The Houses That Jack Built

If you've tried to download a copy of the plans from the SBC website you may have  been disappointed.  We were online for ages and weren't able to get a sight of them.  However, one of the kindly women in the Planning Dept. has sent us a copy.  How's that for community relations?

As you know, we aren't allowed to use anything from the SBC website on the Blog but if you want a copy click on the link on the right-hand side to email us and we'll send you a copy.

To be going on with, try this one.  There are seven properties altogether, five running along the rear embankment and two at the front facing towards Stone Road at an angle.  The proposal is for 5x5 bedroomed houses and 2x3-bedroomed houses.  Seven properties altogether.  More concrete.  More cars. More traffic.

Given the comments made at the Planning Committee meeting in May, we had thought that the owners would come back with a scheme for a reduced number of properties but no.  They seem to have completely ignored the views of the Parish Council, County Councillor, Member of Parliament and, oh yes, us, the local residents.  Take a look for yourselves.  We've updated the link on the right-hand side of the web page.

We think there is very little difference between this application and the last one in terms of the mass of new concrete that will be introduced, the impact on the area and the squeezing of a quart into a pint pot.  What do you think?

Here We Go Again

And we're off!  The owners have submitted a new application, ref 10/14268/FUL.  We are currently perusing the info at the moment.  What we can tell you is that the intention is to build 7 houses of varying sizes.  At first glance, we can't see how this differs very much from the last application but we have yet to review all the documentation.

If you intend to look up the application on the SBC website, be aware that they have introduced changes to the software and it doesn't work in quite the same way as it did.

Watch this space for more info.

It's All Gone (Very) Quite Over There

No sign of any activity on the pub site at the moment.  All quiet on the Western front, you might say.  Not so much as the flap of a bat's wing or the croak of a great crested newt, in fact. 

There again, maybe this is just the lull before the storm.  The original planning application was submitted around this time last year so maybe they are just waiting for everyone to be on hols again before sneaking in another!

There was a construction lorry over on the car park this week which had us worried for a moment or two.  Further investigation revealed, however, that it had simply broken down.  Phew!

Or maybe the owners are now carrying out their threat about the pub entering a period of decay and decline...


Anyway, be vigilant.

Many Hands Make Light Work

Activity continues unabashed at the George & Dragon with all manner of comings and goings this week.   The Blog has learned that, on Tuesday, there were no less than eighteen people in attendance, including the owners, trying to take photographs of various aspects of the site.  No doubt this is a prelude to another application.

As we said previously, be vigilant.

Here We Go Again?

Residents of Stone Road may have noticed surveyors at work on the pub site this morning.  It seems that the owners are having work carried out to survey road access and visibility from the entrance to the pub up and down Stone Road.  And of course, earlier this week we noticed various comings and goings and the sight of smoke coming from one of the chimneys.

Is this the start of another planning application?  Only time will tell!

Mind you, this does strike us as being rather odd.  Presumably the owners had this kind of survey undertaken prior to submitting the original application so why another one?  Makes you wonder ...

Be vigilant.

Smoke

Strange goings on at the moment, folks.  There is smoke and a smell of burning coming from one of the chimneys at the front of the pub.  There is a couple of cars parked outside, presumably the instigators of what ever is  going on inside.  What a way to spend a Bank Holiday.

Pause for Thought

Now that the euphoria and celebrations have died down a bit it's worth considering what happens next.  In fact, one or two contributors have already started to do that (click on the links to see comments in earlier posts).  We can only speculate about what happens now.  One thing for sure is that it cannot be the end of the matter.  We did think of using this post to explore the various options but would hate to give anyone ideas they hadn't already thought of, if you see what we mean.

Rest assured, we'll keep you posted about any developments that come our way.

Some More News

According to the latest posting on the SBC planning portal, the application was refused on the following grounds:

• Impact on street scene
• Breach of space about dwellings guidance
• Design of development

Good, eh?  More news when we get it.

We've Won!!!!!

News is still trickling through but are delighted to tell you that the planning application has just been rejected by the SBC planning committee.  It seems that common sense has finally prevailed with most committee members voting against the application.  Those that didn't, abstained.

Unfortunately, we were not able to be there because of a long-standing business commitment out of the area.  We have just heard the news from Friends of the Blog who are still in the committee room and celebrating their well earned and deserved success with other residents and politicians who united to oppose these terrible plans.

More news when we get it but for now, well done residents of Rough Close for going the extra mile!

It's On

We learned earlier this week that the planning application is be heard by the Borough Planning Committee next Wednesday 19th May.  It is disappointing to note that the Planning Department has recommended that the application be allowed.

Basically, in their report they disagree with the thrust of our objections but it seems to us that this is a material disagreement about the facts eg. we think the development is out of keeping with the local area and its character.  They think it isn't.  Staffordshire Wildlife Trust thinks the owners' survey was inadequate given that it was carried out during dormant periods for bats and nesting birds.  SBC thinks that it was.

And so it goes on.  There is clearly a difference of opinion when it comes to the facts.  Interestingly, the Government's Planning Policy Statement, PPS1, states that local authorities should involve communities in all development proposals.  We wonder why SBC has not taken any notice of this especially when we have differing views.  Why have they not bothered to engage the community in dialogue over the issue when they have clearly been recommended to do so? 

Looking at it another way, they are completely ignoring the overwhelming body of local opinion in favour of people who don't live in the area and have simply purchased a property with a view to redeveloping it to make a quick profit.

Residents get a paltry three minutes to present a case to the Planning Committee.  We are currently preparing our statement.  Borough Councillor Richard Oldfield is supporting us and gets to speak for five minutes.  The slightly better news is that anyone can attend and we would urge everyone who can make it to turn up and demonstrate the continued strength of feeling against the proposals.  The arrangements are:

Time: 6.30pm
Venue:  The Craddock Room (1st Floor), Civic Centre, Riverside, Stafford

Here's a link to a map showing the location:   Stafford Borough Council Offices

Bill on a Flying Visit

Surprise of all surprises today when no lesser a person than Bill Cash came knocking on our door.  He called in to assure the residents of Rough Close of his continued support for our opposition to the planning proposals.

We had been hoping to arrange a meeting with a group of locals but unfortunately Bill couldn't fit it into his schedule.  Something to do with next Thursday ...

No matter.  It's the support that counts.  He is strongly opposed to situations like the one in which we find ourselves where owners demolish pubs of long standing to develop houses for their own financial gain and to the detriment of the local community.  He even talked about the possibilities of introducing legal aid for people affected in this way.  A bit late for us, though.

Anyway, keep those letters rolling in to SBC.

Now is the Time ...

Well, it looks like the owners are responding to our objections by getting their mates to send in letters in favour of the planning proposals!!  Just one liners stating that they are in favour.  Nothing more than that and nothing approaching a reasoned argument.  Whether these empty letters will cut any ice with the planning committee remains to be seen.  And of course, none of them is from Rough Close let alone the area near to the pub.  There again, will the planning committee take any notice of that?

Our advice, therefore, is to continue writing in, even though the deadline has passed.

At Last - Some Answers!

We've just finished a very long telephone conversation with Alan Lynch, Stafford Borough Council's case officer for the planning application.  Here's what he had to say in response to our questions.

1.  Submission to Planning Committee
Our question was why the whole process was taking so long and why, given the expiry date had been 23rd February, the application had not yet gone to committee.  AL said that the application involved "complex planning issues" such as the digging out of the bank which affected the trees and, as a result, the application was taking longer than usual to process.


2.  The Expiry Date
We then asked why this significant amendment had been allowed beyond the previous expiry date of 23rd February. AL's response was that the Planning Dept. endeavour to make proposals as acceptable as possible with a view to getting them through the process. 

We asked how many amendments could be allowed.  The reply was that there was no limit unless it became clear that the applicants were not taking any notice of their requirements.  We suggested that the whole thing could take a long time.  AL agreed.

We made the point that  the whole process was, in fact, working in favour of the applicants and against residents.  AL's response was to restate that the department's position was "to endeavour" to get the application through.  We suggested that he was agreeing with us but using a different form of words.

3.  Design Statement
Many residents have pointed out that the design statement and plans do not correspond.  The design statement describes a development of 8 x 5-bedroomed houses, the plans show an estate of 7 x 4-bedroomed houses.

We have to say we were shocked by Mr Lynch's response to this point.  He said that this was normal practice and that the applicants would not be expected to resubmit a design statement unless there were a major alteration such as the addition of another access point.  We remain horrified.  How can organisations operate successfully when there are conflicting requirements?  In our experience where there are conflicts or misalignments in statements of requirements there will always be an opportunity for people to exploit them to their advantage.

4.  State of the Building
We brought to Mr Lynch's attention, the fact that the building was entering the state of "decay and decline" so prophetically forecast by the owners in their design statement.  He told us that they were under no obligation to maintain the building but they were required to ensure that it remained in a safe condition.  Whereas this is not something the Planning Dept. would be interested in he did advise us of the appropriate department to contact.

5.  Planning Committee Meeting
Readers may have heard rumours that the application is to be heard at a committee meeting sometime in May.  We asked about this.  Mr Lynch's response was that a date had not been set.  The next meeting is scheduled for 19th May and the agenda for it will be set on 13th May.  Anything you may have heard to the contrary is clearly incorrect.

6.  Previous Letters
Mr Lynch advised that all previous letters relating to this application will be taken into consideration.  He has yet to read them all.  We signed off by wishing him "happy reading".

There you have it folks.  The BC is endeavouring to make sure the application is acceptable in terms of planning requirements.  It is down to us to make sure that they are aware of our objections on planning grounds.

Keep on Writing

Some news.  We still haven't heard from the BC in answer to our queries but what we can report is that any letters sent in so far will still count.  We got this from Borough Councillor Richard Oldfield.

However, it looks like the owners are responding with tactics of their own and are getting their pals to write in approving the revisions.  We would urge all those objecting to the plans write in and make it very plain to the planning department that the residents of Rough Close continue to oppose these proposals vehemently.

More when we get it.

The Waiting Game

It should come as no surprise that we have not received a reply to the set of queries we emailed to Stafford BC last week-end given their track record so far.  It seems to be par for the course.  We chased them up this morning and again this afternoon by telephone but we are still none the wiser as to the implications of this amendment.  We have also contacted our three Borough Councillors.

Keep watching this space folks!

By the way, did you get your Council Tax bill recently?  So did we.  Do you think we get good value for money?

Another "Revision"

This will have to be a quickly scrambled post as there are more plans to review!  Yes folks, the owners have submitted yet more revisions.

The new plans allow for seven two-storey four-bedroomed houses seemingly with fewer cars.  At first sight, there is still a lot of concrete and we remain worried about the increase in traffic that will arise.

We don't know yet whether there will be a completely fresh consultation exercise or a continuation of the previous one.  No doubt we'll be getting Stafford Borough Council's standard letter about this and no doubt it won't tell us very much.  We'll be sending off our, by now, standard email to find out.

Another thing that has troubled us from the start of the whole sorry saga is that the owners are not required to resubmit a design statement when they change the plans.  All we have to go on is a drawing or two.  As was previously the case, there is no written description of these houses or the surrounding area.  Would you buy a new house simply from looking at a drawing? 

When we know more, we'll let you  know.

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.