| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Objection to Benches | |
| Posted by: | Alex Greenbank | |
| Date/Time: | 05/04/18 14:38:00 |
| Indeed. When I've been there a fair number of people using the benches are drinking beers they've bought from the shop on the corner of Erpingham Road - it's not just the Spencer that's getting increased trade (but I acknowledge that the Spencer will be getting the bulk of the increased trade). To answer JC's question. If the benches were exclusively for the use of The Spencer I would object to them. But since the benches are for use by anyone (even if they bring their own food/drink) and the Spencer is taking responsibility for providing bins, removing litter and paying for the privilege then I'm happy with that personally (WPCC obviously need to be more transparent about all of this but that's for the other threads). I realise this can be seen as the "thin end of the wedge" and also it may contravene the WaPC Act, but I also have no problem with the LFF nursery using the common during parts of the day (since they are based elsewhere, do so by agreement and contribute financially, only use a small part and clean up after themselves and the children are the main beneficiaries), or many other commercial users of the common that most people will be completely unaware of (i.e. fitness instructors, commercial dog walking firms, etc). For me the red line is about access to the common and in my personal opinion benches that are available to anyone (not just pub patrons) do not limit access to that part of the common. This also limits the "thin end of the wedge" argument as it blocks ideas (touted elsewhere) such as wedding marquees (since they're not open to everyone) or other worries about possible commercialisation. On the other other hand, where will it stop? What if the Spencer wanted twice as many benches? 5 times as many? Who decides the limit? I certainly don't trust the current WPCC to keep things 'sensible' (sensible for me would be no bigger an area outside than floorplan area inside the pub, or by pricing it in such a way that doubling the number of benches would cost the Spencer twice as much and therefore not be economically viable for them). I'm more surprised that the benches are allowed at all given expected objections from nearby residents (increases in noise, antisocial-behaviour, etc) but I expect this was considered when the pub's license was extended to sell alcohol for consumption off-premises. |