This popular and historic pub was acquired by its owners in 2009 with a view, initially, to building flats for social housing and then subsequently developing a small housing estate. Local residents opposed these plans from the start.
Planning permission was granted in 2010 after which the site was put up for sale. After many years of inactivity, building work finally started in July 2015. Locally, this was seen as good news. However, the houses have yet to be completed.
The aim of this Blog has been to keep residents informed of current developments and to record the long history of this small community's fight to keep its pub.
Interesting article in tonights Sentinel on the Hollybush at Brown Edge which has had an application to bulldoze it for housing rejected and it has been put on a Local Heritage Register by the Leek Council. Due to "Strong community support and demand for measures that retain the Hollybush". The Developers are annoyed because they say that it has "no inherent architectural or historical value".
ReplyDeleteIt would seem that the Councillors of Leek are somewhat more loyal to their residents than the backstabbers in Stafford.
I recall that we had a similar statement on lack of historical worth from a SBC jobsworth didn`t we ?
It would seem that if we had Leek Council rather than the Stafford cowboys then the old George and Dragon may have survived ?
Remember this when putting a cross on the ballot paper !!
Interesting comment. According to our Borough Council, the G&D was of no historical interest because of the extension built in the 1960's (I think). This despite the fact that the pub can be traced back to 1834 at least and appears on historical maps.
DeleteThe councillors of Leek are to be applauded for their stance.
Re the elections, don't forget that Peter Roycroft was the only member of the Planning Committee to speak against the development proposals.
Clearly a wrong decision for the George and Dragon 1834 building and the community.Those Councillors that voted against the community have alot to answer for.
ReplyDeleteStill no sign of those houses being built either.
Some of us will have received the election communications for SBC today with the request to vote back Cllrs Roycroft and Dodson ?
ReplyDeleteDon't laugh too loudly when you see that their plans include "Fight to restrain housing development by speculative developers"........... I wonder where they were when exactly this occurred with the George and Dragon ?
I see that Cllr Roycroft particularly wants to take positive action to oppose Green belt inappropriate development as well.
Wow ! What a change from their woeful performance on the Rough Close inappropriate development by speculative developers !
Vote for the ? No way !
Let's not be too hasty on this one. As I have written elsewhere, Peter Roycroft was extremely helpful and supportive throughout the whole G&D saga. I got to know Peter very well and in my view his performance was far from "woeful". He spoke out against the proposals at Planning Committee stage (our other Borough Councillor did not and has since stood down) and was instrumental in getting the site properly fenced off after the pub was demolished.
ReplyDeleteMichael Dodson did not become a councillor until after the G&D planning application had been approved. I suggest it's unfair to judge someone on something they had no involvement with!!!
Well that's one way of looking at it.Three local Tory Councillors in a Tory council with an overwhelming mandate from the people they purport to represent......in a system where decisions are taken on party lines.And what did they achieve for Rough Close ? Abject total failure seems like a woeful performance to most people I suggest.
ReplyDeleteWater under the bridge, perhaps, now the results are in. However, as evidence of our elected representatives performance, I have a very large file of correspondence, emails and meeting minutes documenting the contribution they have made to the area. I'd be interested to know what hard evidence you have to support your view.
DeleteIt also has to be borne in mind that no matter how hard these people work, the final say on planning applications (eg. George & Dragon) rests with the Planning Committee who are advised by the Planning Department. Along with our Borough Councillors, I've attended their meetings and I can tell you the latter have more influence on what happens than the former. Local party politics have nothing to do with it.
Then if council employees (the planning dept) have more influence than the elected Councillors who supposedly carry the democratic mandate to represent the electorates views and interests just what is the point of the election process.It would appear to be futile.The facts are not in debate.Three Tory Councillors in a Tory council with a massive mandate from Rough Close on the G&D failed to deliver the decision that their electorate expected them to.Dress it up howsoever you wish failure is failure.
ReplyDeleteAn earlier mail asked what hard evidence existed on the Fulford councillors failings. Could the gap where the George and Dragon was for 175 years be considered hard evidence ?
ReplyDeleteThe original point was about the performance of our elected representatives and that's what I asked for evidence of. Evidently all our combined efforts failed (!) but that does not reflect the amount of hard work they (and we) put in opposing the development which delayed its demolition for a number of years.
ReplyDeleteWhat I will agree on is the apparent lack of democracy surrounding the planning process. If the planning dept and the planning committee are in favour of a proposal there is not a great deal anyone can do about it be they local residents, MP's or Borough Councillors (regardless of whichever political party they represent).