Jump to content

The Cross Bar - Bewsey


Bazj
 Share

Recommended Posts

Well it seems that there is no pleasing some councillors.... they allow a proliferation of cheap bars and clubs to infest the town centre, they allow the building of offices which never have enough parking and yet two of their number are objecting to granting a license back to the Cross Bar pub in Bewsey which was destroyed by fire in 2011 on the grounds that it might be a bit noisy for neighbouring businesses (none of which; with the exception of the pizza shop are open after 6:00pm anyway) The two are also objecting on the grounds that the proposed pub/bar does not have enough parking!!! Now correct me if I'm wrong but I thought drinking and driving was a bit of a no-no, so surely having a pub without a car park would be a good thing?

 

Prior to the place being closed in 2011, the pub was almost exclusively used by local residents and was never that noisy anyway; even when the weekly disco was on!

 

Personally I don't think the building should have been allowed to be built in the first place as it is too big and totally out of keeping with the adjacent properties... plus it is a bad design (the roof line is all wrong and it is as big as the original railway bridge that stood on the site previously)... but it is there and as it was a bar, it should be allowed to be one again

 

http://www.warrington-worldwide.co.uk/articles/17485/1/Planners-delay-licensed-bar-decision/Page1.html

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read it differently to you Baz in that they are objecting to a NEW bar with it's own access which is proposed to be built in the roof space of the 3 shops next to the Crossbar Pub and nothing to do with granting a new licence back to the existing Cross Bar Pub itself.

 

Saying that I can't see what the problem is either and they allow change of use from retail to bars and food outlets all the time around here so storage to bars should be simples.  Maybe the two councillors don't drink :wink::lol:

 

PS licencing hours are 10.30am 'till 11pm not from 6pm :wink: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read it differently to you Baz in that they are objecting to a NEW bar with it's own access which is proposed to be built in the roof space of the 3 shops next to the Crossbar Pub and nothing to do with granting a new licence back to the existing Cross Bar Pub itself.

 

Dizzy, there is no first floor adjacent to the Cross bar; they have single storey pitched roof shops. The way I read it was that they are objecting to the bar in its old first floor location. The cross bar had a first floor and a ground floor bar area prior to the fire. Niether has re-opened but the ground floor has been turned into retail units so that is why I assume the shops bit comes into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The single storey pitched roof bit is what confused me too Baz as I go past there quite a bit so I had a look at the plans (well I tried to as the full 'Design Statement' wont open for me on the Councils website). 

I often wonder if they block me or things as it happens quite a lot  :roll::lol:

 

The other docs open though and the existing/proposed drawings show it in the roof space of the single story shops ie above KW Golf, the fast food place and Bet Fred.... with the addition of velux windows.

It's submitted under the name Cross Bar so must be part of the other place or owned by it I guess.

 

Maybe you'll have more luck in opening and reading main doc that me so heres the link.........

 

http://planning.warrington.gov.uk/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=2013/22709&theTabNo=10&backURL=%3Ca%20href=wphappcriteria.display%3ESearch%20Criteria%3C/a%3E%20%3E%20%3Ca%20href=%27wphappsearchres.displayResultsURL?ResultID=696493%26StartIndex=11%26SortOrder=APNID:asc%26DispResultsAs=wphappsresweek1%26BackURL=%3Ca%20href=wphappcriteria.display%3ESearch%20Criteria%3C/a%3E%27%3ESearch%20Results%3C/a%3E

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Refusing planning permission on the grounds that using part of the building as a bar somehow increases the risk of fire is bonkers because with that logic, all buildings would unoccupied.

 

If these two councillors are that concerned about fire risk then we need to ask what have they done about wheelie bin fire problem? From what I remember the place was burnt down at a time when the vandals were setting fire to wheelie bins almost every few days in the area and it was a wheelie bin fire that started it all.

 

As for the noise and parking problems, well surely if this bar is going to be smaller than it was before, then these issues are going to be considerably less so what are they on about?

 

Bill :).

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not see the problem of having bars in the city centre as few people live there and as long as the number of bars can be policed, the more the merrier!!!

 

However as pointed out the bar is purpose recent built and so must meet all the requirments. So wonder what the councilors are looking for or proves they have no common sense.

 

The plans open for me in fire fox but it is to small to read on the small screen.

 

Never been in the Cross Bar, so confused. It is a ground plus two storey, the roof space is on the second storey, so why not just expand up there.

 

Did the Cross Bar shut down before the fire, sure it was and was it not a restaraunt also as it was to let as a bar/restaraunt. Anyone know why it took so long to reopen the bar and shop?

 

Can I ask when was there a railway bridge, what line did it carry?

 

PS, I always take my car to the pub, how else do I get home?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

After the fire (which could have been fatal) the owner applied to convert the CrossBar building into small B&B apartments with a dining room in the roofspace above the shops. He then built that roof lower than on the plans and said he wouldn't use it as a dining room. Two ground floor units were provided in the main building - one to be retail, one to be a bar, then both wrere advertised as retail. He now has applied to have the roofspace as a bar. Apparently it meets (or may be amended to meet) building regs but he's already making the alterations before getting planning consent (and has added a porch which isn't even in the plans). Access is by two staircases and a spiral staircase (which is not suitable as a fire escape route). The staircases are the regulation width (1.05m) but descend to narrower doorways.

 

The applicant was convicted on 4 counts of breaching fire regulations. It seems it is not a planning reason to turn down an application just because the applicant has a record of not being bothered about any regulations, but I'll be inviting the committee to turn down the application on the issues of noise (there's an old people's home behind it) and parking and overdevelopment of the site, but primarily because I don't think we should be approving plans for a bar that, even owned by someone careful in these matters, might be a deathtrap (whatever the regs say).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve, I know the owner and builder very well... all my lads used to drink in there after work when it was open.

 

My mate used to do the disco in there too and I won £400 on the open the box thing one night...... but having seen the plans and knowing what I know now having read up since this thread began; I would probably have to agree with you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welll done on your stance and hopefully this will carry through when dealing with people who leave buildings empty to be vandalised so they can demolish without objection and in protecting conservation areas.

 

As for the application, if he of bad character then he won't get a alcohol licence and if the fire exits are not right he won't get a fire certificate. and if he wants to start work before he gets planning it is his gamble, It is not as if he is demolishing a listed or important building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welll done on your stance and hopefully this will carry through when dealing with people who leave buildings empty to be vandalised so they can demolish without objection and in protecting conservation areas.

 

you mean like the Council have done so many times before Coffee???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well put Coffee :wink:

 

As for the Cross Bar and your comments Steve P it does all sound pretty bad actually now you have explained. 

 

Hard to tell all that from the planning application and submitted documents... which by the way are now visible and working. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Council is virtually powerless in these instances. The government now penalises us if we refuse applications and can't sustain it on appeal. If a murderer wanted to build an extension and we thought we wanted to bury a body under it, this would not be a valid planning reason to refuse it.

 

For the Cross Bar he still needs to meet buildings regs and get a premises licence but previous convictions for breaching fire regs is unlikely to be a barrier to that (though he might be refused a personal licence).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...