Travellers' Call up for auction on 26 February 2015

[simonesaffron]

Dave, I think Marpleexile makes a good point and you're just refusing to see it.

I can't speak for Councillors any more than you can and as I've said I wasn't at that meeting.     

[marpleexile]

Obviously there are not enough customers at the Travellers' Call, and that's why Robbie's have put it on the market.  But that doesn't mean there are people who actively want the pub to to close, which is what marplexile implies when he writes this: 

I'm not saying that the community actively want it to close, but equally they would appear to not actively want a pub in that location either. There was once two opposite each other, but now it turns out there there is not even enough business for one pub at that location.

[Dave]

Obviously there are not enough customers at the Travellers' Call, and that's why Robbie's have put it on the market.  But that doesn't mean there are people who actively want the pub to to close, which is what marplexile implies when he writes this: 

I would argue that Alexander and Candler are merely reflecting the views of the majority of the community.

Robbie's are not able to make it a viable business, but if someone else thinks they can come along and make it pay, councillors should not be trying to stop them.  There are many examples of community groups who have rallied round to save their local pub, and let's hope this becomes another one. 

[simonesaffron]

Absolutely anything you can think of that suits the building. Nursery, Doctors Surgery, Shop... you name it.

The building across the road from it was a pub once, 'The Lane Ends,' now its a private house.

[amazon]

Dave,

If the community group resurrect it as a pub then that's great but the odds are probably stacked against them. They've got six weeks to come up with a business plan then another six months to raise the finance. By the time the Council and an odd lawyer has poked about in it, that could be twelve months. If they fail then all that has happened is that everything to do with that building has been blocked for a year, and it's remained empty. What good is that to the community, an empty building in a state of stagnation.

It wouldn't surprise me if the Councillors had set it as a test case for future applications.

Thought Robinsons were blocking it from opening as another pub .so what can it be used for rather than a pub .if it's bought by others .

[simonesaffron]

Dave,

If the community group resurrect it as a pub then that's great but the odds are probably stacked against them. They've got six weeks to come up with a business plan then another six months to raise the finance. By the time the Council and an odd lawyer has poked about in it, that could be twelve months. If they fail then all that has happened is that everything to do with that building has been blocked for a year, and it's remained empty. What good is that to the community, an empty building in a state of stagnation.

It wouldn't surprise me if the Councillors had set it as a test case for future applications.

[marpleexile]

However, Mark's point, as I understand it, was against the covenant on the sale that it should not continue as a pub, whether or not it is declared to be a 'community asset'.   After all, if it were not to be declared a community asset, someone might still want to buy it and re-open as a pub.  But Robbie's are trying to prevent that from occurring.

It's a perfectly reasonable business decision. As already noted, Pubs (as a whole) are losing market share. Therefore it's not unreasonable for Robbies to want to protect their other establishments by limiting competition. The Pub business is a dwindling, zero-sum game, if someone else did take over the Traveler's Call, that business would almost certainly come from other pubs in the area - most of which are Robbies pubs.

Hmm - OK. So Cllrs Alexander and Candler weighed up all the factors and concluded that it was in the best interests of the community for the pub to be allowed to close. You do wonder how they arrived at that conclusion.......

Well in a sense the community has already spoken, they've voted with their feet, and they've decided that they don't need the Traveller's Call - Robbies probably wouldn't be selling it if it had been a thriving business. So I would argue that Alexander and Candler are merely reflecting the views of the majority of the community.

[Dave]

Hmm - OK. So Cllrs Alexander and Candler weighed up all the factors and concluded that it was in the best interests of the community for the pub to be allowed to close. You do wonder how they arrived at that conclusion.......

[simonesaffron]

I also agree with Mark's point about the covenant. I also think that if a group in the community think they could save it, then they should have the opportunity to do so.

I wasn't there so I don't know the detail of the debate.

Quite so.  From Robinson's narrow point of view, they don't want someone to come along and make a success of the Traveller's because  that could take business away from other Robbie's pubs nearby, such as the Windsor Castle and the Hare and Hounds (Mill Brow). 

But then it's a commercial business, who we should not expect to have any sense of responsibility to the local community.   Councillors, on the other hand...........

 

Perhaps Dave, the Councillors were weighing all the factors up, which is what they are supposed to do and as such were discharging their responsibility to the community, hence the split vote. They are allowed to disagree with each other, you wouldn't deny them that, would you?



 

[Dave]

it is also right that somebody who owns a business should be able to sell it, without the hindrance of a nine month delay.   

I agree with that.  But I don't think anyone was suggesting that Robbie's were wrong to oppose the 'community asset' application, and I agree that somebody who owns a business should be able to sell it, without the hindrance of a nine month delay.

However, Mark's point, as I understand it, was against the covenant on the sale that it should not continue as a pub, whether or not it is declared to be a 'community asset'.   After all, if it were not to be declared a community asset, someone might still want to buy it and re-open as a pub.  But Robbie's are trying to prevent that from occurring.

[admin]

If it was a 3 to 2 vote then it must have been a Chairs casting vote that decided. It would be interesting to  know who voted what. You sound like you were there admin, perhaps you could tell us a little more.

Yes I was there for another item but watched this with interest.

Cllr Bispham and Cllr Abell voted for, Cllr Alexander and Cllr Candler against, and Cllr Dowling had the casting vote for. Cllr Ingham left the room for most of the discussion and the vote because she has a family member who works for Robbies.

[simonesaffron]

Apologies for incomplete post, technical ineptitude, please remove admin.

What I meant to say was: If it was a 3 to 2 vote then it must have been a Chairs casting vote that decided. It would be interesting to  know who voted what. You sound like you were there admin, perhaps you could tell us a little more.

Dave, The Community Asset Register is a bit more complicated than you are suggesting. Almost anything can be defined as a community asset, even your house in a given set of circumstances. It's right that some buildings/places should be defined as such but it is also right that somebody who owns a business should be able to sell it, without the hindrance of a nine month delay.     

[amazon]

The officer presenting the application didn't put it across in a very supportive way and Robinson's letter read out by their rep made a strong case that the pub was not commercially viable. It was going down the pan altogether until the lady got up and spoke up for it. Even though she wasn't prepared because she didn't know she could speak she did just enough to swing it.

What I find most disappointing is the way that Robinson's come across to me in this. They seem to be saying that they can no longer make a success of this pub in this location, that it is not commercially viable, yet they wish to sell it with a covenant on it that means that nobody else can even try. If they are right and the pub is doomed why do they feel the need to protect themselves in this way?  It makes them seem like they are frightened of fair competition and determined to maintain their stranglehold on the local pub scene regardless of what the community wants.

They have done this with the George at Compstall .theres someone in looking after it .but it can't open as another pub .the carvery people wanted it but Robbie's wanted to impose there conditions on it.so they told them to get stuffed .

[Dave]

Quite so.  From Robinson's narrow point of view, they don't want someone to come along and make a success of the Traveller's because  that could take business away from other Robbie's pubs nearby, such as the Windsor Castle and the Hare and Hounds (Mill Brow). 

But then it's a commercial business, who we should not expect to have any sense of responsibility to the local community.   Councillors, on the other hand...........

[admin]

The officer presenting the application didn't put it across in a very supportive way and Robinson's letter read out by their rep made a strong case that the pub was not commercially viable. It was going down the pan altogether until the lady got up and spoke up for it. Even though she wasn't prepared because she didn't know she could speak she did just enough to swing it.

What I find most disappointing is the way that Robinson's come across to me in this. They seem to be saying that they can no longer make a success of this pub in this location, that it is not commercially viable, yet they wish to sell it with a covenant on it that means that nobody else can even try. If they are right and the pub is doomed why do they feel the need to protect themselves in this way?  It makes them seem like they are frightened of fair competition and determined to maintain their stranglehold on the local pub scene regardless of what the community wants.