Sainsbury’s announce plans for The Plough pub

The Plough, Sandygate Road

The Plough, Sandygate Road

Supermarket chain Sainsbury’s is to submit a planning application to turn The Plough pub on Sandygate Road into a convenience store.

The people running The Plough, which is opposite the oldest football ground in the world, called last orders in April.

There had been speculation over the future of the pub for many months. Regulars launched a Save the Plough Facebook campaign and it was registered as an asset of community value, with the hope that a community ownership model could be explored.

Sainsbury’s are now leasing the property from Enterprise Inns and will submit planning applications to Sheffield City Council in the coming weeks to adapt the building.

We’ll post links to them as soon as we see it on the council website.

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in businesses, crosspool, hallam fc, pubs and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Sainsbury’s announce plans for The Plough pub

  1. NJ says:

    I see in that Star article that you linked to today (trib.al/h69auO6) that Peter Duff and his lads army are intent on blocking this development, because they want the building to be “revived as a good, local pub.”
    Just like The Plough, then – the pub that has, for years, repeatedly struggled and then finally failed because no-one in the local area supported it.

    He then cites some of the “convenience” stores in the nearby area – in which he includes Crookes and Broomhill – which yes, may be very convenient and nearby for those who have access to cars. Not so much for those of us who don’t.
    Equally, there are loads of other pubs in the local area. Sportsman x2, Crosspool Tavern, 3 Merry Lads, Shiny Sheff, Ranmoor Arms, Bull’s Head etc etc. And, if we are considering Crookes and Broomhill as “local”, about a million others as well.

    To quote Peter directly: “There is just no demand.” And that’s exactly why The Plough closed.

    Personally, I’d love a new Sainsbury’s store there. It would save me a lot of time and effort and it would be much better supported by the local community than another pub. I feel that we’re only hearing one side of this debate, albeit ever so vocally – the side that wants the community to prop up a proven unsuccessful business model for its own selfish (and apparently somewhat bizarre) reasons.

    Well, no thanks.

    • STP says:

      It would be helpful if you got some or all of your facts right. No one in our group has ever put themselves forward as speaking for the whole community. We are putting forward the view of 500 residents who supported the proposal to retain the Plough as a public house with a 400 year history. Of course, we acknowledge that there may well be other members of the community who take a different view – is that not why we live in a democracy. Finally, I don’t see why you have to resort to derogatory comments like ‘Peter Duff and his lads army’ or accuse us of being ‘selfish’ and ‘bizarre’

  2. Bry says:

    I have lived at the rear of the Plough Pub for 12years ,It,s never been a going concern during that time.Five landlords have gone bust .Sainsbury’s don’t need planning permission let’s hope it goes ahead.The community will be better served with a Convenience Store.

  3. NJ says:

    Just to clarify my comment of yesterday. Of course I understand that people will have differing opinions on this matter.

    My concern is that ‘Save The Plough’ brigade are putting themselves forward as being representative of the entire community. That’s clearly not the case, but it seems that they believe that they are genuinely fighting for all of us. They aren’t.
    Additionally, I have yet to see any decent reason why the community would be better served by a pub and not a small Sainsbury’s. Nostalgia and emotional ties are all well and good, but they shouldn’t act as blinkers for real life and the pros and cons of logical argument.

    I note that the STP guys are asking people to email Sandygateroad.sainsburys@communityrelations.co.uk
    and warn them “that the planning application will face strong and sustained opposition”.
    Equally, for balance, I would suggest that those supporting the convenience store let Sainsbury’s know that there is another side to this argument.

  4. Eamonn Ward says:

    Just posting to confirm that pubs are the same planning classification as retail so planning permission will not be needed for the store – just for signage. So the Asset of Community Value protection would be the only possible way to stop this but only if the property is sold. The rules:

    “If the nomination is accepted, local groups will be given time to come up with a bid for the asset when it is sold.The right to bid only applies when an asset’s owner decides to dispose of it. There is no compulsion on the owner to sell it.”

  5. 7777 himself says:

    Sorry, need to wade in here due to the amount of misinformation which has been promulgated.

    To “NJ”, what exactly are the so-called “apparently somewhat bizarre” proposed usages to which you refer? Given that the STP has not published nor disclosed any proposals I would aver that you can only be discussing rumours, which do not make the greatest source of information.

    To Eamonn Ward, you are incorrect. I therefore refer you to GPDO 2015 (no. 596) in respect of ‘change of use’ and must therefore point out that you are referring to the status quo ante bellum prior to April of last year, in respect of Usage Classes specified in the 1990 Act, as amended.

    As to the reasons for this pub ‘failing’ in recent years, I would refer all readers to the Heads of Terms which are clearly specified in prospective Tenants’ Contracts, available on the Enterprise Inn website. No business would be successful or prosperous given such onerous impositions.

    Each of the above comments is framed within the prejudices of its own writers who, whilst entitled to their opinions, are not entitled to colour others’ opinions through a misinformed perspective. I also wish you (plural) to note that prejudice is used within its strict legal meaning, in that a pre-judged opinion has been formed, without any derogatory connotation or aspersion cast upon the writers.

  6. Eamonn Ward says:

    Having spoken to the previous poster it appears that the House or Commons source that I checked on ACV’s is now out of date and the information I posted was incorrect. Apologies for that – I was just trying to pass on information based on planning experience seeking to help those who want to understand what are often complicated and difficult to understand planning processes. Too difficult for me to get to the correct and current position on this occasion!

  7. If you wish to register your concerns regarding the possibility of Sainsbury’s opening in an already Supermarket saturated area which could cause the demise of our village then please complete the simple survey that our Liberal Democrat Councilor has put together for us at http://www.shefflibdems.org.uk/sandygate_sainsburys_survey
    It only takes a minute to have your say and if you don’t then you cant say that you tried.

  8. Pingback: Residents campaign to save The Plough pub - THE PLOUGH COMMUNITY PUB COMPANY LIMITED

Leave a reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s