffee, of which outlets are popping up all over the place. Cheshamist

10:03am Thu 28 Jun 12

jayeatman says...

Part of the problem is that the planning process is too reactive. If it were more pro-active and actually identified pubs on the edge of profitability and served notice that change of use to residential would not be entertained, the the property developers would steer clear. Councils should also have the power to serve notice on owners to either 'maintain or demolish'. i.e. they should not be allowed to deliberately allow properties to fall into ruin.
Part of the problem is that the planning process is too reactive. If it were more pro-active and actually identified pubs on the edge of profitability and served notice that change of use to residential would not be entertained, the the property developers would steer clear. Councils should also have the power to serve notice on owners to either 'maintain or demolish'. i.e. they should not be allowed to deliberately allow properties to fall into ruin. jayeatman

11:38am Thu 28 Jun 12

wayneo says...

jayeatman wrote:
Part of the problem is that the planning process is too reactive. If it were more pro-active and actually identified pubs on the edge of profitability and served notice that change of use to residential would not be entertained, the the property developers would steer clear. Councils should also have the power to serve notice on owners to either 'maintain or demolish'. i.e. they should not be allowed to deliberately allow properties to fall into ruin.
Exactly!
[quote][p][bold]jayeatman[/bold] wrote: Part of the problem is that the planning process is too reactive. If it were more pro-active and actually identified pubs on the edge of profitability and served notice that change of use to residential would not be entertained, the the property developers would steer clear. Councils should also have the power to serve notice on owners to either 'maintain or demolish'. i.e. they should not be allowed to deliberately allow properties to fall into ruin.[/p][/quote]Exactly! wayneo

4:28pm Thu 28 Jun 12

sai-diva says...

I can see the Gordon Arms in wycombe going the same way, sadly.
I can see the Gordon Arms in wycombe going the same way, sadly. sai-diva

9:04pm Thu 28 Jun 12

bluefeet says...

So 200 letters were sent out & 20 replies received? The local residents obviously care then... Such a shame!
So 200 letters were sent out & 20 replies received? The local residents obviously care then... Such a shame! bluefeet

12:23pm Fri 29 Jun 12

BOOKERite says...

bluefeet wrote:
So 200 letters were sent out & 20 replies received? The local residents obviously care then... Such a shame!
I do agree with you - most people want to keep the pub but as you say, no one can be bothered to do anything about it.
.
Although, I doubt very much whether the planning committee would have listened to us, the tax payer, even if 1,000 people had replied. They obviously have their own agendas.
[quote][p][bold]bluefeet[/bold] wrote: So 200 letters were sent out & 20 replies received? The local residents obviously care then... Such a shame![/p][/quote]I do agree with you - most people want to keep the pub but as you say, no one can be bothered to do anything about it. . Although, I doubt very much whether the planning committee would have listened to us, the tax payer, even if 1,000 people had replied. They obviously have their own agendas. BOOKERite

12:40pm Fri 29 Jun 12

BOOKERite says...

BOOKERite wrote:
bluefeet wrote:
So 200 letters were sent out & 20 replies received? The local residents obviously care then... Such a shame!
I do agree with you - most people want to keep the pub but as you say, no one can be bothered to do anything about it.
.
Although, I doubt very much whether the planning committee would have listened to us, the tax payer, even if 1,000 people had replied. They obviously have their own agendas.
I do actually think that was the problem - most people are of the opinion that it is very difficult to fight WDC planners so why bother.
.
How many new houses have been built in South Bucks over over the last five years, and how many more are planned (including the 500 at Daws Hill) anybody know?
[quote][p][bold]BOOKERite[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bluefeet[/bold] wrote: So 200 letters were sent out & 20 replies received? The local residents obviously care then... Such a shame![/p][/quote]I do agree with you - most people want to keep the pub but as you say, no one can be bothered to do anything about it. . Although, I doubt very much whether the planning committee would have listened to us, the tax payer, even if 1,000 people had replied. They obviously have their own agendas.[/p][/quote]I do actually think that was the problem - most people are of the opinion that it is very difficult to fight WDC planners so why bother. . How many new houses have been built in South Bucks over over the last five years, and how many more are planned (including the 500 at Daws Hill) anybody know? BOOKERite

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree