The Applicant claims the White Swan wasn't financially viable

 

The applicant has failed to:

​- prove that the pub is economically unviable
- meet the conditions of its successful application to build a house in part of the beer garden by not maintaining the public house, function rooms and remaining garden.

- Contradicts previous application submitted in February 2020.

 
Greenwich Council’s Local Plan demands developers prove that a pub is unviable and not wanted by the local community.  It says;

​

“Policy EA(b) Pubs states the Council supports the retention of pubs that have a community role and will resist the change of use or demolition except where continued use as a pub is no longer economically viable.

In addition, evidence must be submitted to clearly demonstrate that reasonable attempts have been made to actively market the site as a pub for at least two years. This should include evidence of the appointment of a property consultant/estate agent to handle the marketing of the property and records of where and how the property has been marketed. Applicants should also carry out an assessment of the needs of the local community or community facilities to show that the pub is no longer needed and that alternative provision is available.”

​

Mendoza has provided two reports - one on the marketing and one on the commercial viability of the pub - from two separate agents. The reports clearly demonstrate that the pub was consistently marketed for prices well above a commercially viable point.

Therefore, the applicant has failed to prove that the pub is economically unviable. 

In the Marketing Document prepared by Jenkins Law and submitted by the applicant.

 

​
 

Appendix 1 shows three undated marketing documents. All three documents exclude the upstairs function room and beer garden (which was part of the planning board’s conditions for the development of the house in the garden - reference 19/2600/F - to ensure the pub stayed viable. 
 

​

Appendix 1.1 shows a price of £50,000 per annum for use of the ground floor and cellar.
Appendix 1.2 shows a price of £40,000 per annum for use of the ground floor and cellar.
Appendix 1.3 shows a price of £80,000 per annum for use of the ground floor and cellar. 

 

The Applicant has submitted an independent report by their consultants Davis Coffer Lyons on page nine which states:

​

"Property Costs and Depreciation  
In assessing property costs, I have adopted a notional rental value of the property of £40,000 per annum. This figure is for the property in its entirety and equates to about 9.6% of revenue which is a figure which is to be expected for a pub of this nature."    

​

The applicant's own reports show that the market rent is for the entire building –  including garden and upstairs function rate is £40,000 – and its marketing documentation clearly states at no time since 2019  has the property been advertised at a market rate as defined by Davis Coffer Lyons.

​We would now ask the Planning Inspectorate to reject this appeal and  to revisit the application for a house - reference 19/2600/F - as the documents show that Mendoza has now breached the terms of this successful application.

​

​

​

Feeling Salty?

​

Do ask the Planning Inspectorate to take into consideration Mendoza earlier submission from February 2020 - which makes the case that the White Swan was not only financially viable but had the potential for growth in their earlier  planning application for a three bedroom house in the beer garden.

​