The Plough-sandygate

[Fudbeer 12]

I suspect it will never be a pub again but agree the new proposals look horrendous maybe a compromise might be to convert it into accommodation more in keeping with its surroundings.

[prince al 167]

20 hours ago, Dan_Ashcroft said:

It's been deteriorating because the current owner has deliberately been encouraging it - stripping out the fittings and smashing a window (which was amateurish, because it was so clearly done from the inside).

 

The pub was never any good because it was owned by Enterprise Inns - the worst of the PubCos.  With a decent brewery behind it, it could rival the Rising Sun.

 

And the plan is definitely to demolish it by the way.  This big eyesore is planned for its place:

They certainly can be described as a carbuncle on the face of an old friend.

[Guest makapaka]

Aside from the issue with the pub I like the look of that new development - it’s much nicer than the existing red brick development next door.

[Bilge 34]

Comments can be sent to the council here:

 

https://planningapps.sheffield.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=makeComment&keyVal=PSW4P9NYHBR00

 

 

[lil-minx92 10]

Unfortunately it falls just outside of a Conservation Area. And if its not listed the planners will have little power to prevent its demolition (if they bizarrely disregard its ACV status), although the form of development that ultimately takes place is likely to be amended down. Developers often submit plans for X with a view to achieving Y but settling for Z.

 

I assume the campaign group have attempted to get it spot listed for some reason? It would be a shame to lose yet another of the cities buildings of character. 

 

I do agree with Makapaka though that the development itself appears of good quality (especially compared with next door) albeit out of character in that location.  

Edited June 25, 2019 by lil-minx92

[lil-minx92 10]

On 06/05/2015 at 12:57, Grappler said:

The main problem is that it is an Enterprise pub, who lease it to a pubco, who then put managers in, three sets of people all taking a slice of the pie and at least one too many.

 

A couple of years ago, Thornbridge Brewery appraoched Enterprise with a view to buying it, they sent in surveyors and structural engineers to see what it would take to open up the function room upstairs, they sent in their interiror designers to work out the refurb cost, then went back to Enterprise with a 250, 000 pounds initial spend and all the plans.

 

Enterprise, being Enterprise, and knowing Thornbridge really wanted the Plough, said "ah, things have changed slightly, we are doing a two-pub deal now, you need to buy this and the Hallamshire House at Commonside". So Thornbridge sent the team in, looked at the pub, saw potential, so came back with a business plan. The agreement came through quickly for the Hallamshire House, got signed up, then Enterprise, being Enterprise, said "ah, things have changed again, the price for the Plough has gone up", so Thornbridge walked away.

 

The lad who has the Fox and Duck at Broomhill really wanted it, he went in with his builder/designer, put together a business plan which included something like 100,000 of his own money for decorating and refurb, Enterprise, being Enterprise, messed him about, and eventually he walked away and bought The West End (now the Doctors Orders).

 

A few months ago, three young men (managers at other pubs), got together and came up with a plan to refurb the pub, extend the eating part of it and make it more of a eating place that served real ale, make the bar smaller, increase seating, etc. Enterprise, being Enterprise....well you know how this goes, messed them around until they decided to go and do something else.

If this could all be confirmed by the parties, it might be useful ammunition for the community groups to put in front of the planners

[Bilge 34]

[Thread merged thanks.]

Edited June 25, 2019 by Bilge

[lil-minx92 10]

Having had a root through the planning application and representations etc it seems the crux of the matter is whether the buildings owner/s have made reasonable efforts to secure its continued use as a pub.

 

Protesters suggest that whilst the property has been marketed ( https://crosthwaitecommercial.com/property-files/sheffield_-_sandygate_road_-_288_-_the_plough_inn.pdf ) , the asking rent of £50,000 is significantly in excess of the market rental value, and this has deterred any interest. Given that the Valuation Office put a rateable value of £9,250pa they may have a case- rateable value is directly related to rental values.

 

Crosthwaite Commercial are quoted in the developers application (Design & Access Statement) as saying along the lines of 'we have undertaken extensive marketing but had no success'. This may be true, but doesnt present the whole picture- if the property has been marketed at multiple times its value a lack of success is inevitable. 

 

I doubt that (as a RICS regulated firm) Crosthwaite Commercial would confirm that they believe it was being marketed at the market value and the absence of this in their statement is significant, it being  crucial to a successful marketing campaign. 

 

A professional valuation by a surveyor specialising in the leisure sector would help crystallise protesters assertions that the marketing of the property was not genuine, and therefore reasonable efforts have not been made to find a party willing to take a lease for continued pub use.  

 

[Colin Foster 70]

The deadline to object has been extended to the 22nd.

 

Edited July 15, 2019 by Colin Foster

[lil-minx92 10]

This suburban local pub, was being marketed at a higher rent than Bar 23 on West Street - 5,000sqft over two floors on the prime 'drinking strip' in Sheffield.

 

[Bilge 34]

Have the planners made a decision on this yet?

[lil-minx92 10]

Nope. Representations are still being accepted. There was a good one the other day hitting back at Crossthwaite Commercials's (in my opinion somewhat dubious) supporting statement about the marketing of the pub. I think they are treading on thin ice with regards their professional obligations as members of RICS

Edited August 28, 2019 by lil-minx92