From Rob Blake

Saturday, 14 December 2013

I notice that in the application document, The Hole in the Wall is now reffered to as 'Hebble House'.

Have the council already granted a change of use for the pub or is this just wishful thinking?

From Dave T

Sunday, 15 December 2013

Thanks for bringing this up.

It may only be a small section of the old pack horse route between Halifax-Heptonstall-Lancashire but it has been part of a public 'road' since two or three hundred years before the stone bridge was built in 1510.

HB doesn't have many historical features from before the 19th century and certainly not medieval so lets ensured it is preserved.

From Graham Barker

Sunday, 15 December 2013

Allowing parking there would obstruct a unique view of the bridge from the bottom of the Buttress. Ironic then that the applicant is pictured in this week's HB Times among those complaining that a BT telephone pole is spoiling the view of the bridge!

From Simon Hayles

Monday, 16 December 2013

All my best efforts to clarify this situation have come to naught. By my reckoning some 10 to 15 jobs and a public house in arguably the best location in Hebden have been lost to a private individual running a 'charity' that sells water-coolers to schools. I'm not aware that this has brought anything to the town other than some personal benefit to the individual involved.

What does he want the parking for? Those UPS vans that occasionally appear?

All I've ever got back from the council regarding planning is 'we are investigating the matter'. I shall contact them again tomorrow in an attempt get some sense.

From Jim Botten

Monday, 16 December 2013

As I understand it, the proposal is not to prevent pedestrian use just as it is now (and no doubt pack-horses would also have through-rights), but to take it out of use for cars. The application implies that it would be used as an occasional parking area for visitors, since the occupants have the use of the yard. This really represents no great change to recent usage. Before the double-yellow lines were moved the area was in constant use by the canny as a "free" parking spot. As a very local resident I should be pleased to see it lose its current use as a "turning circle" (on a blind corner) by the more adventurous class of motorist.

From Simon Hayles

Monday, 16 December 2013

The proposal states;

'If the application goes ahead, all highway rights will be extinguished in the area shown hatched on the attached plan, on the basis that they are not required for public use. The area would become a parking area for Hebble House'

The hatched area covers the cobbles and small portion of pavement immediately in front of the building (extensively used by the recent 'Cycle up the Buttress' challenge).

As internal building work appears to be ongoing in the property, my guess is that the current occupant intends to convert the property to flats (with parking) which he can then sell at a huge profit, losing us the chance of ever regaining the social and local employment benefits the pub would offer.

I have objected to the road closure and (once again) asked planning for clarification on the situation viz change of use.

Pressure needs to be applied to the council to prevent this individual from profiteering at the expense of local leisure facilities and local jobs.

From Sarah Dunnakey

Monday, 16 December 2013

The application states "all highway rights will be extinguished", that means cyclists too (and presumably packhorses as there is no mention of exemptions). It is a route frequently used by cyclists, including myself. It is often used by families with children on bikes as a safer route than the road. The reference to 'no real function' in the application ignores its historic and current use as a public highway

I'm wary of stated intended use in an application, as it does not guarantee any future action either by the applicant or subsequent owners of the property. When highway rights are extinguished the area becomes private and "frees the land from Highway Authority control and enables it to be enclosed or developed, subject to planning permission."

If it becomes a private parking space there is no guarantee it will not end up in permanent use rather than just for 'visitors'. It could even at a future date be enclosed/ fenced off (I'm not suggesting this is part of current owner's plan, just that once it is no longer a public highway this could happen). And of course if two more parking places are then part of the property it makes it a much more viable/valuable prospect for development - gained at little cost to the owner but through a loss to the community.

As a previous commentator mentioned it is 'ironic' that the applicant objected to the visual obstruction of the bridge by a removable pole one week and the next proposed the closure of part of the ancient highway to the bridge and the visual obstruction of it with vehicles and/or whatever signage will be deemed necessary to keep it 'private'.

From Bob Deacon

Tuesday, 17 December 2013

This is the objection I sent yesterday. Others please send similar by Jan 9th. Bob.

Link again is this.

Dear Clare,

I wish to register my strongest possible objection to the proposal to take out of public use as a highway part of the old packhorse route in front of the Hole in the Wall in Hebden Bridge.

The old pack horse route between Halifax-Heptonstall-Lancashire has been part of a public 'road' since two or three hundred years even before the stone bridge was built in 1510.

Allowing parking there would obstruct a unique view of the bridge from the bottom of the Buttress. Parked vehicles would interfere with the annual cycle race up the buttress which starts there. To propose to take such an ancient part of Hebden Bridge's heritage effectively into private and profitable use by the new owner of the Hole in the Wall beggars belief.

Bob Deacon, (Hebden Bridge Resident)

From Gwen Goddard

Tuesday, 17 December 2013

I too have objected to this planning application and hope many others will do the same.

The associated building looks like a squat, not the offices of a charity as it purports to be, and who knows what kind refurbishment or development is going on behind the boarded up windows. For the owner to object to a BT pole and then try to take over one of the most historic features of our town beggars belief.

From Maureen Norwood

Tuesday, 17 December 2013

If this is a defined bridleway, and I think it is on the defining maps, then it cannot be closed without legal representations. Cyclists and horse riders have a right of way here.

From Anne W

Wednesday, 18 December 2013

As I understand it what is relevant here is is that bit of road needed as public highway? Blocking it off would feel like a big obstruction to the through route and you would feel hemmed in along a narrow walkway. As other people have said this was used for the 'Up the Buttress' cycle event as is clearly shown in this video.

It might be that the current owner of the Hole in the Wall building would allow the space to be used for some future Up the Buttress Events etc. But it is important that people are aware that once the space loses its status as highway (the public lose the right to cross it) there is absolutely nothing to prevent an owner of the building from permanently denying the public any use of the space at all.

From Maureen Norwood

Wednesday, 18 December 2013

I meant to add that horses and riders do still use that route (though not so many packhorses maybe..) Thanks Bob Deacon. I've passed this on to others.

From K Wild

Wednesday, 18 December 2013

Has anyone tried registering the pub as a community asset? I think it's possible under the Localism Act so that it can not be changed from being a community asset.

From Andy M

Wednesday, 18 December 2013

Unless the area is physically sealed off - which seems unlikely if it's to be used for parking - I cant really see that much will change. It will still be cobbled, there's a pavement to the side and if the new owners are open to it use for occasional events/parades then I think it'll be hard to spot the difference.

From Anne W

Wednesday, 18 December 2013

Whatever the current owner plans at present is really not the point.  The owner – or a future owner - has no obligation to use it just for the occasional parking they say is planned at the moment.  If the highway is stopped up, the current or a future owner could physically block it off – the public will have lost their rights to use it.       

From John Billingsley

Friday, 20 December 2013

In addition to the issues about historical thoroughfare, interruption of early modern or mediaeval line of view, future possibilities of further privatisation of space and financial aggrandisement through extinguishing public for private convenience, there is also the implication that the present or future owners of the space will require anyone stopping to even talk there may be asked to move on (raising the argument for the owners that they be allowed to enclose the space); this would perhaps be even more likely for walkers' groups, guided historical tours, etc., which would act as a detriment to people's perception of their visit to the town. Objections recommended.

From Jon T

Friday, 20 December 2013

Tapwater is a not for profit organisation which is not the same as a charity.

The website tells us that the accounts will be published in June 2012

From Graham Barker

Friday, 20 December 2013

Tapwater.org isn't a charity and not-for-profit is not normally the right tax status for businesses that trade, as Tapwater.org does. Not-for-profits can make profits but they don't go to the owners of the business; however, the owners can be employees drawing a salary.

None of this would be relevant to the application except that it is hard to see a small business like Tapwater.org occupying the entire Hole In The Wall. If it were me, I'd think about sharing with one or more other businesses. I might then be very keen to acquire parking spaces.

From Kez Armitage

Friday, 20 December 2013

What's the future for the Hole in the Wall (recently renamed Hebble House to obliterate all traces of its former use)?

If I, as a property developer, had bought the Hole in the Wall, and didn't care about retaining it as a community building, this is what I'd do. I'd worm my way in, ingratiating myself with the local authority and the local community, claiming that the premises were to be used for 'charitable purposes'.

I'd then lay claim to as much of the surrounding land as I could, in anticipation that it would give me parking spaces for my property.

I'd allow my 'charity' to limp along for a while but then sadly have to announce that it's not viable and therefore doesn't need the property.

I'd then apply to convert the property into flats or apartments, with their own car parking spaces. If the Council didn't approve my change of use, I'd let the premises rot and rust - an eyesore in the heart of Hebden, the Jewel in the Crown of the upper Calder Valley.

I hope the present owners would never go down that route - and I'm sure they wouldn't. But if I had ownership of that building, and was out to make money rather than have the interests of Hebden Bridge at heart, that's exactly what I'd do!

From Simon Hayles

Friday, 20 December 2013

Funny you should say that Kez - a quick check with Companies House shows that Tap Water Ltd have £700 in cash, £50,000 in assets and £85,000 in liabilities - in other words they're trading at a loss of £35,000. Hardly a thriving company!

What's interesting is that the value of the building isn't included in the assets, meaning that it's most likely personally owned by the occupier - another indicator that the intention is to try and convert the property's use to residential (which I've been told is almost impossible to do in Hebden, unless you can show that you can provide adequate parking...)

From Paul Clarke

Saturday, 21 December 2013

I often think people round here would like to us to go back to the days of pack horses as they can't bear change.

I have some sympathy for the objections to the road closure argument.

But the reason the Hole has been sold and this is the issue is that it hasn't been viable as a boozer for some time despite the best efforts of a very switched on businessman who was the last tenant. Even he couldn't make it pay.

It was then sold to someone else who can do what they wish with within planning regs,

If Kez wants the Hole back then he/she can do what the Fox and Goose people did which is get some supporters together, raise the cash and run it as a going concern.

They would lose their money as the days of that building being a boozer are now well and truly over.

From Simon Hayles

Saturday, 21 December 2013

It's shocking what a little research can do. From Tap Water's Facebook page: here we have a picture of (what I presume to be) the present occupant of the Hole in the Wall enjoying some chilled water in Thailand this August.

Here we have the reason why the packhorse route must be closed - there's nothing worse than people making a racket right outside your house!

Just to cap it off, the latest news (endorsed by some happy-looking children) from Tap Water's own blog is that a cafe in Tod will provide tap water or 'eau-de-tap' for free!

This is very much a not-for-profit company I'd say. Why can't the planning people sort this out?

From Kez Armitage

Saturday, 21 December 2013

Paul, I'm not against change. For example I'm very much in favour of developing the proposed supermarkets in town.

What I am against is subterfuge, smoke and mirrors, and trying to reach your development objectives through the back door. In the case of the Hole in the Wall, we simply don't know - and this per se leads to speculation and rumour and people fearing the worst.

I think there'd be a lot more respect for developers were they to put their cards on the table right from the outset, and let the community know their proposals for our town. We, after all, are the ones who have to live here.

From Dave J

Saturday, 21 December 2013

I am fairly ambivalent about whether the view of the bridge is obstructed by cars but understand the reasons behind those who object to it.

What I don't like about this particular post is that it appears to be turning into something of a witch hunt.

I don't know the chap involved but if he is acting within the law then he is perfectly within his rights to buy whatever he likes and do what he wants with it once he's bought it, subject to the usual planning laws of course.

All this speculation about what he may or may not do beggars belief and, to coin a phrase, I find this to be "so Hebden Bridge".

If his motives turn out to be a little sneaky then so be it. The building is unlikely to be used as a pub again and surely having housing is better than a derelict building.

As Paul Clarke suggests, there was nothing to stop those with objections from doing the honourable thing and buying the place first.

From Anne W

Saturday, 21 December 2013

I have no strong feelings about the Hole in the Wall being used as offices, or residential use. It's not directly relevant to whether or not the area of highway to be stopped us is 'unnecessary' or not.

However, as the subject of 'change of use' has come up, I've done a little digging into the rules. The following link may be useful, when trying to figure out what is allowed - though it has enough jargon that reading it might require an aspirin, or a drink, or a quiet sit down.

The different 'use classes' are listed here.

The following is what I understand to be the case, unless I've missed something obvious. Apologies if your brain glazes over at this point:

A public house is A4 use class. Permanent change of use to business offices (B1) or dwellings (C3) would require planning permission. However the the coalition introduced additional permitted development rights in May 2013 which mean that buildings with with A4 uses will be permitted to change use for a single period of up two years to B1 uses. So planning approval might not yet be required for use of the pub as offices for a business, though the clock is running. I don't think applies to change of use from pub to residential (C3), or to 'storage and distribution (B8) would be permitted development. It's not quite clear how the building is currently being used.

Perhaps someone wants to check the above with Calderdale's planning department?

From Sarah Dunnakey

Sunday, 22 December 2013

In my previous post I referred to the historic use of this highway as part of the ancient packhorse route. This was based on looking at old photographs and the route on an old map, which indicated a 'beeline' from the buttress track to the old bridge. I have since seen photos which suggest that this part of Old Gate was obstructed by a building - the old Hole in the Wall pub for a time, although I do not know how long ago the original building was constructed, only that it was apparently demolished to make way for the new pub in 1895.

There was also a wall that seems to have deflected the route from the bridge onto what is now the tarmacked road, even after the old pub was demolished. Of course the original packhorse route is probably older than any of these constructions, however if its original route was across the area in question, then it does not appear to have been in continuous use.

This however does not distract from my objection to the proposed stoppage of the section of road, which is on the grounds that it currently serves a valid function - I just don’t want to be arguing from a position of the wrong facts.

The real issue is the proposed removal of a section of the public highway - which is surely indisputable as there would be no need for an order to close it unless the relevant authorities considered it to be a public highway - and the consequences that this would have both for public access and visual impact of the area and its historic artefacts

From Rob Blake

Monday, 23 December 2013

I'm sorry but I disagree that this is a witch hunt.

The hole in the wall is a Hebden land mark, and could easily thrive again as a pub if given the chance to do so. As discussed previously, if it re-opened as a freehouse it would more than likely do extremely well.

The point for me is that Hebden already has lots of empty office space.

Given the privileged location next to the old bridge, it's not surprising that people are interested as to what is going on behind the papered-over windows.

From Julie C

Monday, 23 December 2013

Please make sure you send your objections to the Rights of Way people at Calderdale before the closing date, which is 28 days from the 12th December.

It is no good just complaining on the Forum, they want you to explain your objections and say how and when you actually make use of that area.

This whole area of town needs a coherent and thought through vision, not the present reactive and piecemeal approach to development which has already allowed the demolition of the nearby buildings on Old Gate, and their replacement with mud and some unsightly metal barriers.

From Eddy B

Monday, 23 December 2013

I'm very concerned to see that the new owner of the former Hole in t' wall pub (now apparently renamed as 'Hebble House' is asking Calderdale Council if he can have the cobbled area outside the former pub for private parking for himself and, I guess, any future residents. There is a planning sign on the lamp post outside.

This parking space should be for the benefit of all those needing to park in the town centre, especially with the imminent loss of the old fire station site car park to redevelopment; the town's businesses need every parking space they can get. The council could easily redevelop this cobbled area to fit 5 or 6 cars parked end-in, diagonally, with the removal of the small paved island between the cobbles and the road. Please make your comments/objections to the officer dealing with this. Her email is clare.briggs@calderdale.gov.uk

From Paul Clarke

Tuesday, 24 December 2013

I repeat my challenge - if you think Hebble House/Hole can be run as pub buy it and run it as a co-op.

Nope, then we are left with the planning application which I am going to oppose as I think it is a step too far.

Does anyone seriously think knocking down a derelict building opposite Hebble House is a bad thing. Things do change.

From John Nesbitt

Tuesday, 24 December 2013

An application to have the Hole in the Wall listed as an asset of community value has sadly been rejected by Calderdale Council. Although the council agreed that the pub had furthered the social well-being and interests of the community before closure, it wasn't convinced by our arguments that it could continue to do so and remain viable if it reopened. It cited the proximity of other pubs and structural challenges, and expressed the opinion that the town hall had taken over many of its cultural functions. The current owner of the building made a submission as part of the process although we haven't yet seen what it said. This is a perplexing decision, especially given the evident popularity and viability of the Hole before it closed, but, unfortunately, there's no appeal. A copy of the decision and the submissions should appear on the council's website soon.

The best way to save the pub now is through the planning process. The current application to secure private parking in front of the pub is pivotal to any future application to convert it into flats or offices. Those who are concerned about this application should make their objections known to the council by 8 January and invite others who might be similarly concerned to do the same. As others on this forum have said, the proposal would stop off the beginning and end of the the old packhorse route to/from Lancashire and ruin the line of sight from the Packhorse Bridge to the foot of the Buttress. The view from bridge to Buttress is one which visitors to Hebden are invited to enjoy on pages 7-8 of the Town Centre trail on sale at the counter in the visitor centre - the booklet features a photograph of the same view in 1957. Calderdale's own appraisal and management plan for the town describes Hebden as, "an excellent showpiece for the development of early packhorse routes and particularly the survival of the old stone bridge dated c1510, together with the Buttress and a long stretch of the route up Bankside". Turning part of that route into a car park would therefore make little sense.

Separately from correspondence in respect of the above, the council should also be contacted to ask why the pub has been allowed to be used residentially for the past eight months without a change of use having been applied for and why the building has been allowed to become a graffiti-sprawled, boarded up eyesore in the middle of one of the town's most historic districts.

From Susi Harris

Friday, 27 December 2013

Have sent objection letter (with thanks to John Nesbitt for much of the text).

Having checked Tapwater's blog am amused to see they actually sponsored the 'Up the Buttress' event this year!

I would be reassured if I thought the profit they are evidently making from this venture was going to promote the tap water initiative. But nobody's saying that are they?

From John Greenwood

Friday, 27 December 2013

I oppose this application very strongly. Why not go even further and put pressure on Calderdale to rip up the tarmac on the part of the road that connects this area to the Buttress and reinstate cobble setts. These may still be under the tarmac.

From Maureen Norwood

Thursday, 2 January 2014

Another objection lodged. Let's keep our rights of way.

From Kate Ashbrook

Saturday, 4 January 2014

I shall be objecting on behalf of the national Open Spaces Society. As this application is being made under section 116 of the Highways Act 1980, if the town council objects it cannot proceed - under that section the town or parish council has a power of veto.

From S Sunderland

Monday, 6 January 2014

The fact that they felt the need to even change the name is enough to put me on my back foot! The hole int wall should be pulling pints not bottling water!

I object to this and any other plan that doesn't involve bringing back what was one of Hebden Bridge's best pubs.

From Mike B

Monday, 6 January 2014

As far as I can tell the building is already in use as a residential property as the first floor has been converted into living space and someone (presumably the owner) has been living there for a few months now. It's also been noted that the stone flags in the courtyard have been removed and replaced with concrete. If this application is passed does that mean that the cobbles can also be removed?

The current owner came into a local pub (which name I shall not mention) recently and I've never felt the atmosphere change so quickly, I almost expected him to start floating around rattling chains and making a "woooooh" noise. I felt quite sorry for him.

Objection placed.

From Nick Shields

Monday, 6 January 2014

I have sent the following to Clare Briggs who is running the public consultation on this matter and urge others to do the same.

You have two days left to do this.

Dear Clare,

I would like to register a strong objection to the proposal by Michael Green to obstruct the pack horse route across Old Gate in Hebden Bridge in Front of The Hole In The Wall in order to serve his own private objectives.

This feature of Hebden Bridge is enjoyed by many and the proposal would serve very few.

I ask that you visit the site and stand part-way up "The Buttress" and look back across the bridge which is Hebden Bridge and the route of that ancient highway as, in doing so, you will understand that this proposal should not go any further.

Please acknowledge receipt of this letter and thank you for your time.

From Robbie Goodfellow

Monday, 6 January 2014

Dear People of Hebden

I have thought long and hard over this matter and have come to this conclusion. Annie made what was probably the best pub in the locality for all those freaks and goofballs that made this little town so great.

Alas our little town is becoming bereft of choice and apart from a few little hidey holes. We are being forced by the property markets to tidy, pre packaged watering holes that own no soul. Well lit coffins to drown our imaginations away.

In all honesty this tapwater thing is the greatest piece of bull since a lonely Italian wandered through Tuscan mountains, first encountered a Chianina and thought it was a mooing elephant. The fact that it is obviously a front for something else makes me feel very very pitchfork sharpening angry indeed.

So what to do now? If only I had the money I say to myself again and again in a mantra reminiscent of a Nepalese temple ball chewing monk. Alas I haven't. Nor does anyone else in this town with any gumption or imagination. So we are being lied to to clean this town up. White washing the sandstone with litigation and falsehoods.

Is this indeed the end of that little russian doll I now call my home. Have we come to the point where we as a town of straights, locals, farmers, freaks, goofballs, hippies, and artists have given up the one place we all can independently call our home from home. Let us not accept that money is now tending the light at the end of the tunnel.
Per Ardua Ad Alta
Robbie:)

From David J

Monday, 6 January 2014

I have sent an objection - in part a cut & paste job of information here. I hope that is OK with those whose poosts I mined for details.

Text below -

"I would like to register a strong objection to the proposal to obstruct the pack horse route across Old Gate in Hebden Bridge in Front of The Hole In The Wall.

This feature of Hebden Bridge is enjoyed by many and the proposal would serve very few, indeed the proposal would stop off the beginning and end of the the old packhorse route to/from Lancashire and ruin the line of sight from the Packhorse Bridge to the foot of the Buttress.

The view from bridge to Buttress is one which visitors to Hebden are invited to enjoy on pages 7-8 of the Town Centre trail on sale at the counter in the visitor centre - the booklet features a photograph of the same view in 1957. Calderdale's own appraisal and management plan for the town describes Hebden as, "an excellent showpiece for the development of early packhorse routes and particularly the survival of the old stone bridge dated c1510, together with the Buttress and a long stretch of the route up Bankside". Turning part of that route into a car park would therefore make little sense.

In addition, it seems the planning regulations may be in danger of being flouted/bypassed - A public house is A4 use class. Permanent change of use to business offices (B1) or dwellings (C3) would require planning permission. However the the coalition introduced additional permitted development rights in May 2013 which mean that buildings with with A4 uses will be permitted to change use for a single period of up two years to B1 uses.

So planning approval might not yet be required for use of the pub as offices for a business, but is the case if there is now someone living there? It's not quite clear how the building is currently being used. As this application is being made under section 116 of the Highways Act 1980, if the town council objects it cannot proceed - under that section the town or parish council has a power of veto.

In summary, it seems to be an attempt to get round planning laws, with the resulting change of use then opening up the possibility for a 'back-door' use as parking for a future residential development - in effect turning open, public right of way into an asset for a developer to then potentially sell on at a later date. There is very little to be gained by the local community /economy, and yet another piece of historic Calderdale would be lost/damaged forever.

I have taken some of this information from a local information website, and whilst I believe it to be true, I accept there may be inaccuracies and/or differences in law - however, that is why people object to some schemes, and not to others, and I assume it is then your role to oversee the process in the best interests of all concerned, and under the accurate knowledge of the law as it should be applied.

Please acknowledge receipt of this letter and thank you for your time. "

Best Regards

David J

From Bob Deacon

Monday, 6 January 2014

This issue is now on the agenda of the Hebden Royd Town Council on Wednesday January 8th at 7.30. I believe there is a proposal on the agenda to recommend to Calderdale that this highway is not closed.

Indeed as a previous contributor has stated
"As this application is being made under section 116 of the Highways Act 1980, if the town council objects it cannot proceed - under that section the town or parish council has a power of veto".

I suggest all those who do object attend the meeting in the Council Chamber to ensure that the Council are aware of the strength of feeling on this issue.

From Susan Pooley

Tuesday, 7 January 2014

I have just sent a letter in to the person named on Calderdale's website and received an auto response that she is no longer involved in the rights of way team - I have therefore sent it again to rightsofway@calderdale.gov.uk

From Michael W

Tuesday, 7 January 2014

Regarding Paul's statement 'things change for the better'. Have you seen what is happening now that the Hebden Cord Factory has been demolished? The hillside behind is now eroding at an alarming rate, I would say possibly threatening the houses above. To say that change is good is not always true! (See Demolition at Old Gate thread - Ed)

From Phil Champion

Tuesday, 7 January 2014

I would like clarify the the issue of who at Calderdale Council comments should be sent to. Clare Briggs was the officer named on the consultation notice. However, since the consultation commenced she has changed jobs. Comments should now be sent to t <li><a href="2014/004.html">Tree recycling</a></li>he Rights of Way Team at rightsofway@calderdale.gov.uk. Clare Briggs has been forwarding on any responses sent to her address, so anyone who has emailed Clare does not need to re-send their comments directly to Rights of Way.

Rights of Way have already received a large number of representations about this matter. The comments made will be taken into account when a formal decision is made as to whether or not the Council will agree to apply to the magistrates for a stopping=up order. However, due to the large number of comments received, some people may inadvertently not receive a personal acknowledgement. I apologise in advance if this is the case.

From Jeanette Keen

Tuesday, 7 January 2014

I ended my objections with:

I also believe that the statutory display period was not upheld. I am informed that the notice should have been displayed for no less than 21 days. The first time I viewed the notice by the packhorse bridge it was facing the river. I turned it around so it could be seen. I photographed the posts on the 27th of December and the notices were both absent. As far as I know they should have been on display until the 4th of January 2014. Can you please inform me why they were removed before the correct date? and what is the procedure to get an extension of this notice period?

Did anyone note the exact date the public notices were removed?

Also on another note regarding change of use under the Planning and infrastructure Act of 2013

It is true that from 30th May 2013 permitted development rights will exist to (amongst other things) change a public house to a Use Class B1 (Business) use. These rights are subject to a number of limitations - in particular the rights relate to a maximum of 150sq. metres and the use may only continue for a single continuous period of two years before reverting back to its lawful use . At the current time there is clearly a measure of uncertainty about the precise nature of the alternative use for the pub and as such we cannot be certain whether they could take advantage of these permitted development rights. In any case, the maximum floor space and temporary nature of the rights place further constraints on the use of the building.

This text is taken from an email I received answering specific questions about the Hole in the Wall, In relation to the specific questions:

The 150 sq metres would include whatever floor space is subject to the change of use under Class D – so the 150 sq. metres would only include the stables and upper floors if they formed part of the change of use.
from the planning department earlier this year.

From Tim B

Wednesday, 8 January 2014

The notices were removed on the 26th December