 |
| Another Rushmoor Pub bites the dust. |
Many people have been calling on Rushmoor to have a Pub Protection Policy. Here is a typical example:
Possible Pub Protection Policy:
Development will be permitted provided that the following criteria are met:
Development will be permitted provided that the following criteria are met:
There is no loss or reduction in capacity
of existing infrastructure, including community facilities
These will be protected unless:
1. It can be proven that there is no longer
term need for the facility, either for its original purpose or for another
facility that meets the need of the community; or
2. It is to be re-provided elsewhere to the
satisfaction of the Council
OR
The loss of a Public House will be permitted
(in respect of proposals that fall outside permitted development rights) where
it can be proven that there is no longer term need for the facility. In order
to justify no longer term need, the applicant will need to demonstrate that
they have undertaken the following:
1. Contact information posted in a prominent
location on site, in the form of an advertising board (subject to advertising
consent, if required);
2. Registration of the property with at least
one commercial property agent;
3. Property details / particulars available
to inquirers on request;
4. Property marketed for the appropriate use
or uses as defined by the relevant planning policy for a period of 12 months
minimum;
5. Property marketed at a reasonable price,
including in relation to use, condition, quality and location of floorspace.
What do you think?
If you think it is useless and can think of a better policy do share it with me.
I have always felt the best pub protection policy was: Clean and friendly pub that attracts lots of people. As a non alcohol drinker, I would add good food.
At the end of the day is it the Council's job to prop up failing pubs with regulation?
As a Tory I am naturally against regulation, but I am open to discuss the pros and cons of such a policy.
3 comments:
Mr Clifford
Rushmoor are required by law to bring their local plan in line with national planning policy- including P70 of the NPPF which provides specific protection for pubs. They really don't have a choice- it's not optional, its mandatory.
Pubs are very often sited on valuable land and they offer community facilities that once lost, are lost forever. It is absolutely the right thing to do before we lose the great british pub for good. The closure of pubs is complex, but without doubt aggressive developers are targeting these sites due to the size and access they offer. We need to protect them for the benefit of the greater public and yes that is something the Council not only could do but MUST do.
Hi Dave,
I'd only put it to you that pubs are great for meeting people, networking and genetic diversity which are all good for society ;) The world would be a terrible place if everyone met their mate at work. Where did you meet yours?
If not the pub what replacement is there? If drinking is out of fashion what is the alternative?the replacement in the system?
I don't see how a pub protection policy can work. If the incumbent owner can't or won't run the pub, then who will? The council can't force someone to stay in business and lose money. Someone else has to buy it. So, all that will happen is that the property will lie empty and become derelict.
Sound familiar?
Post a Comment