11 Questions We Asked the Council

We....are deeply saddened by the council's lethargic attitude towards the interests of the community. We thought you might want to represent us, or at least appreciate that you are paid to represent us.

1. Did the review officer take into account that the initial ACV application was actually received by the council BEFORE any lease was agreed by the owner with the leaseholder, and before any substantial work had taken place to despoil the pub?

2. If the answer to the above is "no", would the council therefore acknowledge that they have entirely missed the spririt of the legislation?

3. Would the council confirm whether or not the changes to the legislation that came into force in April pertaining to the removal of PD rights for ACV properties actually applied in this case to the Bailey, the ACV listing decision having been made in May?

4. Whatever you decide the answer to the above is now, did the Council look into this question when the decision was made in May, and consider whether, at that point, enforcement action should be taken on the property in respect of further despoilment of the pub?

5. Whether or not it was "legitimate", does the council recognise the obvious injustice of taking into account additional "evidence" supplied by the owner in the review, when that evidence consists of damage that has deliberately been done to the fabric of the pub SINCE the initial ACV decision was made, this decision having been known by all parties?

6. Regardless of the legalities, does the council recognise the obvious injustice of taking into account the evidence submitted by the owner in the review, when that evidence consists of a lease that it agreed with the leaseholder at a time when it was ALREADY AWARE of the ACV application having been made?

7. Does the council believe that if it had stuck by the original decision, the landlord and tenant would simply have been forced to renegotiate the terms of the contract, or just mutually cancel it? Does the council seriously believe this simple action to be "unrealistic"?

8. Is the council suggesting that we had a chance to respond to the owners submissions? We did not, the deadline having expired.

9. Might the decision have been different if the council had agreed to our request for a reschedule of the hearing?

10. Does the council understand the principle that it is in fact the council themselves who ought to be acting as the custodians of local community assets, and not bodies such as ours?

11. Does the council think it's worth having a pub protection policy when it can be circumvented so easily and so entirely by developer behaviour such as this? This is not a rhetorical question, as herein lies the very heart of the matter, your decision having set a delightful precedent for any other asset-stripping property companies that want to make a quick buck with our other pubs, both in Islington and across the country.