Wednesday 31 October 2012

Morden Tavern loss is 'devastating blow' article - Wimbledon Guardian 31/10/12

http://www.wimbledonguardian.co.uk/yoursay/news/10016988.Morden_Tavern_loss_is_devestating_blow/

Sunday 28 October 2012

Our response to the Wimbledon Guardian article (Pub defenders were 'naive' to suggest co-operative)


It was with bemusement that the SHPG read Mr Clarke’s letter, ‘Morden Tavern defenders were 'naive' to suggest co-operative’, 10th October - http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/yoursay/yournews/wimbledon/9976178.Pub_defenders_were__naive__to_suggest_co_operative/. In the two years in which the Campaign has been running, he has never taken the opportunity to share his superior knowledge with us or sought to influence the future of this community asset, but instead chose to make snide remarks following the appeal decision.

Despite his interest, he demonstrates ignorance of the development proposals: shops were always in the plans from the start and the Campaign enjoys overwhelming support from local shops and the wider community. In fact, thanks to the Campaign, the plans were changed to prevent the front of the Morden Tavern from being replaced with a shop frontage saving the historical features. Additionally, the Planning Inspector has stipulated that the development must include a bar or restaurant, saving a social space of sorts for the community. The Campaign also succeeded in getting a large reduction in both the number of flats to be built and guarantees that the developer will protect the bats that live on the site.

With regards to our ‘naïve’ plans for a community cooperative to run the site, this is a successful business model being followed up and down the country and our plans were drawn up by experienced business professionals with help from members of the pub trade. We had exceeded our minimum target for potential investors and had three large pledges from local business as well as the potential for a significant low interest loan from the Cooperative Bank. The inspector could not consider our plans as they were not a planning matter.

Throughout the campaign we uncovered a number of dubious practices, through Freedom of Information Requests, showing that the Council had, at best a ramshackle sale process for Council assets and disregard for the residents of St Helier. Despite a refusal from the developer to meet with us we feel we have had a very positive influence on this development for the St Helier Community.

More than anything, the Campaign has shown that the residents of St. Helier will not allow the Council to take them for granted.

Monday 1 October 2012

October 2012 newsletter



The St Helier Pub Group

Formerly The Campaign for the Morden Tavern October 2012

Planning Appeal - Upheld


The Campaign is saddened to receive the news that the Planning Inspector has upheld the appeal (read the decision here: http://sthelierpubgroup.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/appeal-decision-26912.htmlby the developer Reef Estates to build Shops and Flats on the Morden Tavern site.

The community put up a great fight to save our asset and we thought our business plan to turn the Morden Tavern into a multi use pub and community centre was a real winner.

Sad as we are we still believe the battle was worth fighting and that we should be proud of the parts we all played in this David vs Goliath battle.

What now?


It is safe to assume that the developer will be quick to begin work on the site and destroy our heritage (read about the Tavern's history here: http://sthelierpubgroup.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/february-newsletter-2011.html).

The SHPG will be watching carefully to ensure that they do not try to expand the development and that they stick to the letter of their application.

The Campaign will not yet disband as we will be working to realise some form of community bar on the site if the business figures are conducive to this outcomeIf you are interested in investing or getting involved, email us here: tavern.development@virginmedia.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Campaign for Real Ale salutes St Helier residents


CAMRA's London region, through the London Pubs Group, has been following the tribulations of your Morden Tavern campaign for two years. It was with sadness at this weeks London Liaison meeting that Dale delivered, and we received, the news of the appeal decision. SWL CAMRA have reported that yours was a clean, well-fought battle and that the result does not in any way reflect the enormous work and dedication you have, as a campaign group, put into trying to save your local pub. CAMRA salutes your courage, dedication and commitment. Please keep us posted with any further news. Good luck, and so sorry you didn't get what you deserved. 

John Cryne Regional Director.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The public hearing took place in the main Council chamber. The Campaign was represented by three members of the committee and the developer by a specialist property lawyer and a high-flying QC.

Around 50 residents along with all three St Helier ward councillors attended the hearing which, given it was a working day we were very pleased with.

The first session focused on the appearance of the proposed development. The council officers made most of the points to refuse planning permission with SHPG also making comments on the size of the proposed development not fitting other properties in Blanchland and Abbotsbury Road and the loss of the amenity space. Reef argued that the gardens were overgrown and that there was a park nearby, which Reef should at the risk of stating the obvious be maintaining.

Councillor Dennis Pearce made various points concerning the loss of the facility of the pub and the size of the development. His submission added a lot of weight to the arguments to dismiss the planning application.

The second session looked at the Heritage implications on the locally listed Morden Tavern. Dale Ingram from CAMRA, a specialist in inter-war public houses like the Tavern gave a detailed and robust analysis of how the development would cause permanent long term damage to the setting and value of this historic asset.

After lunch the SHPG led the discussion on the Council’s pub protection policies (L15 and L16) - the developer and council officers continued to deny there was any interest from the pub sector in taking over the Morden Tavern. We pointed towards an admission from the Estate Agent who dealt with the sale of the Leasehold, obtained by Siobhan McDonagh MP, that they had received bids from the pub sector but these were not the highest bids. We showed that the pub had never gone out of business in its history and was a viable entity.

The SHPG also produced maps to show how few pubs there are in the St. Helier area and how many residents would now be a mile to their nearest pub. Reef’s lawyers observed that the exercise would do them good!

The Appeal Hearing was adjourned to the Morden Tavern for the site visit at 5pm.

The SHPG felt that the Hearing was fair and that the majority of the arguments for and against the development were given a chance to be heard, something which has not happened we believe before.


Our blog: http://sthelierpubgroup.blogspot.co.uk/
Our facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/MordenTavern
Our twitter page: https://twitter.com/SaveMordenTav
Our Youtube page: http://www.youtube.com/user/CfMT2011/videos?flow=grid&view=0

Friday 28 September 2012

Merton Council's Press Release - 28/9/12


IMMEDIATE RELEASE


London Borough of Merton

28 September 2012


Morden Tavern redevelopment gets approval

Plans to redevelop the Morden Tavern site in Central Road have been given the go-ahead after a successful appeal to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government by Reef Estates Ltd.

A mixture of quality new one and two bedroom homes and shops are planned for the location.  .

The planning permission allows the development to start anytime in the next three years. The design of the proposed buildings on the site will complement the local area and the development will retain the frontage of the historic public house building.
  
Merton’s cabinet member for environmental sustainability and regeneration, Councillor Andrew Judge said: “This development will provide much needed housing for local people, with a design and character that has won the approval of the Planning Inspector. It is good that there should finally be an outcome for the site, which I hope will be considered in a positive light.”

Wednesday 26 September 2012

Controversial Pub Scheme Gets Appeal Go-Ahead article - 26/9/12

http://www.wimbledonsw19.com/default.asp?section=info&page=mordentavernhomesplangetsgoahead001.htm 

Press Release - 26/9/12

The Campaign is saddened to receive the news that the Planning Inspectorate has upheld the appeal by the developer Reef Estates to build Shops and Flats on the Morden Tavern site.

The community put up a great fight to save our asset and we thought our business plan to turn the Morden Tavern into a multi-use pub and community centre was a real winner.

Sad as we are we still believe the battle was worth fighting and that we should be proud of the parts we all played in this David vs Goalith battle.

The SHPG will be realising a Newsletter in the next few days in which we will be expanding on our future aims.

Appeal Decision - 26/9/12


www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate

Appeal Decision

Hearing held on 1 August 2012
Site visit made on 1 August 2012
by Mike Moore BA(Hons) MRTPI CMILT MCIHT
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 26 September 2012
Appeal Ref: APP/T5720/A/12/2172973
Morden Tavern Public House, 144 Central Road, Morden, Surrey, SM4 5RL

• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by Reef Estates Ltd against the decision of the Council of the
London Borough of Merton.
• The application Ref 11/P0815, dated 18 March 2011, was refused by notice dated
15 March 2012.
• The development proposed is the change of use, extension and conversion of the locally
listed public house building (Use Class A4) to provide 2/3 ground floor units for retail
(Class A1); office (Class A2); restaurant (Class A3) or public house/bar use (Class A4)
and an ATM machine; the demolition of outbuildings and single storey extensions and a
new single storey extension facing Abbotsbury Road together with the conversion of the
existing residential use on the upper floors (currently 11 bedrooms in two
interconnected units) to provide 5 flats (3 one bedroom flats and 2 two bedroom); a
new detached building adjacent to 142 Central Road providing 9 flats (6 one bedroom
and 3 two bedroom); a new building at the corner of Abbotsbury Road and Blanchland
Road providing 8 maisonettes (2 one bedroom, 3 two bedroom and 3 three bedroom); a
new terrace of 4 houses (2 three and 2 four bedroom) adjacent to 83 Blanchland Road
together with the removal of a tree covered by a TPO in Abbotsbury Road, and a new
sub station building.

Decision

1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the change of use,
extension and conversion of the locally listed public house building (Use Class
A4) to provide 2/3 ground floor units for retail (Class A1); office (Class A2);
restaurant (Class A3) or public house/bar use (Class A4) and an ATM machine;
the demolition of outbuildings and single storey extensions and a new single
storey extension facing Abbotsbury Road together with the conversion of the
existing residential use on the upper floors (currently 11 bedrooms in two
interconnected units) to provide 5 flats (3 one bedroom flats and 2 two
bedroom); a new detached building adjacent to 142 Central Road providing 9
flats (6 one bedroom and 3 two bedroom); a new building at the corner of
Abbotsbury Road and Blanchland Road providing 8 maisonettes (2 one
bedroom, 3 two bedroom and 3 three bedroom); a new terrace of 4 houses (2
three and 2 four bedroom) adjacent to 83 Blanchland Road together with the
removal of a tree covered by a TPO in Abbotsbury Road, and a new sub station
building at Morden Tavern Public House, 144 Central Road, Morden, Surrey,
SM4 5RL in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 11/P0815, dated
18 March 2011, subject to the conditions set out in the annex to this decision.

Preliminary Matters


2. The description of development was amended after the planning application
had been submitted to the Council. However, that recorded on the Council’s
decision notice was different to that used on the appeal form. At the hearing
the main parties agreed that the description on the decision notice, which is set
out above, should be used in the determination of the appeal. I have
considered the appeal on that basis.

3. During the hearing it was agreed by the main parties that the labelling on
Drawing Ref. PL2.14H indicating that zinc cladding would be used on the roofs
of the proposed terraced houses and maisonettes adjacent to Blanchland Road
was incorrect. The proposals were for the use of slate as shown on other
drawings and I have considered the appeal in that context.

Main Issues


4. The main issues are:
• The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance
of the area;
• The effect of the proposed development on the setting of the locally listed
public house building; and
• Whether the proposed development would make appropriate provision for
private amenity space.

Reasons


5. The rectangular appeal site occupies a corner location with road frontages on
three sides to Central Road, Abbotsbury Road and Blanchland Road. It is
occupied by a large detached public house building and a number of
outbuildings with on-site car parking on the Central Road frontage and a
substantial beer garden to the rear. The public house closed in 2010.

6. The appeal proposal includes the demolition of the outbuildings and an existing
single storey extension to the main building. The main building would be
extended and 2 to 3 units of A1, A2, A3 or A4 uses provided on the ground
floor with residential accommodation above. Three new buildings would be
constructed providing a range of residential accommodation.
Character and appearance

7. The appeal site is within a mainly residential area. To the side and rear of the
site on Blanchland Road and Abbotsbury Road the locality is characterised
mostly by 2-storey dwellings that are part of the extensive St Helier Estate.
The Estate was laid out in the 1930s and the limited number of house types
and the recurring architectural features have given it a unity of built form.
Open space is a distinctive feature of the Estate with landscaped areas
integrated into the formal layout. The appeal site itself falls just outside the
area covered by the St Helier Estate Design Guide, which in any event is
intended to provide guidance on residential extensions rather than new
development. Nevertheless, the character of the Estate is a significant
consideration in the appeal.

8. The open Central Road frontage would continue to be used as car parking as in
the past. The beer garden is not a residential feature as it is linked to the
commercial use of the public house. There is existing fencing and tall planting
to the side and rear of the site, providing enclosure but at the same time
limiting the current visual amenity value of the beer garden as an open area in
the street scene and its contribution to the quality of the public realm. I note
that it has not been designated as protected open space in the development
plan. The appeal proposals would include an area of public open space on the
corner of Abbotsbury Road and Central Road. While there would be more built
development on the site, having regard to these factors I consider that in this
instance the loss of open land would not be so substantial that there would be
a significant adverse effect on the open character of the wider area.

9. The proposals include a 3-storey flat-roofed apartment block of contemporary
design which would be seen on the Central Road frontage between the public
house building and the neighbouring house. Central Road has a much more
mixed character than the other frontages with some 3-storey blocks of flats
opposite the appeal site and a small parade of shops nearby. In that context, I
consider that the scale and design of the building would not be inappropriate.
The proposed flats would be set in an existing gap between the public house
and the neighbouring dwelling. However, in my view this would not disturb
any existing rhythm or pattern of gaps on Central Road.

10. The scale and massing of the proposed maisonettes and terraced houses
adjacent to Abbotsbury Road and Blanchland Road would be appropriate in
relation to neighbouring development. The palette of materials proposed in the
new buildings would include many that are found in the locality and detailed
control can be exercised through a condition.

11. Since the application was determined the Government has published the
National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’). The Council complies
with the provisions of the Framework in having local design review
arrangements. An earlier version of the scheme was considered by the local
Design Review Panel and the appeal proposals include amendments that seek
to remedy the adverse comments made which concerned the detail rather than
the principle of the development. In my view, the Panel’s concerns have been
addressed by the appeal scheme. Overall, I consider that the proposals
complement rather than replicate the design of other buildings. The
contemporary style of the new structures on this site would enhance their
surroundings.

12. Four trees on the site are subject to a tree preservation order. The appeal
proposals entail the removal of one of these, which is justified as it is diseased,
and the application drawings show that it would be replaced. With the
protection measures proposed in the appellants’ Arboricultural Implications
Report, I am satisfied that the other trees can be safeguarded.

13. I conclude that the proposed development would not cause material harm to
the character and appearance of the area. It would not conflict with the aims
of Policies BE.16, BE.18 and BE.22 of the London Borough of Merton Unitary
Development Plan (UDP), Policies 7.1D, 7.4B and 7.6B of the London Plan (LP)
and Policy CS 14 of the London Borough of Merton Core Strategy (CS).
Locally listed building

14. The public house has been locally listed due to its architectural style, historical
associations and group value. It was designed by Sir Harry Redfern as a ‘New
Model Inn’ under the Home Office State Management Scheme with a strong
Arts and Crafts influence in its design. It is the remaining one of a number of
‘refreshment houses’ designed for the St Helier Estate in the early 1930s. It
therefore has links with the social history of the area and with the design of the
estate. These factors have been reflected in the appellants’ heritage statement
submitted with the application.

15. I note that the Design Review Panel did not raise objections of principle to the
proposed development in terms of the setting of the public house. The Council
has not objected to the works to the building in terms of their effect on its
locally listed status. In my view, the proposed changes to the building itself
would help to conserve the features which have led to designation as a local
heritage asset. However, there would be new buildings in the open land
around it.

16. The proposals would include some open land to the front of the building as at
present and on the corner of Central Road and Abbotsbury Road. The
extended public house would remain the prominent building on the site as it
would be seen across this open land in a corner location, separate from the
other structures, with its significant gables and Arts and Crafts features. The
other buildings would not be as tall and in my view their contrasting
contemporary designs would reinforce rather than detract from the significance
of the public house.

17. The beer garden area would be developed, mainly with the residential buildings
proposed on Blanchland Road. Given my earlier conclusions on its limited role
in the public realm, and the design and siting of the proposed new buildings, I
am not persuaded that its loss would be unacceptable. The setting of the
public house would change, but I consider that this would not be detrimental to
the factors that have led to designation as a heritage asset.

18. Two outbuildings would be demolished but in my view their appearance and
relationship with the public house are such that they are not significant
features within its setting.

19. My conclusion is that the proposed development would not have a significant
adverse effect on the setting of the locally listed building. In that regard it
would accord with the aims of UDP Policy BE.11 and LP Policy 7.8D.
Private amenity space

20. The appeal proposals provide for a total amount of amenity space for the
proposed development which exceeds the standards set out in the supporting
text to UDP Policy HS.1 and the space for most of the proposed dwellings
would be compliant. However, four of the eight maisonettes would have
private space that was below the minimum standard.

21. The maisonettes concerned are one- and two-bedroom units, and therefore
less likely to accommodate families where the need for private amenity space
would be greater. Only one of the affected units would be social housing where
the occupants may be restricted in their choice of accommodation. Prospective
purchasers of the other units would take account of their own need for outdoor
space when acquiring the properties. There is some communal open space on
the site which residents could use and the Morden Recreation Ground is within
walking distance. There is not an overall deficiency of public open space in the
locality.

22. In the light of these considerations I conclude that the proposed development
would make adequate provision for private amenity space to serve the needs of
its occupants. In this regard it would accord with the aims of UDP Policy HS.1.
Other planning matters – loss of community facility

23. Prior to closure the public house had a large bar area, function rooms available
for hire and a substantial beer garden. The Council did not refuse the
application on the basis of the loss of the public house and the facilities that it
provided. However, there is a significant degree of public opposition to the
appeal proposals on these grounds. The local pub group has been working up
proposals for the use of the building as a co-operative public house. I have
seen insufficient details of this for it to carry any significant weight in my
consideration of the appeal scheme.

24. The Framework indicates that there is a need to plan positively for the
provision and use of community facilities such as public houses. The
unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services should be guarded against,
particularly where this would reduce the community’s ability to meet its day-today
needs. UDP Policy L.15 resists the loss of community facilities and
Policy L.16 does not permit the redevelopment or change of use of established
public houses to other uses except where it can be shown that the public house
is no longer economically viable, reasonable attempts have been made to
market it and there is alternative provision within the local area. These UDP
policies are consistent with the aims of the Framework and I attach full weight
to them in my decision.

25. The upper floors of the public house building have previously been used as
residential accommodation and this use would be maintained. A change of use
from Class A4 to A1, A2 or A3 can take place without the need for planning
permission. The previous leaseholder, Enterprise Inns, reported poor trade at
the premises and difficulty in recruiting capable managers but no detailed
evidence of this has been submitted. The existing premises were marketed in
2009 by agents specialising in the licensed leisure trade without success, albeit
for a shorter period than in the guidance in the UDP. There are other licensed
premises within the wider area, although not as convenient to local residents.
Reference has been made by those opposed to the scheme to other appeal
decisions involving the loss of a public house. However, the proposals here
include an A4 drinking establishment use on the ground floor in the unit closest
to Abbotsbury Road with the possibility that this could extend to other units.
Although this may be a different kind of provision to that which existed before
in terms of both its size and character, it would nevertheless mean that a
public house or bar use would be maintained on the site under the appeal
proposals. In the context of these considerations, the proposed development
would not conflict with the aims of LP Policy L.16.

26. The function rooms and garden would no longer be available to the local
community but these were not public facilities, being part of the commercial
use of the site. There are other significant areas of publicly accessible open
space in the locality. In terms of community rooms there are a number of
social and function hall facilities within a reasonable distance. On that basis
the proposed development would not be in conflict with LP Policy L.15 or the
aims of the Framework.

Other matters

27. In addition to the specific provisions of the Framework that I have referred to
above, I have considered the more general application of its policies here.
However, they do not change the weight that I attach to the relevant
development plan policies nor, in the light of the facts in this case, do they
alter my conclusions on the main issues.

28. The Council’s freehold ownership of the site and the process by which it sold
the lease to the appellants are not planning matters for my consideration. The
design, orientation and separation distances of the appeal proposals from
nearby dwellings are such that, with appropriate conditions, they would not
result in material harm to the living conditions of existing residents. The
protection of bats can be achieved by the implementation of the appellants’ bat
strategy. I have seen no persuasive evidence that with the proposed access
and parking arrangements there would be any material harm to highway safety
and the free flow of traffic or unacceptable parking issues arising from the
vehicles associated with the proposed development. None of the other matters
raised are of such significance that they would outweigh the considerations that
have led to my conclusions on the main issues.
Unilateral undertaking

29. The appellant has completed and submitted a unilateral undertaking and the
Council has raised no concerns with its provisions. I have considered it in the
light of the requirements of Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure
Levy Regulations. On the submitted evidence and that provided at the hearing,
I am satisfied that the provisions for affordable housing and restricting onstreet
parking permits for residents meet the tests in Regulation 122.

30. The Council has adopted a Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning
Document (SPD) which sets out the basis for securing financial contributions
for community benefits in the light of a number of UDP Policies. A financial
contribution in the undertaking towards sustainable transport would in part
fund a traffic order consultation relating to waiting restrictions around the site
access and that element is justified on that basis. The remainder of that
contribution, and contributions to education and public open space, are based
on formulae relating to the size and number of residential units proposed, in
accordance with the SPD. However, although additional information was
provided at the hearing, it is not clear in all cases from the submitted evidence
on what basis the cost multipliers used in the calculations have been derived,
the particulars of the deficiencies in local provision that the contributions are
intended to address or the schemes with which these contributions would be
expected to assist. As such, while the unilateral undertaking in its entirety
would still be binding were I to allow the appeal, on the evidence available the
sustainable transport (other than in respect of the traffic order consultation),
education and public open space contributions do not meet the tests in
Regulation 122. Specifically it has not been shown that they are necessary to
make the development acceptable in planning terms. I am therefore unable to
take them into account in determining this appeal.

Conditions

31. I have considered the case for the Council’s suggested conditions in the light of
Circular 11/95. Otherwise than as set out in this decision and conditions, it is
necessary that the development shall be carried out in accordance with the
approved plans for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper
planning and I have accordingly attached a suitable condition. Conditions
relating to construction works, soundproofing, noise from plant or machinery,
ventilation systems, refuse storage, external lighting, the use of flat roofs,
hours of operation of the commercial units, deliveries and withdrawal of
permitted development rights for the proposed houses are all reasonable and
necessary in the interests of the living conditions of existing and future
residents. It is in the interests of the character and appearance of the area for
there to be conditions relating to landscaping, landscape management, the
safeguarding of trees, boundary treatment and external materials. A specific
condition relating to the external works to the locally listed building is justified
in terms of conserving the heritage asset.

32. A condition is required in order to ensure that the bat strategy to safeguard
protected species is carried through. Conditions relating to sustainable
drainage, Lifetime Homes and sustainable construction and the provision of a
charging point for electric vehicles take forward policies in either the LP or the
CS aimed at achieving appropriate standards of accommodation or addressing
climate change objectives in new development. The justification for conditions
concerning the vehicular access, closure of the existing access and
reinstatement of the footway, a parking management plan and cycle parking
includes highway safety and the promotion of sustainable transport. Crime
prevention provides a necessary reason for a condition relating to the ATM.

33. A condition relating to signage is unnecessary as this is a matter for
advertisement control. Where I have varied the wording or merged some of
the Council’s conditions I have taken account of the model conditions and
guidance in Circular 11/95.

Overall conclusion

34. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.
M J Moore
INSPECTOR


Annex
List of conditions

1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years
from the date of this decision.

2) Other than as indicated in other conditions, the development hereby
permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved
plans: Nos PL2.1C, PL2.5H, PL2.6G, PL2.7G, PL2.8H, PL2.9H, PL2.10H,
PL2.11H, PL2.12H, PL2.14H, PL2.16G, and PL2.24H, except in respect of
the use of zinc cladding on the roofs of the houses and maisonettes
shown on plan No PL2.14H.

3) Demolition or construction works or ancillary activities such as deliveries
shall not take place before 08.00 hours and after 18.00 hours Mondays to
Fridays or before 08.00 hours and after 13.00 hours on Saturdays or at
any time on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

4) Development shall take place in accordance with the conclusions and
recommendations of the Bat Strategy produced by SLR Global
Environmental Solutions, dated December 2011, Ref 408.01455.00003/b
Rev 00. Should a bat roost be found, the enhancements set out in the
Bat Strategy shall be in place prior to first occupation of the first
residential unit unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning
authority.

5) No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until
a Construction Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority. The approved Plan shall be
adhered to throughout the construction period. The Plan shall provide for
measures to accommodate all site workers’, visitors’ and construction
vehicles’ loading and unloading arrangements and site access during the
construction process, including measures to ensure the safety and
security of the pupils, parents and staff of Abbotsbury Primary School,
including supervision of the Central Road and Abbotsbury Road junction
at the start and end of the school day.

6) No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority a scheme of
landscaping, which shall include on a plan full details of the size, species,
spacing, quantities and location of new plants and trees together with
any hard surfacing, means of enclosure and landscape works and an
implementation programme. The approved scheme shall be implemented
in accordance with the approved programme. Any trees or plants which
within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die,
are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced
in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless
the local planning authority gives written approval to any variation.

7) A landscape management plan, including long term design objectives,
management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for the new
public open space at the corner of Abbotsbury Road and Central Road
and all communal and incidental landscaped areas (excluding the new
houses) within the site, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the local planning authority prior to the occupation of any part of the
development for its permitted use. The landscape management plan
shall be carried out as approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
local planning authority.

8) Development shall take place in accordance with the conclusions and
recommendations of the Arboricultural Implications Report produced by
ACS Consulting dated 2 August 2011, Ref ha/aiams1/e/mt.
9) No development shall take place until a scheme of soundproofing to
prevent the transmission of noise and vibration between the commercial
units and residential units within the converted building has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The
approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of
the residential units affected and retained thereafter in the approved
form.

10) No development shall take place until details of sound insulation
/attenuation measures relating to any plant or machinery associated with
the residential units hereby permitted have been submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. The details shall
ensure that noise from the plant or machinery does not increase the
background noise level by more than 2dB(A) L90 (5 minute measurement
period) with no increase in any one-third octave band between 50 Hertz
and 160 Hertz. The approved measures shall be implemented before the
plant or machinery is first used and shall be retained thereafter in that
form unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

11) The relevant commercial unit shall not be occupied until details of sound
insulation /attenuation measures relating to any plant or machinery
associated with that unit have been submitted to and approved in writing
by the local planning authority. The details shall ensure that noise from
the plant or machinery does not increase the background noise level by
more than 2dB(A) L90 (5 minute measurement period) with no increase
in any one-third octave band between 50 Hertz and 160 Hertz. The
approved measures shall be implemented before the plant or machinery
is first used and shall be retained thereafter in that form unless otherwise
agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

12) The relevant commercial unit shall not be occupied for Class A3 or A4
uses until a scheme for the installation of equipment to control the
emission of fumes and smell from the premises has been submitted to
and approved in writing by the local planning authority and has been
implemented as approved. All equipment installed as part of the scheme
shall thereafter be operated and maintained in accordance with the
manufacturer's instructions.

13) No development shall take place until full details of measures to provide a
sustainable drainage system and to limit surface water run off have been
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The
buildings shall not be occupied until the approved measures have been
carried out.

14) No development shall take place until details of boundary treatments
have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority. The boundary treatment shall be completed in accordance
with the approved details before the first occupation of the building
hereby permitted to which the boundary treatment relates and thereafter
retained in that form unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local
planning authority.

15) Notwithstanding the details on the planning application form and
approved drawings, no development shall take place until particulars and
samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external
surfaces of the buildings hereby permitted have been submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall
be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
16) All new external works to and works of making good for the retained
fabric of the locally listed building shall be finished to match the adjacent
work with regards to the methods used and to material, colour, texture
and profile.

17) No part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied until the
refuse and recycling facilities shown on drawing Ref PL2.5H have been
fully implemented and made available for use. The facilities shall
thereafter be retained for this purpose at all times.
18) The residential units hereby permitted shall not be occupied until details
of external lighting have been submitted to and approved in writing by
the local planning authority. The external lighting shall be designed,
positioned and angled to prevent any light spillage or glare from affecting
nearby residential properties and shall be implemented in accordance
with the approved details prior to first occupation of any residential unit
unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

19) Other than where shown as roof terraces on the approved drawings,
access to the flat roof parts of the development hereby permitted shall be
for maintenance or emergency purposes only and they shall not be used
as a roof garden, terrace, patio or similar amenity area.
20) No residential development shall take place until details of the cycle
parking facilities shown on the approved drawings, including measures to
protect them from adverse weather, have been submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved details
shall be implemented before the first occupation of the residential units
and retained thereafter in that form.

21) No development shall take place until a Parking Management Strategy
has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority. The measures as approved shall be implemented prior to
occupation of the development hereby permitted and shall be maintained
thereafter unless the local planning authority gives prior written approval
to any variation.

22) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the means
of vehicular access has been constructed in accordance with the approved
plans.

23) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the
existing crossover to Central Road has been removed by raising the kerb
and reinstating the footway.

24) The residential units hereby permitted shall be constructed to Lifetime
Homes Standards.

25) The commercial uses hereby permitted shall not take place other than
between the hours of 07.00 to 23.00 on any day.

26) No deliveries, loading, unloading or other servicing activities associated
with the commercial units hereby permitted shall take place before 07.00
hours and after 19.00 hours Monday to Saturday or before 09.00 hours
and after 17.00 hours on Sundays or Public Holidays.

27) The residential units hereby permitted shall not be occupied until an
electric vehicle charging point has been provided at the site.

28) The residential units hereby permitted shall achieve Level 4 of the Code
for Sustainable Homes. No dwelling shall be occupied until a final Code
Certificate has been issued for it certifying that Code Level 4 has been
achieved and this has been acknowledged in writing by the local planning
authority.

29) No development shall take place until details of how the commercial
floorspace will achieve a high standard of sustainability including the
equivalent BREEAM rating of not less than ‘Very Good’ have been
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
Development shall take place in accordance with the approved details.

30) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning
(General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and
re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no extension,
enlargement or other alteration shall be constructed to the dwelling
houses hereby permitted.

31) The cash machine (ATM) shall not be installed until details of any security
measures such as anti ram bollards have been submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. The measures shall
include a ‘privacy box’ measuring 1.2m by 1.2m marked by yellow crosshatching
in front of the ATM. The approved measures shall be in place
prior to the ATM coming into use and shall thereafter be retained in that
form.


APPEARANCES

FOR THE APPELLANTS:
Des Dunlop MRTPI Principal, D2 Planning Ltd
Jason Russell Dip Arch Tech (NZQA) Head of Design Team, Reef Estates Ltd
Rupert Warren QC Landmark Chambers
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Jonathan Lewis Development Control Team Leader, London
Borough of Merton
Tony Ryan Development Control Case Officer, London
Borough of Merton
INTERESTED PERSONS:
Dale Ingram MSc Heritage
Conservation
Director, ConservationWorks UK Ltd on
behalf of CAMRA
David Smith St Helier Pub Group and local resident
Henry Basing St Helier Pub Group and local resident
Dennis Pearce Councillor, London Borough of Merton and
local resident
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AT THE HEARING
1 Unilateral undertaking dated 24 July 2012
2 Planning Drawings Pack, submitted by the appellants
3 List of plans and documents
4 Unitary Development Plan Policy BE.18 and supporting text
5 3 plans showing locations of public houses in relation to the appeal property,
submitted by the St Helier Pub Group
6 Explanation of the justification for the sustainable transport contribution in
the unilateral undertaking, submitted by the Council
7 Explanation of the calculations of the financial contributions towards
education, sustainable transport and open space included in the unilateral
undertaking, submitted by the Council
8 Details of the appellants’ calculation of the financial contributions included in
the unilateral undertaking

Wednesday 8 August 2012

What happened at the Morden Tavern Planning Application Appeal Hearing on 1/8/12


What happened at the Appeal Hearing


The public hearing took place in the main Council chamber. The Campaign was represented by three members of the committee and the developer by a specialist property lawyer and a high-flying QC.

Around 50 residents along with all three St Helier ward councillors attended the hearing which, given it was a working day we were very pleased with. The Council raised concerns about access to the property for the site visit to take place later that day and the SHPG were able to rely on an assurance from the squatters who are resident in the Morden Tavern that the site visit would not be opposed.

The first session focused on the appearance of the proposed development. The council officers made most of the points to refuse planning permission with SHPG also making comments on the size of the proposed development not fitting other properties in Blanchland and Abbotsbury Road and the loss of the amenity space. Reef argued that the gardens were overgrown and that there was a park nearby.

Councillor Dennis Pearce made various points concerning the loss of the facility of the pub and the size of the development. His submission added a lot of weight to the arguments to dismiss the planning application.

The second session looked at the Heritage implications on the locally listed Morden Tavern. Dale Ingram from CAMRA, a specialist in inter-war public houses like the Tavern gave a detailed and robust analysis of how the development would cause permanent long term damage to the setting and value of this historic asset.

After lunch the SHPG led the discussion on the Council’s pub protection policies (L15 and L16) - the developer and council officers continued to deny there was any interest from the pub sector in taking over the Morden Tavern. We pointed towards an admission from the Estate Agent who dealt with the sale of the Leasehold, obtained by Siobhan McDonagh MP, that they had received bids from the pub sector but these were not the highest bids. We showed that the pub had never gone out of business in its history and was a viable entity.

The SHPG also produced maps to show how few pubs there are in the St. Helier area and how many residents would now be a mile to their nearest pub. Reef’s lawyers observed that the exercise would do them good!

The Appeal Hearing was adjourned to the Morden Tavern for the site visit at 5pm.

The SHPG felt that the Hearing was fair and that the majority of the arguments for and against the development were given a chance to be heard, something which has not happened we believe before. 

What happens next:


The usual period for decisions to be issued is about 7 weeks, but recently they have been issued as soon as four weeks from the hearing. If the appeal is upheld, construction will proceed and the Tavern will be lost. If it is upheld, it does not mean that the Tavern will be re-opened, but it will be a major step forward. Whatever the result, we will keep you informed.

We thank all those who have supported the campaign and dearly hope to see you in a refurbished Tavern in the not-too-distant future. 

Saturday 28 July 2012

July 2012 newsletter


July 2012 Newsletter

The St Helier Pub Group

(Formerly The Campaign for the Morden Tavern)

Public Hearing - Wednesday 1st August
Morden Civic Centre
Starting at 9.30am

HELP US SAVE YOUR PUB


  • The St Helier Pub Group are appealing to all residents who are able to visit the hearing on the 1st August to show they care about our historic asset.
  • This is your opportunity to speak to and/or listen if you wish to an independent inspector who will decide the fate of the Morden Tavern.
  • The developer Reef Estates wants to build shops and flats on the Public House forever removing the chance of St Helier Estate having a community hub.
  • The St Helier Pub Group intend to open the pub as a cooperative owned public house run by the community for the community. 



Let’s show the Planning Inspector that the Council and the developers they can no longer assume they can build whatever they like on our estate without first listening to us, the community of St Helier.

You can drop in at the Civic Centre for the hearing for as long as you like to show your support during the day.

Can you prove the strength of feeling in St Helier by making a visit to the hearing on Wednesday 1st August?

If you wish to speak you must arrive in the morning to register, before the hearing starts.


A long hard Campaign

The St Helier community has been fighting to save its community asset The Morden Tavern from this threat for two years. The Estate has become famous across South London for its battle against this project and the level of community support it has enjoyed.

The council and the developer never expected this to happen, they underestimated the commitment and resolve of the St Helier community.

This will be the best chance we have to forever protect this site from future development if the inspector decides to reject the planning application by Reef Estates. The rejection would protect the garden from being built on and make the site very unattractive to any other developers making any alterations difficult.


What is a Public Hearing?

Simply put the independent planning inspector who is appointed by the Department of Communities and Local Government will sit and listen to various presentations from all sides in the case.

There are time limits for each group, some for example the developer get longer and ‘third’ parties like the Campaign Group will get five minutes.

However the inspector has to also read any written submissions. The Campaign group along with The Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) have submitted planning arguments to reject the application as well as secure a decision to protect the site from future development threats.

The inspector will be looking to see the strength of public support on this case.
This is why we are asking for people to find some time to either spend the day or make a visit to the hearing.

When will we get a decision?

It usually takes around seven to eight weeks after the hearing for the inspector to publish their report and give a final judgement on an application. However as it is the holiday season this may delay the outcome. We will ensure that we publish the findings in a Newsletter as soon after this time as possible as well as via our Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/MordenTavern and Twitter account: http://twitter.com/SaveMordenTav

Cooperative Pub Plans

Thank you to all those who have expressed an interest in investing in a community cooperative to buy and refurbish the Morden tavern before re-opening it as a new pub and community centreShares will be £250 each and groups can buy a single share between them. 

Until the planning application is killed off, plans remain on hold, but we are continuing to work on them behind the scenes. If you are interested in investing or just have ideas for the pub and community centre, let us know at the email address below or on our Facebook site: http://www.facebook.com/MordenTavern

What happened to my objection letter?

1300 printed letters of objection were submitted by St Helier residents through the Campaign Group. We do not know how many additional objections were submitted online or independently.

Every submission strengthens the case for the inspector to reject this application. It also sends a strong message to Merton Council that the St Helier Community wants its asset returned.

The Campaign Committee are:
David Smith (Chair), Dale Ingram, Nick Brickell, Alfred Spiteri, Henry Basing, and Harry Macdonald.

tavern.development@virginmedia.com

THIS PROPERTY IS OWNED BY ALL OF US




Monday 9 July 2012

Dale Ingram's email to the Planning Inspectorate - 9/7/12


From: Dale Ingram
Sent: 09 July 2012 15:05
To: Alan Bailey Planning Inspectorate Morden Tavern


Alan Bailey, Case Officer
The Planning Inspectorate
Room 3/13
Temple Quay House
2 The Square
Temple Quay
Bristol BS1 6PN



Planning Reference: APP/T5720/A/12/2172973
Morden Tavern 144 Central Road St. Helier Morden SM4 5RL
Local Authority: London Borough of Merton (LBM)
Planning application number 11/P0815

Dear Mr Bailey

Firstly, I should like to speak at the Appeal Hearing on August 1st.

Secondly, I should like to be kept informed in writing of any acitivity relating to the appeal, and any decision made.


Further to my representations previously made, all of which substantively remain, I would add only that there are several key planning appeal decisions, 2 of them very recently published and taking into account the newly adopted National Planning Policy Framework, which are very much germane to the Morden Tavern case.

These include:

1. Appeal A: APP/E3525/A/08/2088956   Planning Application   and   Appeal B: APP/E3525/E/08/2088996    LBC Application
Plumbers Arms, Wickham Street, Newmarket CB8 8PB          Dated 26th May 2009                Appeals Dismissed

 
2. Appeal A: APP/L5240/E/10/2136134   Planning Application   and   Appeal B: APP/L5240/A/10/2135399     LBC Application
Rose and Crown, 124 Church Street, Croydon CR0 1RF          Dated 29th December 2012        Appeals Dismissed
 
Grounds for dismissing the appeals included the loss of the public house use and the detrimental effect of both the loss of the public house use and the proposed scheme failing to preserve or enhance the affected heritage assets.
 

3. http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?caseid=2167572&coid=2163460
The Unicorn, 15 High Street, Cherry Hinton Cambridge CB1 9HX               Dated: 19 June 2012              Appeal Dismissed

and

4. http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?caseid=2168726&coid=2101906
Victoria Hotel, Church Road, Lytham St Annes, Lancashire FY8 3NE           Dated 20 June 2012               Appeal Dismissed


A. In the The Unicorn case, several key issues seem particularly relevant to the Morden Tavern appeal.

1. (Points 4, 5, 6, 10) The public house use appears to have been extinguished to enable the grant of planning consent. Email correspondence released under a FoI request reveals that the Morden Tavern was closed in August 2010 in order to facilitate the planning application. Closure of premises so that applicants can argue that the premises are no longer in the beneficial use protected by planning policy is becoming endemic. Please note the use by Merton Council of the expression 'Former Morden Tavern' in its reports to committee.

2. (Points 8, 9, 11) Marketing of the premises and its potential for playing its part as a local community facility. CAMRA has long highlighted the potential for premises, once released from the onerous burden of 'The Tie', to flourish as Free Houses. This is because they are able to operate a much sounder business model when the rents are calculated fairly and supplies of beer and other commodities acquired direct from breweries without the requirement to pay exorbitant 'tied' prices, especially for draught beer. The Morden Tavern was not marketed freely in the way required by Merton Council's LDF Policy L16, and so its potential to contribute effectively as a community asset (amenity) in its present public house use has not been tested.

3. (Point 12) The Morden Tavern is the last of three historic 'Refreshment Houses' specifically designed to serve the social and recreational needs of the St Helier Estate. Both of the other two have in recent times been demolshed and replaced with housing, admittedly in one case under extraordinary circumstances. There are few examples of alternate public house provision, and none within any reasonable* distance which provide equivalent provision, such as the need for function rooms and external space for recreation and relaxation.

* Reasonable: Southwark Council requires replacement facilities of equivalent function within 800 metres of the subject site. Merton's revised Public Houses Protection Policy, currently in consultation, will require the same.


B. In the Victoria Hotel case, the following points are germane:

1. (Points 2-7 incl)  Fylde Borough Council chose to refuse consent on the basis of the provisions in the newly-enacted Localism Act 2011 and Assets of Community Value Policy Statement DCLG 2011 which protect 'Assets of Community Value'. The level of local support for the Campaign to protect the Morden Tavern which, after lobbying, has enabled the Appeal to be determined under the Hearing Procedure (for which, many thanks) shows that it too is valued by residents. The 'Localism' point was made by the writer at the Planning Committee meeting considering the Morden Tavern application on January 12th.

2. Heritage. The Victoria Hotel, unlike the Morden Tavern, was not identified as having heritage value either by Fylde BC or by the appellants. The Morden Tavern was added to Merton's Local List in December 2010 in direct response to research provided to them by the author in the autumn of that year and made in response to the first planning application in 2010 which was withdrawn. In short, it is the only identified work in the South of England by Sir Harry Redfern FRIBA, whose work in designing local authority 'refreshment houses' for the Carlisle Experiment led directly to his knighthood. The significance of this heritage asset, both for its communcal value and its architectural merit is therefore beyond doubt. This factor was properly taken into account by the Planning Committee in January, which considered that the impact of the porposals on the Local List building and its designed and typical garden setting were unacceptable. The Appellants planning application was deficient in presenting the proper significance of the building and failed adequately to explain the impact of their proposals on that significance, most notably in the loss of the public house use (communal significance), alterations to the fabric (architectural significance) and to its setting.

3. (Points 63, 64, 68, 70, 71, 80, 82). Community Value: there can be no doubt that the Morden Tavern, like the Victoria Hotel, can and in some respects still does, have considerable value in this regard. It can, if properly addressed, make a positive contribution to a sustainable community, its sheer size offering a wide variety of potential co-existent uses, made the more viable by the loss of the other two traditional refreshment houses and the lack of suitable alternative provision within easy walking distance. Point 68 of this decision highlights the parallel nature of social deprivation both in the Central Ward of Lytham St Annes and St Helier Ward in Merton. In the latter instance, the considerable development at the Willows very near by in Central Road, exacerbates the loss of a social centre. Point 82 of this decision highlights a not-dissimilar alternative provision of social amenities and the content of this point pretty accurately reflects the position with regard to the Morden Tavern.

4. (Points 65, 66, 67). The Decision covers relevant provisions under the National Planning Policy Framework, which were rehearsed in the previous submission made to you on May 31st.

5. (Points 90- 104, 105) Viability. As above (The Unicorn case) the potential for public houses to be run profitably when released from the economic hadcuffs of 'the tie' has many examples. Nearby in Carshalton, The Hope (a notable CAMRA recognised real ale venue) was acquired as a going concern by a group of local residents and is something of a 'poster child' for the way in which community pubs can be turned around when converted to 'Free Houses'. That the Morden Tavern was not marketed widely as a pub for 'a period of usually not less than two years' [Merton Council's own Policy L16] is clear from the application, and no evidence that it was so marketed was forthcoming from any party. No reasons were given for justifying a departure from the policy, except, it would seem, Merton Council's own potential windfall from the sale of the site for development purposes. The premises have been allowed, through a process of deliberate neglect, to fall into a considerable state of disrepair, contrary to Para 130 of the Framework. While it is understood that if the development had been consented and works commenced on site in a timely way, the damage from environmental factors (weathering) and from deliberate acts of vandalism (theft of lead from the roof) could have been addressed at an early stage,  given the considerable local opposition to the proposals, it should have been expected that the developer would have addressed these concerns in a more timely fashion. Repair caused by this neglect will constitute a considerable cost burden on any putative new owner. It cannot be overlooked that it its possible that this was a deliberate policy on the part of the leaseholder, the Appellants, Reef Estates. Moreover, the lease under which Reef Estates hold the premises require regular and stipulated forms of maintenance. It would appear that the freeholder, Merton Council, have not enforced the provisions of the lease in this regard, even though they have recognised the site as of heritage value. (Point 105) There is an alternative proposal to create a commercially viable vehicle to preserve the Morden Tavern in its public house use, and in so doing, protect the heritage asset in the longer term as a viable community asset.

6. (Points 107-127) Community take over. In common with the Hope at Carshalton, there are a number of other communities which have taken the bold step of acquiring leaseholds of threatened pubs and running them 'by the community, for the community'. Five key examples in Cumbria, Gwynedd, Salford and Yorkshire are given here:http://www.plunkett.co.uk/whatwedo/currentcooperativepubs.cfm. The Morden Tavern is no exception. The Campaign for Morden Tavern reformulated itself in January after the planning application failed into 'The St Helier Pub Group' whose stated intention is to firstly acquire the leasehold, and then in time the freehold. Plans are progressing with a business plan and many offers of financial support, most notably from shareholders in the nearby Hope at Carshalton. It is noted in the decision for the Victoria that government has created several routes to the successful re-formulation of community pubs, and these are backed up by initiatives such at the Prince of Wales' sponsored Pub Is the Hub, and the Plunkett Foundation for cooperative ventures. Like the Victoria, however, approaches to the present leaseholder by the SHPG and other potential buyers who have expressed an interest in a brew-pub and employee cooperative operations have met with no reply.

7. Housing provision. The appellants have sought to justify their proposal on the basis of an unmet demand for residential accommodation. The development of the Willows site nearby in Central Road in 2009-11 caused local furore and continues to rankle with residents, who do not wish to sacrifice a site which is both historically and culturally important to them, but which will also increase problems with parking, servicing for the retail units and place additional pressure on infrastructure, such as drains, whose 1930s origins are unable already to deal with heavy rainfall and the additional burdens placedon them by this development. The principle of a presumption in favour of sustainable development in now reasonably well accepted, if not entirely understood even by built environment professionals, and will not be until Guidance on the application of the Framework is released by DCLG. Sustainable development requires that all aspects of a sites suitabity for the mooted proposal be taken into account and a proper balance taken of the competing elements. The application does not, in the writer's view, constitute sustainable development.

The issue at stake here is, to all intents and purposes, practically identical to that in Lytham St Annes at the Victoria:

1. It is a valued and wanted community facility in an area of identified social deprivation whose retention is and should be defended under the Framework and the Localism Act.
2. It is a heritage asset of local, and arguably, in this instance, national significance, greatly appreciated by local residents, many of whom have lived in the area for many years and who have been the inspiration for the Campaign.
3. The proposals fail to preserve or enhance the heritage asset, and fatally and permanently compromise the heritage asset's cultural, communal, aethestic and architectural values and significance, and its setting.
4. In the view of the writer, there is no overwhelming justification for the replacement of a public house and compromise of the fabric and setting of a heritage asset with housing and retail uses which ought to lead to the grant of consent under a balancing argument.

Please dismiss the appeal.


Yours sincerely


Dale Ingram MSc
Director
ConservationWorks UK Ltd.

CAMRA Positions:

Pubs Preservation Officer SW London Branch
London Pubs Group
National Planning Advisory Group
National Pubs Heritage Group