Ah, but there's the rub.... How can one object without an application to object to? Doubtless a line of thinking that has occurred to the owners?

maybe it's a transfer....

Well, I'm no legal eagle but I would have thought that a new bar or restaurant ownership would require a new licence to supply liquor in the name of the new licensee?

'Transferring' liquor licenses to 'Who Knows Who' would surely create all kinds of potential dangers. If Suburban Bars, and Bar 52 have needed to apply for & obtain new licenses I think its a pretty reasonable assumption that The Grove will need one too?

Of course there will be no need for any one, including me, to object if the permitted hours requested (for drinking and for live entertainment)are reasonable ones .... but since it seems that a bar (pub?) is sprouting up maybe disguised as a restaurant I doubt that I am the only one, as Dusty sang, Watching and Waiting!

as Dusty sang, Watching and Waiting!

She also sang 'Wishing and Hoping' or was it 'Wishing and Hopping'? And 'Son of a Preacher Man'. As seriously as I can get after alcohol. I wonder how many people thought: 'Oh dear" when they eventually found out a chapel was going to be built next door. The drinking majority are usually only recorded in Britain by people who thought it should be stopped.

Jasper wrote:
Well, I'm no legal eagle but I would have thought that a new bar or restaurant ownership would require a new licence to supply liquor in the name of the new licensee?

'Transferring' liquor licenses to 'Who Knows Who' would surely create all kinds of potential dangers. If Suburban Bars, and Bar 52 have needed to apply for & obtain new licenses I think its a pretty reasonable assumption that The Grove will need one too?



I am with you on this Jasper (I do declare an interest being a near neighbour of The Grove). If the premises are to be a restaurant a la it's previous incarnations with similar hours etc then no problem BUT any deviation should have to go through the approval process. My objections to the previous application by Suburban Bar focussed on the late hours, music and outside drinking in a residential area not to an eat in restaurant. Unless anybody can demonstrate otherwise I do believe these guy's are opening up a bar in disguise. If,as Mcnab say's, the new proprietor is on site doing the place up I will pop in and ask him when back in town later this week.

On a not entirely unrelated topic, I can't help wondering if Mr Brook-Crispin is demonstrating as much enthusuasm and industry in unmaking his unauthorised Burley-Woodhead by-pass (as required by the planning authorities) as he was in its construction?

There have also been several press reports recently of large new houses being demolished because their developers had scant regard for planning regulations.

So, the warning signs are there for all to see and if anyone thinks that they can show 2 fingers to the planning and liceensing authorities and have disregard for the community of which they form a part we need not be too sympathetic or shed too many tears if the project does eventually fall apart at, possibly, considerable cost to themselves?

Just spoken to the Licensing teamn at Bradford who tell me that no application has been recieved although they are expecting one shortly!
They did confirm that there is no facility to transfer a previous license and it would have to go through the full procedure.

We live close to the Grove and were constantly bombarded with leaflets etc telling us the Suburban Bar should not be allowed to open ,all went straight into the bin. I wonder if the same people will start again with the new owners of the Grove.

If enough people feel strongly about a matter they should be able to exercise their views. If other's don't have a view the bin seems a good place for such material - just make sure it goes in the right colour bin and help save the planet.

Rufus, I recollect the campaign very clearly and do not agree that the leaflets you received were saying "Suburban Bar should not be allowed to open";

they were saying that the opening hours applied for and the kind of entertainments proposed were unacceptable in a primarly residential area of the town. Presumably you did not agree with these representations but they obviously carried sufficient weight for Suburban Bars to withdraw their application.

I can't recall that any of the objectors at that time were against the reopening of The Grove as a restaurant. What may well be happening now, though, is that that the present developer is pretending to re-open as a restaurant but in reality is transforming the place into a pub.

This will have all sorts of implications, not least for capacity and fire evacuation regulations. It may be that, as McNab indicated, enthusiastic amateurs are making a decent fist of building alterations but there is a great deal involved (I hope!) in meeting health, electrical & fire safety regulations etc and the same regulations & need for compliance & inspection apply to all such similar establishments, as the developer will well know.....

So, maybe its time he/she came into the open to inform us what the inentions are... or possibly The Gusset may have to do some digging around?

Update in today's Times!

business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/...g/article6670227.ece

Good find frankie4fingers. I knew nothing about the JJB connection. It makes this thread, and a few others, much clearer.

what ever next! Maybe we are being hoodwinked and in reality the application will be change of use to a chav sports wear shop.

Or even a sports bar/cafe

oooooooooh eeerrrrrrrrr! Interesting article.

I always wondered who would live in a house like Whinbrae.

The mystery of The Grove rumbles on though. £50K per annum rent!!!!!
Its enough to make a grown man cry!

I wonder if Columbo is open to investigating what type of lunatic individual would want to spend that amount of money plus setting up costs on something that has been closed for over 2 years!