Ryedale pub owners ‘stunned’ by planning decision (From York Press)
Get in touch: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting YORK to 80360 or send an email»
School House Inn owners ‘stunned’ by pub decision
7:44am Thursday 12th April 2012 in Pints of View
By Mark Stead, Political Reporter
School House Inn
THE owners of a Ryedale pub at the centre of a planning row have been left “flabbergasted” by a decision to reject proposals to turn part of the building into a home.
Ryedale District Council’s planning committee narrowly voted to reject plans by Matthew and Sarah Richardson, who own the School House Inn in Low Marishes, near Malton, to convert the site into a micro pub alongside a three-bedroom property, despite planning officers having recommended the scheme for approval.
It is the third time a planning application for the Marishes Low Road building has been thrown out.
Residents gathered outside the meeting carrying placards and urged committee members to help them save the pub. Seven councillors voted against the plans, with six in favour.
The Richardsons’ agent, Martin Nicholson, of Brownill Vickers, said his clients were stunned by the outcome of the meeting, but were now looking at preparing revised proposals.
“We feel it tells its own story that councillors who attended a site visit before the meeting were in favour of the application, and those that didn’t were not in favour of it,” he said.
“We are flabbergasted that it was turned down and we are now looking to find out whether there was any particular reason for this happening. On another day, it could have gone in our favour and the scheme is certainly not dead.
“Those who oppose the plans say they want to keep a pub, but it isn’t open as a pub at the moment, and although we keep hearing stories about people being interested in taking it over, it never comes to anything.”
David Beal, chairman of the Marishes Parish Meeting, told the committee residents did not believe a micro pub would work and said its restaurant should remain and its rooms should become guest accommodation, helping Malton’s reputation for dining. However, committee member Coun Lindsay Burr said she backed the plans, adding: “It is not for us to decide whether it is viable.”
Comments(18)
says...
yorkandproud
says...
8:25am Thu 12 Apr 12
Theendoftheworld
says...
8:56am Thu 12 Apr 12
roskoboskovic
says...
9:47am Thu 12 Apr 12
browbeaten
says...
7:47pm Thu 12 Apr 12
Janette Duffy
says...
10:17pm Thu 12 Apr 12
rubble13
says...
10:22pm Thu 12 Apr 12
rubble13
says...
10:27pm Thu 12 Apr 12
Janette Duffy
says...
3:14pm Sat 14 Apr 12
Davebeck
says...
6:38pm Mon 16 Apr 12
Janette Duffy
says...
10:07pm Tue 17 Apr 12
whattheeheck
says...
3:46pm Fri 20 Apr 12
They clearly know something that others do not when it comes to running successful village Pubs/Restaurants, seems such a pity that they did not pass this vital bit of info on earlier, if they had perhaps they could have prevented the hundreds of similar English Village Pubs from becoming unviable and which have inevitably had to close.
Is this the big society in action or is it just that the
R in RDC stands for "Ridiculous"
DancingWithLamposts
says...
12:24am Fri 4 May 12
I've done some digging and it would appear everything here isn't as clear cut as you'd imagine! This is the third application they have had rejected according to the RDC website. The Richardson's appear to be playing the business viability card to turn the property in to a residency and not maintain it as a business. Just because they are unable to make a success of it, it doesn't mean somebody else can't. Business viability is determined by the person who runs it. The residents have every right to demand the business to remain, but running it as a micro-pub is not a feasible option. In an area like Ryedale which is tourism rich, it relies on extended services like a restaurant and accommodation.
Out of sheer interest, I called the estate agents earlier today to be told that "The Richardson's are no longer interested in selling as they are confident planning permission will be granted". So do they want to turn it in to a house or do they want to do what's best for the community and business by selling it as a business?
Having paid just short of £350k for the property in 2007, and stripping out all of its features, suggesting an asking price of £375k is nothing short of a deterrent to stop anyone from submitting an offer, surely? Doesn't planning regulations state they have to advertise the business property first to prove its not viable? Buy over-inflating the price, can they can provide a false sense of illusion that there is no interest.
I'm sorry to say, I think this will just be another case of a pub with a longstanding history and decent reputation vanishing because of their selfish owners. I feel sorry for the local residents and the millions of tourists (and potential customers) that visit Ryedale each year.
minsterman_dan
says...
10:45pm Sun 6 May 12
looks like the residents have set up a website if anyone is interested! http://www.savethesc
hoolhouse.co.uk
minsterman_dan
says...
10:47pm Sun 6 May 12
se.co.uk !
whattheeheck
says...
9:41am Tue 8 May 12
That they should invest heavily and work long hours, often for little reward, seems to cut no ice.
He seems to suggest that it is their duty, no matter what their personal cost, to
generously provide a village venue (HUB) where residents and others can enjoy warm hospitality as and when required.
Not only are the complex issues of business sustainability simplistically explained by laying the blame directly at the owners’ feet, he also offers the DWL business solution to those vexed questions.
The “restaurant” big idea has been tried and tested more than once, in several formats, by different owners and unfortunately failed. Most likely due to insufficient custom.
Healthy businesses don’t shut!
We can presume that the current owners who are personable and hardworking were keen to make a success of their investment.
The accommodation to serve Ryedales “millions of tourists” solution again flies in the face of reality.
The word from accommodation providers is that “times are hard” probably due to the deep recession, so that market would appear to be fully provided.
So DWL no quick answers here I’m afraid.
Wherever your sympathies lie, the facts are so very simple
On the one hand THE RESIDENTS currently do not have a pub in the village, nor do they have the RIGHT to have a pub in the village. Furthermore the way things look they are not going to get one.
On the other hand THE OWNERS are perfectly entitled to make their decisions based solely on their own particular needs and circumstances.
Incidentally their financial positions are nobodys business but theirs.
The conclusion based on these facts, no matter how regrettable it may be felt, is that the only people who can decide the fate of the SHI are the current owners and no amount of emotional “Save our Pub Campaign” can change that.
Compromise from both parties is inevitable and unequivocally it falls upon RDC Councillors to resolve this situation for all concerned.
It does not require the judgement of Solomon.
To this end perhaps it would help if RDC take heed of their Planning officers’ recommendations and adopt a more pragmatic approach towards resolving this matter.
DancingWithLamposts
says...
12:21am Wed 9 May 12
whattheeheck wrote:I must admit, I wasn't sure if you were joking when I read that comment, given the sheer amount of **** that it contains.
Our previous commentator, DWL, not only asserts that he has worked out the SHI owners “cunning little plan” he also appears to believe that village businesses are there primarily as a community asset and as such the owners are merely servants of the residents.
That they should invest heavily and work long hours, often for little reward, seems to cut no ice.
He seems to suggest that it is their duty, no matter what their personal cost, to
generously provide a village venue (HUB) where residents and others can enjoy warm hospitality as and when required.
Not only are the complex issues of business sustainability simplistically explained by laying the blame directly at the owners’ feet, he also offers the DWL business solution to those vexed questions.
The “restaurant” big idea has been tried and tested more than once, in several formats, by different owners and unfortunately failed. Most likely due to insufficient custom.
Healthy businesses don’t shut!
We can presume that the current owners who are personable and hardworking were keen to make a success of their investment.
The accommodation to serve Ryedales “millions of tourists” solution again flies in the face of reality.
The word from accommodation providers is that “times are hard” probably due to the deep recession, so that market would appear to be fully provided.
So DWL no quick answers here I’m afraid.
Wherever your sympathies lie, the facts are so very simple
On the one hand THE RESIDENTS currently do not have a pub in the village, nor do they have the RIGHT to have a pub in the village. Furthermore the way things look they are not going to get one.
On the other hand THE OWNERS are perfectly entitled to make their decisions based solely on their own particular needs and circumstances.
Incidentally their financial positions are nobodys business but theirs.
The conclusion based on these facts, no matter how regrettable it may be felt, is that the only people who can decide the fate of the SHI are the current owners and no amount of emotional “Save our Pub Campaign” can change that.
Compromise from both parties is inevitable and unequivocally it falls upon RDC Councillors to resolve this situation for all concerned.
It does not require the judgement of Solomon.
To this end perhaps it would help if RDC take heed of their Planning officers’ recommendations and adopt a more pragmatic approach towards resolving this matter.
I wouldn't like to state that anyone has a "cunning little plan" but a lot of research on the internet about this place throws up some serious questions.
I think the problem is, your looking at this from the wrong angle. No one is asking them to continue working at the business if they don't have the ability to make it successful. The residents are trying to buy the pub so they can make it a success themselves but the owners aren't willing to sell.
This isn't a case of the residents expecting the pub to be run for them, they want the opportunity to do it themselves. The current owners have been all over the papers saying how they'd love to see the business flourish. We'll here's an idea... sell it to someone who can make it happen.
You either want to see the business work, or you want to turn the place in to a house and rob the community of it's only forum. You can't have both.
Sounds like the owners are talking out of their backsides.
Do you know them personally?
says...