Isn't Nature Wonderful?

Following the fracas over the badger incident, Staffordshire Wildlife Trust has now sent in a very comprehensive response to the latest proposals for the pub.  They have once again submitted a holding application based on the following points.

There should be a further survey for bats.  Apparently, the survey commissioned by the owners was  taken when bats would have been hibernating and, it seems, small numbers of bats can be hard to detect.

The survey also reported that no active birds' nests were found.  But of course at that time of year, birds would not have been nesting anyway!


The Trust further recommends that a scoping assessment should be carried out to confirm the presence/ absence of great crested newts.  Triturus cristatus, as it is more formally known, is a protected species and it seems that there may be small ponds in the area where these little creatures might be in residence.

In the event that the application is approved, the following measures should be taken

• Provision of method statements for badgers, bats and nesting birds
• Bird nest boxes/ features should be provided in each house and bat features in at least two
• There should be a detailed landscaping/ planting plan including tree planting

And quite right too.

Surely A Coincidence?

Do you believe in coincidences?  If not, try this one for size.

Regular readers of the Blog will be aware that the owners commissioned a Bat and Badger survey which revealed the existence of several badger setts just beyond the boundary of the pub site. 

Earlier this week, residents of Leadendale Lane were disturbed by curious goings-on to the rear of the pub.  It seems that, shortly after 6am, a man with a number of Jack Russell dogs and a bloodhound were seen heading for the badger setts just beyond the perimeter of the site.  The activity was witnessed by several residents and reported to Staffordshire Wildlife Trust and the police.

Wildlife's crime liasion officer has now visited the site.  The Trust has also informed the consultant who carried out the original survey on behalf of the owners.  We understand that he is planning another visit.  When we know more about what the various parties discover we'll let you know.  In addition, we have brought the issue to the attention of the Borough Council's Biodiversity Officer and presently await his reply.

A coincidence?  Badgers discovered living near to the proposed development works and now the possibility of them being hunted?  You be the judge.

A Miscellany

A quite literally sobering thought came to us this week as we witnessed the owners carting off yet another load of equipment from the pub bound for whatever destination.  The place appears to have been stripped of everything that made it a pub:  the cellar fittings, the toys from the children's playground, the kitchen equipment, even the piping.

The owners are clearly intent in making sure the George & Dragon never functions as a hostelry again.  Quite whether their actions work in their favour remains to be seen.  What will they do if their planning application doesn't succeed?  Do they have the funds to service any loans or mortgages they took out to purchase the pub in the first place?  If they leave it "to go into decline and decay" as they suggest in their planning application, how will this enhance their standing with their bankers and/ or sponsors, not to mention the local authorities?  And, more to the point, what will that do to their initial investment? 

Another issue that has got to us over the past few months concerns the historical status of the pub.  It is at least 175 years old.  We have copies of old photographs, census records and entries in trade directories tracing the establishment back to 1834 at which time it was already a going concern so the odds are that it is much older.  However, according to the Borough Conservationist, the pub is of no historical interest.  And this is the source of our discomfort.  If it is 175 years old does that not mean, ipso facto, that it is of historical interest?

From our point of view, the historical importance of a pub is a function of its social context as much as anything else.  According to the Borough Council's response to Bill Cash's letter on our behalf the pub is not of historical interest because the Borough Conservationist has ruled that it is not.

However, we are not aware of any surveys, investigations, inquiries or any other form of research undertaken by the aforementioned with regard to the George & Dragon.  There was, it seems, a survey undertaken in the "mid 20th century" which concluded that extensions to the main building rendered the building as being of no historical interest.

It is this survey that the Borough Conservationist cites as her reasons for the pub being historically uninteresting.  We are very concerned that an office financed by council tax payers could make such pronouncements without consulting local residents or undertaking some form of research.  To the best of our knowledge, the Borough Conservationist has not pursued this matter locally nor has she been in touch with residents.

Still, we might have got this wrong.  Has anyone approached you about your views on the historical importance of the George & Dragon to Rough Close?  Has the Borough Conservationist been in touch with about your views as to its impending demise?  If so, please let us know.

But what do you think?  By all means leave a comment to share with us but better still, protest to your Borough Councillor or even to the Chief Executive of Stafford Borough Council.


And are we giving in?  Not a chance.

A Thought

As you may know, there are many people in Rough Close who are actively campaigning against the planning application.  One particularly active resident has come up with a number of ideas for saving the pub from oblivion.

One possibility is to run the pub as a social enterprise, something that might have occurred to many of you.  We think the idea has a lot of potential.  However, it is predicated on the owners being prepared to sell.  And of course, that presents a number of problems not least of which is that they have clearly been stripping the place of its assets for some months. Nevertheless, we think it is a sound idea that could be taken forward and is not too dissimilar from a previous suggestion made by Parish Councillor Joy Bennett.

The way this would work is that residents would purchase a share in the pub and be responsible for its ongoing management.  There are numerous examples around the country of where this has been successfully implemented.

We also hear "on the grapevine" of various people who have expressed an interest in buying the place and running it as either a pub or a restaurant.  So far, no serious contenders seem to have materialised and, of course, as we said earlier, all would depend on the owners being prepared to sell and the extent of the asset stripping.

Anyway, if you have any thoughts on the matter or know of anyone who might be interested in taking such a proposal forward do drop us a line or leave a comment.