| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Objection to Benches | |
| Posted by: | Alex Greenbank | |
| Date/Time: | 06/04/18 01:29:00 |
| Sorry, you've lost me on that line of argument. I don't believe the benches are exclusive. They've submitted and been granted a planning application, so they've told people about it; it's hardly been a secret operation. I don't see where your exclusivity argument comes from. From your other thread:- " The Licence affords no exclusivity to the licensee and members of the public are specifically allowed to use these tables without any obligation to purchase goods from the Spencer Arms. " The more you refer to the benches as a "beer garden" the more you weaken your argument in my eyes. I can't take my own drinks/food into the beer garden of any other pub. This is not the Spencer's beer garden. I don't care for the specific reason why the council requires planning permission for it, I'm just glad they do require planning permission for it (to give people the opportunity to object). If the WPCC wanted to place 21 benches there themselves, free of charge for anyone to use (whether pub patrons or not), I guess planning permission would still be required. The Spencer may be exclusively paying for the benches, but that's because there are no other pubs in the vicinity that would also benefit and therefore contribute. As I've said, the shop on the corner of Erpingham Road does a brisk business in selling beers consumed on those benches, have they been approached too? I guess not. The amount charged is immaterial to this particular discussion anyway. If they charge too much the WPCC will get nothing as the Spencer would decline. If they charge too little then the WPCC are losing out. Picking the right value is important but, if you agree with that, it presumes that you agree with the concept of the benches (otherwise why do you care about the amount received by WPCC if it should be £0 and zero benches). Turnover considerations are immaterial, the Spencer will need to make a *profit* out of the deal otherwise there is little point in them agreeing to it. Without the benches they will still make some extra money in the summer due to people taking beers over the road and using the un-benched common with rugs or their own seating arrangements. As a levy payer I'm happy for the Spencer to make some profit (not too much) in return for me (and others) being able to enjoy this small segment of the commons more; I understand that not all levy-payers will agree with this but I'd be surprised if the majority didn't (as evidenced by the survey results and the objections/support for this planning application). So, who really cares who pays for the benches? The question is whether they should be allowed or not given the usage conditions attached to them, and I can't see fault in the current arrangement assuming they get a fair price (again, if you agree to that then you agree to the benches). Finally, are there other pubs with agreements on use of WPCC common land as effective off-license drinking areas during the summer? Isn't the land outside the Hand in Hand and the Crooked Billet in Wimbledon common land? That's certainly used in a similar way (no benches but with deck chairs if I remember) during the summer months. John, I support your attempts at bringing the WPCC to task over the Putney Hospital site debacle and many other important points, and think the way you've been treated over the last few years was abhorrent, but I don't understand this objection to the benches. |