Save the Plough campaigners are asking people to be vigilant after receiving unverified reports that the new owner of The Plough may be considering demolishing the building this week.
They’re asking people to let them know of any suspicious activity using ploughsandygate@gmail.com or to contact Planning Enforcement at the council.
Ben Curran, council cabinet member for planning and development said: “I don’t know any more than I’ve read here, but it’s probably best to assume the information is accurate. I will get the team to get on this first thing in the morning with a view to preventing demolition.”
Crosspool News - crosspool.info 
If you think this’s is true get Radio Sheffield on the job
What a mess the ‘ Save the Plough group’ have created.
How? Greedy property developers are trying to build a huge ugly pre-fab towerblock on the site, so they can cream off a few million more to their Cayman Island tax havens. Surely keeping a beautiful old stone building and turning it into a precious community hub is worth fighting for?
Sorry, but no.
The mess created has been in the fact that ZERO maintenance or upkeep was undertaken by Enterprise since it was acquired as part of a job lot nearly twenty years ago.
This, in spite of the fact that Enterprise Inns trousered a five-figured sum in deposits tendered for Dilapidations from their Tenants, rather than using those Dilapidation monies for maintenance. This trousering was done because the Group of Companies was burdened by debt, in the form of Bonds. Those Bonds, between 2009 and 2013, were changing hands for higher rates than Portugal, Spain, Italy & Greece in the Secondary Market. They were the most Junky of Junk bonds available at the time – I advised Clients from investing in them because they were too risky by far and they weren’t backed by a country as the other Junk was.
The mess has been exacerbated because the building’s current possessor has no interest in its upkeep.
Indeed, on the contrary, the building’s current possessor has a positive interest in dilapidation of the property. The concomitant effect is that people get bored, diffused or outraged, in the case of it being an ‘eyesore’ &c.
The Building as been boarded now for nineteen months .It’s in really bad state beyond restoration.No use too anyone the community failed too buy the asset. The site is crying out for development.
Nope. Wrong.
Ill-informed, too, well done!
The technique intended is to run it down and say, of necessity, it needs rebuilding.
Enterprise could have sold it 4 years ago, when an offer was made to acquire the site.
And then again 6 months later, with an offer to lease coming in-between those two offers to buy the Freehold outright. And finally, last year, when not only the Community made an offer to buy but I did – for the third time.
If that thing falls apart, other people will be happy to buy it. Myself included.
So let me be clear, Bry, that would be [future tense] the 4th time I’ve offered to buy it.
Sensible offers were on the table, falling by the way on account of ‘Hope Valuations’ which exceed Market Value.
The Developer is crying out for Development.
The Community has built around that site, with the Community wanting it back.
What’s historic about this structure? Nothing. Lost a far more historic public house in the shape of the Old Blue Ball in Hillsborough.
It was built by the famous architect Wynyard Dixon (who parts of Hillsborough are actually named after) and is a national historic asset because of its global importance in the history of football.
Do you really want some ugly monstrosity like this: http://spacepad.co.uk/property/psaltergallery/images/PL-03.jpg or this: http://spacepad.co.uk/property/westgalley/images/01.jpg built on the site, rather than a well-run community pub?
There is a unit placed in the yard there. The type builders use. It’s just a matter of time and It is shocking .
On Thu, 9 Nov 2017, 08:28 Crosspool News – crosspool.info, wrote:
> robin posted: ” Save the Plough campaigners are asking people to be > vigilant after receiving unverified reports that the new owner of The > Plough may be considering demolishing the building this week. They’re > asking people to let them know of any suspicious activit” >
Let’s face the true facts Save the Plough campaign and supporters did’nt acquire engough funds too buy the asset .ln fact they get enough to pay the VAT.I suppose the bids that were made must have been unrealistic otherwise a sale would have taken place. You can not buy a good house in the area for £300,000.
The duilding as been closed now for 2years . Time for things to move on.
Bry, you seem to have an almost telepathic knowledge of the STP group’s finances.
Of course, I’m being facetious and sarcastic – you have zero knowledge of the sums, or of offers of help from 3rd parties.
The group had enough money to acquire it.
The group made a sensible offer based on professional valuations.
Additionally, had further funds been required, they could have accessed those as well.
STP made it clear that they did not wish to get into a bidding war with an unnamed party.
The fact is, the bid which succeeded was placed ABOVE the market value because the Developer has what is called a ‘Hope’ Valuation, which is where the bidding party makes a higher bid based upon what it hopes to achieve through a Planning Application.
The fact is, no Planning Application has gone in even though there is no impediment to so doing. The fact is, the current possessor has it within their power so to do, right now. The fact is that the current possessor will remove internal fittings and allow exterior dilapidations in order that they can make such a case out, should an Application be put in.
In the latter aim, they will seek to capitalise on weak-willed persons in order to rely on making out a case on the grounds of eyesore.
The current possessor can sell now at a profit or at a loss, or make a Planning Application now – the question is, to what end has neither been done? It is simple in that you, Bryan, are being used to make their case for them.
The site has been a Public House or Inn for more than 300 years and is quite capable of continuing for the next 300. People with deep pockets are waiting and willing to act, but it is the Developer’s choice to pursue their course of action and seek the erosion of Resolve on those in opposition to Development.
Bry, you really should seek to get put on salary by Spacepad UK Ltd – you’re doing unpaid work for them at the mo! Just wondering if you’re the same Bry that’s objected to every Planning Application that’s gone in for the site since St Francis Close was constructed…?
I’m honest enough to say that for the most part a lot of what you say is not within my grasp “ erosion of resolve “ etc. I think you are saying that someone bid more than the group so “won”. They haven’t however then moved on with intended development ( is that because of likely objections?) but are stalling so that when they do put in planning permission people won’t object so much as whatever it is would be better then a derelict building ? But isn’t the pause on development due to the Community asset order – meaning that they can’t develop what they would like to ? What is clear though is that if the current owners strategy is to run the building down ( so they can then presumably make a case for development) then that’s working as it’s an absolute eyesore now. And the new order will prevent anything happening- do we know how long for?
5 years, and then renewable after that: http://democracy.sheffield.gov.uk/documents/s30363/ACV%20The%20Plough.pdf
@Tracey Humphreys – yes, the fact is that [even after so long a period as has elapsed] no Planning Application has actually been made indicates, to me at least, that the Possessor intends to allow dilapidation to continue.
This is with the deliberate intent of saying, much further down the line, that the property is an eyesore – technically known as Blight. The simple fact is, if you [or for that matter any member of the public] consider The Plough Inn to be a Blight on the area then you should open a line of complaint with Sheffield City Council.
The Possessor has a responsibility against Blight whether or not he actually puts pen to paper in order to become The Developer.
As to ‘winning’ a potential bidding war, the current Possessor represented to Enterprise that he intended to re-open as a Public House. There was no purpose in making a higher bid when both Spacepad & Save The Plough had the same ostensible purpose.
Indeed on this very site, STP stated that it had succeeded in its aim – on the misrepresentation that was made out to it, The Plough had indeed been Saved. At least in appearance, but of course this was a misrepresentation on the part of the Possessor.
There still remains very very little chance of this particular property of becoming anything other than what it always has been. There are a vast number of significantly Relevant Planning Matters that simply cannot be overcome and, in any case, the fight against any Planning Application has not even begun. A huge amount of money, time and resolve, which not even J Sainsbury plc had, will be required – which Spacepad does not have and even then, any Joint Venture Partner brought in will not have.
The longer it sits vacant, and the more Blight Reports are made to SCC, the more money the Possessor will lose.
It is as simple as that.
All that remains is for the Possessor to decide how much of a haircut he is willing to take.
Tick-tock, tick-tock, time is money.
Thank you so much for that explanation. I genuinely had not understood that the current owner had intended to open as a pub – now understand. How frustrating ( am sure there are stronger words). Thanks again.
For the avoidance of doubt the Company Director of the Possessor [Spacepad UK] represented that he intended to re-open the site as a Public House. To that end, Save The Plough saw no point in a counterbid because it would be, once again, open as a pub.
What has transpired is that the Possessor is in fact, by trade, a Developer.
A Developer with no apparent record of being a Publican.
On that basis [and in my reasonable opinion] I will underline that Spacepad UK Ltd held out that misrepresentation to Enterprise Inns – who then passed on Spacepad’s intent to re-open the site as a pub to Save The Plough.
STP had therefore, and on the representations made to them, achieved their aim of Saving The Plough.
The Possessor/Developer has advanced no Planning Application in the intervening 6+ months since.
Furthermore, nor have any works been undertaken to bring the Public House back into use, if that was Spacepad UK’s genuine intent; indeed, I am absolutely and fundamentally quite clear that it was, in Law, a Misrepresentation and firmly rely upon UKPGA 2013 ch26 sections 2-5 in so saying. Mark.
To be clear, of 15 Parties who viewed the site [at the time of my own Inspection], 4 had stated an intention to re-open the site as a Public House.
The other 11 wanted to repurpose the Site, including 2 who wanted to use it as a Restaurant [this would be another Change of Use, much like Sainsbury’s, so the ACV was again a factor].
Of those 4, at least 2 put in a written offer and I strongly suspect that one of the other two also did.
So, there was plenty of appetite amongst experienced persons within the trade to re-open The Plough. There was no need to get into a bidding war, because the representations made to the Community was that it would once again be able to make use of the Community Asset.