Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Assuming that the tenant actually wanted a new

> lease, surely it would be possible for to serve a

> counter notice under the business tenancy

> provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (or

> whatever is the current legislation) requesting a

> new tenancy. The landlord can't just evict a

> business tenant willy nilly and would have to have

> specific grounds to do so.



The Palmerston Instagram post indicates that they ?have not been offered a new lease?, which suggests to me that the lease has expired and Jaime has been invited to leave. It sounds like this is not an eviction, simply one side of the negotiation declining to continue the arrangement.


Not that it makes it any better for all the staff involved, Burt I suppose they have st least got time to look for new work.

Abe_froeman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't really understand this. This article

> suggests that the tenants own the actual pub!

>

> https://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/Article/2011/0

> 2/17/Exclusive-Host-turns-tables-on-Enterprise-Inn

> s


Think that implies that Rigby became the owner back in 2011 and it's he, not Enterprise, who were leasing it to the current occupants?

Well this just gets weirder and weirder...



All I?ll say is that Enterprise are one of the nastiest, scummiest group of bottom-feeding pieces of crap you could ever hope to avoid, and if they?re Jaime?s opposition I actually feel sorry for him (there?s a first!).

Abe_froeman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Maybe so Rendel, but it says that he took over the

> pub with his business partner Jamie Younger.



Sorry, missed that bit. Maybe they've fallen out? All seems daft complex. Can't say the Palmerston has ever been a great favourite (though perfectly acceptable for a pint and conveniently positioned right opposite the dentist!) but it'd be really sad to see yet another pub disappear for posh flats or retail.

DovertheRoad Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Genuine question - what kind of business grosses

> higher takings than a good, well loved restaurant

> on LL?



In hospitality - like all businesses - it?s not so much about turnover as profit margin. And profits in the restaurant world a pretty thin at the best of times. These are not the best of times in that industry.

Abe_froeman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I cant see that site becoming flats. It is in the

> best location, has space for plenty of covers, a

> loyal local clientel and will habe no sitting

> tenant. It must be worth an absolute fortune to

> the right operator.



This is what confuses me about what I?ve been told confidentialy; although I can well imagine Enterprise Inns decideong to take it back for themselves , I can?t really see a better use for that location than what it is right now.


There?s obviously a lot more going on behind the scenes then we can tell, and I genuinely hope this location remains a quality local drinking/eating place. Unfortunately if Enterprise have taken back control they?ll probably maul it, they?re really awful operators.

Loutwo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Nando?s maybe?

>

> Louisa.



Something like that is possible. I reckon it?s need deep pockets to redevelop. The more I think about it, the more I just can?t see it being turned residential or retail.

This is highly likely to stay as a pub. Enterprise inns have increasingly moved from a tenanted to a managed model over the last couple of years. Fullers are also doing this. Bermondsey pub company and frontier pubs (eg chandos in Honor Oak) are two of the 'pub groups' owned by EI under which an increasing number of their pubs are being moved.
Is it likely to stay as a pub (noting I agree with comments about the Youngs/Ram chain...). If not will it be the loss of a lovely Victorian pub? If the latter I'll make enquiries my my local 'save historic pubs) person - is it unique enough to be listed?

Maybe speak to the people who got The Ivy House listed at very short notice?


The developers who bought it weren't then able to turn it into flats (I think I've remembered that right).


As a separate issue (I think) it was then listed as an asset of community value, after which it became a community pub


I'm not suggesting in any way that anybody should go down that route with The Palmerston.

I don't think a community owned pub would work in East Dulwich.


But getting it listed might at least save it as a pub. Like The Ivy House, it seems to have an interior well worth saving

Not sad to see it go. Far too expensive. Last time I went in the chef's had their names printed on the menu like it was a Michelin star restaurant.


Food was OK,but cost me than central London for average stuff. Much rather go to SE15 for food now.

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Assuming that the tenant actually wanted a new

> lease, surely it would be possible for to serve a

> counter notice under the business tenancy

> provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (or

> whatever is the current legislation) requesting a

> new tenancy. The landlord can't just evict a

> business tenant willy nilly and would have to have

> specific grounds to do so.


I think that Jamie and his pal (Freeholders) do own the freehold but I'm guessing there is also a long lease to Enterprise Inns (Leaseholders) and a thirty year sub lease to the restaurant (Tenant). The leaseholders could oppose the granting of a new lease to the tenants on the basis that they need the premises for their own use. There are a pub company so it can't really be opposed by the tenant. So it's goodbye much loved and valued local restaurant and pub, albeit with not very good beer in it but probably not the fault of the pub as they may be tied in to buying beer from the leaseholders, and hello to another pubco in Lordship Lane. In France they have laws against this sort of thing but I expect the authorities are powerless to anything about it.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
    • Very sorry to hear this, but surely the landlord is responsible for fixing the electrics?  Surely they must be insured for things like this? I hope you get it all sorted out quickly.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...