Maybe it's more to do with the clientele. Folk who are mainly eating are perhaps viewed to be more socially acceptable than those who are just 'vertically drinking'.

I mean it's not as if previous visitors to The Grove/Grecos/Monkmans/Francois (who’ve I missed?) were getting tanked up and then leaping out of windows.

Oh! Hang on..

Can some eagle eye say how the present license application submitted by The Grove differs from the application that was withdrawn by Suburban Bars?

I used to live next to the A65 and 66,000 vehicles a day passed my front door, 33,000 of them 30" from my front door and several buses a day stopped giving the lower deck a view of my lounge and the upper deck a view of my bedroom. People used to say "poor you" " mucky windows" etc but did I moan? No, the house cost £18k and I chose to live there.

What's that got to do with The Grove? Nothing, but if you get all nimby about someone that already was in your back yard when you bought going about their lawful business then I believe you should accept it.

The Grove is a key institution in the ilkley Monopoly board, I'm glad it's re-opening, the proprietors are all a wonderful set of chaps, local (except for Carlisle Pete) and are putting their heart and soul, blood sweat and no-doubt tears into the project.

The key thing about the licence is that it is the same hours as the previous one held by the last business to trade there. I think the Suburban Bars operate well into the early hours.

Hmm... still far from clear to me. The Suburban Bars application was for a change of use from a Class A3 restaurant to a Class A4 bar with an entertainment licence.

I suspect that on this occasion no change of use is being applied for, in which case The Grove would still be supposed to be a restaurant but one which could only ever be financially viable by selling vast amounts of alcohol and just a little food?

And that's certainly not how it used to be along this area of The Grove.... that's how it used to be at Johnsons opposite The Crescent?

I'm sure the guys who are planning all of this are computer literate and keep an eye on this forum. They seem a tad reluctant to assure us that they are reopening as a restaurant and their license application gives a pretty good idea of their true intentions?

Why should all the many residents of this area have to suffer just because a so-called 'successful businessman' has shelled out far more than he should have done to buy the lease for a business, lost a huge amount of money in the proceeds and now wants to win it back whatever the costs and consequences to the social life of all the people resident in this quiet area of Ilkley?

Jasper wrote:


I suspect that on this occasion no change of use is being applied for, in which case The Grove would still be supposed to be a restaurant but one which could only ever be financially viable by selling vast amounts of alcohol and just a little food?


Why should all the many residents of this area have to suffer just because a so-called 'successful businessman' has shelled out far more than he should have done to buy the lease for a business, lost a huge amount of money in the proceeds and now wants to win it back whatever the costs and consequences to the social life of all the people resident in this quiet area of Ilkley?

My memory of the old 'Grove' was that it too was basically a wine bar (certainly on fri and Sat nights) and the food trade was secondary (btw, most restaurants are only viable because of the drinks they sell).

Quite why the residents of an area that has hosted restaurants and bars for at least the past decade should suddenly decide that they have the right to stop people trading quite legitimately (however much idle speculation and innuendo you pour on them) is beyond me. But, then, many things are...

Change of use are planning issues not licencing I think?

I gather from pub landlords over the years that wet sales are less profitable than the sale of food which is why every pub is putting on food of some sort.

I'll stand corrected if I'm wrong!

mcnab wrote:
Change of use are planning issues not licencing I think?

I gather from pub landlords over the years that wet sales are less profitable than the sale of food which is why every pub is putting on food of some sort.

I'll stand corrected if I'm wrong!

Might be true in pubs, isn't in bars and restuarants IMLE. Well, depends what you mean by 'less profitable'. The GP will be the same, sometimes less (those 2/3 mark-ups on bottles of wine) but the ability to have drinks before, wine with, coffee after really helps out the bottom line. And if you can serve another 20% of customers who just want to pop in for a glass of wine or g&t on their way home...

Pubs also put on food, sometimes at ridiculously cheap prices, to keep punters in for longer which means they buy more beer...

BertieWooster wrote:
[quote]Jasper wrote:




My memory of the old 'Grove' was that it too was basically a wine bar (certainly on fri and Sat nights) and the food trade was secondary (btw, most restaurants are only viable because of the drinks they sell).

Quite why the residents of an area that has hosted restaurants and bars for at least the past decade should suddenly decide that they have the right to stop people trading quite legitimately (however much idle speculation and innuendo you pour on them) is beyond me. But, then, many things are...

As the constabulary well know, it is amazing how differently people recall the same experience. I ate several times at The Grove prior to the chef leaving and the place falling apart.... and only at weekends. My clear recollection is of two rooms with 'properly' set out tables, linen cloths etc, good food, hardly anyone at the bar. I also called in at the mid-week monthly jazz nights a few times.... hardly anyone else at the bar but several tables taken for dining on each occasion. Sounds & seems to me like a restaurant?

So, I have to surmise either that I'm going ga-ga or that some supporters of enhanced drinking opportunities in the West End have rose-tinted recollectons of former (heaving?) wine bars? Not that The (new) Grove intends to be a wine bar.... it intends to be a fully-fuelled BAR!

There is no way whatever that West End rsidents could hinder businesses trading legitimately ..... but of course they have every right to use the democratic process to attempt to preserve their quality of life and to scrutinise licensing and planning applications. Why else would this consultation process exist?

Jasper wrote:

As the constabulary well know, it is amazing how differently people recall the same experience. I ate several times at The Grove prior to the chef leaving and the place falling apart.... and only at weekends. My clear recollection is of two rooms with 'properly' set out tables, linen cloths etc, good food,

Hmm,our memories are certainly different on that last point.

Sorry, on the other---that the new owners are intending a fully fledged bar, do you have any evidence? Or is it surmise?

When Francois had it it was most definitely a "wine bar".

Oh those heady days......

There are kitchens on the premises and they are getting equal attention to the bar and restaurant.

They have a young chef, I seem to recognise him as someone who worked at Monkmans/Fleece and Escape currently doing some Diy type work. One of the principls previously worked at the premises in it's heyday

As I understand it, Pete, the Bar Manager from The Yard (not involved in the food there) is taking over The Grove, which seems to give a pretty good clue as to what it's about to become.

deepblue wrote:
As I understand it, Pete, the Bar Manager from The Yard (not involved in the food there) is taking over The Grove, which seems to give a pretty good clue as to what it's about to become.

Not really. No-on's claiming its about to become a pub. Why can't a bar manager become a restaurant and bar manager? That would be exactly what's just happened at my place...

BertieWooster wrote:
deepblue wrote:
As I understand it, Pete, the Bar Manager from The Yard (not involved in the food there) is taking over The Grove, which seems to give a pretty good clue as to what it's about to become.

Not really. No-on's claiming its about to become a pub. Why can't a bar manager become a restaurant and bar manager? That would be exactly what's just happened at my place...

So what is your place, Bertie, ..... it might help to know 'where you are coming from' in interpreting your comments?

It is a pity that there has to be so much speculation and rumour. There again, the developers have had lots of time and opportunity to make their intentions clear. We have the right to be suspicious if they have not availed themselves of the opportunities to do so?

It could be worth looking at the information on the Bradford LEA licensing team website to try pulling out some 'facts' from the web of rumours?

Here are a few that might be relevant (open to correction if I have misread details, of course):

The person named as 'the designated premises supervisor' must hold a personal license (for which designated qualificatons are necesary). The person named on The Grove license application as the Designated Premises Supervisor is Mr Peter Shanks. His name is not included on the registered list of individuals who hold a personal license. The list may be incorrect, or Peter Shanks may be nearing completion of his registration but, as it stands, The Grove could not open under his supervision and management?

No entertainment license has been applied for..... so there should be no need for provision of speakers, piped music, plasma screens etc
(unless, of course, the developers had the foresight to consider that a future application might be made for a variation of the license, as often happens?)

The license applicaton is for consumption of alcohol sold during the permitted hours both on and off the premises.

Only 3rd parties who would be likely to be affected by the activities undertaken may object (ie in hearing distance iftheir windows are open, regularly have to pass by to access their own property, would be affected by customer parking,etc) so representations from others would be discarded, however valid their reasoning may or may not be.

Objections can only be raised under 4 headings, so anyone considering objecting should ensure that their representation would be valid under at least one of these headings.

It may be tiresome to have to go through this kind of process. However, Ilkley, at present, is the kind of community in which many people aspire to live. We owe it to ourselves that it continues to be so and the regulations have been devloped to prevent the recurrence of problems the like of which the town has recently experienced. The food storage and handling regulations are there to try to prevent the kind of food poisoning outbreak which occured at the restaurant on the station precinct. The licensing laws have been most recently amended to try to prevent all the social problems related to excessive, binge drinking, as we had when Johnsons was operating.

So, back to the developers, cards on table chaps. Are you develping a restaurant or a Bar? What willl be the maximum permitted customer capacity during permitted hours if you are allowed to open, both seated and standing? How about some sample menus & prices - they might provide some clues?

mcnab wrote:

They have a young chef, I seem to recognise him as someone who worked at Monkmans/Fleece and Escape currently doing some Diy type work.

Is that Andy who used to run treacle Moon? Tubbys was never the same after he left. Means the food will be spiffing.