Locally listing ALL local pubs

[dickp]

I was surprised to read in today's Forest Hill and South London Press that local councillor Liam Curran apparently wants to list ALL local pubs, to "protect" them from development.

I'd love to see how that would work in practice. The old Woodman is now an estate agent. And, of course, Forest Hill's new pub, the Sylvan Post, used to be a post office. So which of these "pubs" should be locally listed? Former pubs? New pubs? Or only pubs "threatened" with demolition? Would change of use be allowed?

Call me a hard core capitalist, but isn't the best way to assure that local pubs survive is for them to offer would-be customers a reason to spend money in them, as a decent alternative to buying cheap booze from Sainsbury's? Since when did councillors have a better understanding of supply and demand than customers? And besides, how is loading up local businesses (many of whom are under NO threat of development) with new red tape helping their survival? Look at the fun we've had with Kente! Not to mention the Greyhound.

The story has some interesting anecdotes about the age of various local pubs - apparently the Dolphin was built in 1733. But, other than that, the central idea being promoted seems a bit - well - dumb!

[Eagle]

In most cases Pubs should be retained as Pubs. There are however some exceptions.

Do not forget most of Wetherspoon's are not in old Pub Buildings. So are many other chains.
The Windmill was not a Pub( and many would claim it is not now ), also The Capitol and Question in SE23.

[Tim Lund]

I was surprised to read in today's Forest Hill and South London Press that local councillor Liam Curran apparently wants to list ALL local pubs, to "protect" them from development.

I think this it is rather sad how someone who could be a really good local councillor is diverted in this way into futility.

[blakewho]

Saving local pubs is not just a question of more people using them. Many pubs which are sold off for development are actually thriving businesses which continue to be valued by the communities which use them. But the pubcos and breweries which own them see them as assets which are often, sadly, more valuable when realised as real estate.

[Tim Lund]

Saving local pubs is not just a question of more people using them. Many pubs which are sold off for development are actually thriving businesses which continue to be valued by the communities which use them. But the pubcos and breweries which own them see them as assets which are often, sadly, more valuable when realised as real estate.

which they would not be if property prices were not artificially high, thanks to failure over recent decades to build enough houses. More houses would mean more people, and so more custom for pubs - and other local businesses.. If people don't want pubs to be redeveloped, there are broadly two options - make it as difficult to get planning permission for more housing units on their sites as it is to get planning permission elsewhere, or make it as easy to get planning permission for more housing units on other sites as it is on the sites of pubs.

I cannot understand why anyone should prefer the first option, other than the opportunities it gives to grandstand.

[michael]

Changing national housing costs or even massively reducing the planning required for new housing does not save the 25 pubs closing every week in Britain, many of which become housing. The recent situation with the Catford Bridge demonstrates that something needed to happen quickly, rather than relying on the gradual reduction in house prices due to increased development.

The local listing of The Dolphin, Golden Lion, Woodman (although not a pub), Perry Hill, and Brockley Jack should help to preserve these buildings (not their use, although that might be nice).

There are good descriptions of all the pubs and other properties recently locally listed at http://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/ ... isting.pdf (the description of the Woodman is particularly interesting).

There are a few other pubs in Lewisham that I think should also be locally listed, but not all of them (particularly not the Sylvan Post or the Two Halves).

Since pubs account for a tiny fraction of land available I think these policies should have a negligible impact on overall availability of locations for new housing, and will provide useful local amenities for new residents of developments close to these pubs.

[Eagle]

Michael
I am in 100% agreement that the closure of the Antic establishment in Catford was a travesty.

However not very pub needed to be saved.


Tim
Back on House building again. Does your share portfolio include Barret's etc.

[leenewham]

A good move by Liam, although I'd keep it to pubs in buildings designed as pubs.

[Tim Lund]

Tim
Back on House building again. Does your share portfolio include Barret's etc.

I doubt if housing as an issue is going to go away, although it would be nice if it did.

I'm not sure if it's legitimate to ask about my share portfolio, but if it is, I guess I could ask others on this forum about whether they are tenants, or owner occupiers, with or without mortgages.

[Tim Lund]

A good move by Liam, although I'd keep it to pubs in buildings designed as pubs.

So both you and Michael agree that listing ALL local pubs is going too far ...

[Tim Lund]

Changing national housing costs or even massively reducing the planning required for new housing does not save the 25 pubs closing every week in Britain, many of which become housing. The recent situation with the Catford Bridge demonstrates that something needed to happen quickly, rather than relying on the gradual reduction in house prices due to increased development.

In the unlikely event that the Labour Party, striving atypically for the huddled masses struggling to be free, announced 100% backing for this current Tory hate figure, things might change faster than you can imagine. But it is, of course, unlikely.

Since pubs account for a tiny fraction of land available I think these policies should have a negligible impact on overall availability of locations for new housing

It might be worth trying to quantify this, classifying 'locations for new housing' according to how available, and also looking at how much new build over the last 5 years, say, has been on former sites of pubs. The latter should be obtainable with a bit of researching. It will only be a fraction, but I'm not sure that it will be 'tiny', and in any case, it seems Michael is at least accepting the longer term logic of my argument.

My short term advice would be the same - a case of 'if you're in a hole, stop digging'.

and will provide useful local amenities for new residents of developments close to these pubs.

Believe it or not, I too regret the loss of traditional pub buildings, and welcome what seem to me like sympathetic conversions, such as the Woodman.



But I also wonder what right I have to impose my tastes on other people - if more reliable pub customers than me prefer a Wetherspoon's like the Windmill,



or a converted old post office such as the Sylvan Posts,



with flats above, why should anyone listen to me?

[JeeBee]

The problem is that pubs are very easy to turn into shops, estate agents and funeral directors because of the classification that they have in planning law.

It is clear to me that an established pub, especially a pub on a site that has hosted a pub for donkeys years, should have a different usage in planning law, that makes it hard to turn it from that core usage.

What to do about new pubs - like the Sylvan Post? Well, it clearly was able to get a change of use from being a post office, presumably against local opposition (the flats above wouldn't want a pub open until late beneath for example). Maybe there could be a 25 year grace period - stay a pub that long on a site, and you then get the established pub protection.

It's all made harder because the properties are owned by landlords, and the pubs rent the space. It's not in the landlords interest to let a pub if it could become protected, because once protected that space will not be worth as much to any other potential renter (it would have to be a pub).

Or you could just grandfather in existing pubs and ignore the new converted pub issue entirely. There was a time when Wetherspoons was converting an old bank building into a pub almost every day, it seemed

[Tim Lund]

The problem is that pubs are very easy to turn into shops, estate agents and funeral directors because of the classification that they have in planning law.

It is clear to me that an established pub, especially a pub on a site that has hosted a pub for donkeys years, should have a different usage in planning law, that makes it hard to turn it from that core usage.

I can see a case for maintaining the original fabric and appearance of a building, if it has some architectural distinction or historical significance, but I'm not so sure why should we object to planning use changes.

What to do about new pubs - like the Sylvan Post? Well, it clearly was able to get a change of use from being a post office, presumably against local opposition (the flats above wouldn't want a pub open until late beneath for example). Maybe there could be a 25 year grace period - stay a pub that long on a site, and you then get the established pub protection. It's all made harder because the properties are owned by landlords, and the pubs rent the space. It's not in the landlords interest to let a pub if it could become protected, because once protected that space will not be worth as much to any other potential renter (it would have to be a pub)..

So you can be fairly sure the landlord will close the pub, however successful it is, so not to impair the value of his/her property.

Or you could just grandfather in existing pubs and ignore the new converted pub issue entirely.

I wonder at what point such actions from local Councils make them subject to legal challenge.

BTW, the following local pubs and ex pubs have already been locally listed:

- The Dolphin, 121 Sydenham Road
- The Perry Hill (formerly the Two Brewers), 78 – 80 Perry Hill
- 110 Kirkdale, (formerly The Woodman)
- Golden Lion, 116 Sydenham Road

[Andwar]

I thought the Greyhound was also listed but look at what has happened there. Listing local pubs will not save them from redevelopment. What is needed is local Councillors to be more forceful when it comes to planning applications and not be so vague when making a decision.

[Tim Lund]

Listing local pubs will not save them from redevelopment.

Regardless of what anyone might want, this is what makes the whole exercise pointless grandstanding. I'm sure Liam has better things to do with his time, but this is all he is allowed.

[michael]

http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/myservices/p ... ptions.pdf
Page 68

This document has only recently been written and has not been adopted as policy. It is currently at the public consultation stage. It appears to offer additional safeguards for public houses.

What is not proposed is locally listing all pubs or even automatically adding them to the list of community assets.

[dickp]

Fair enough. But what (according to the press reports) the councilor wanted was every pub locally listed.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]