Red House Update

No doubt many of you have seen some recent news about a Red House update. However, in case you didn’t know, the Red House has been at the centre of a bit of “will it, won’t it be demolished” debate in recent years. Also in case you didn’t know, the Red House can be found at Dee Banks, on Sandy Lane in Great Boughton. Many of you will know, it is the historic, popular premises that enjoys spectacular views looking out over the River Dee and the Meadows.

You may have noticed that I referred to it as ‘premises’ instead of being a bit more specific and stating what type of premises it is. Bear me with. The reason for the uncertainty may become more apparent as you read on. So, without any further ado, a Red House update. Grab yourself a brew and hopefully this will all make sense to you.

Regular Chester Lifestyle visitors may remember a couple of posts added on here back in 2021. If not, or if you want to be reminded of them, here’s the first one posted in March 2021 – entitled Save The Red House. And a follow up in June 2021 announcing plans to demolish the Red House has been rejected.

Also at the same time, local residents had successfully managed to have the status of the Red House changed for it to then be recognised as an Asset of Community Value (ACV). However, things have changed since then as this Red House update will confirm.

Red House Update

There has been quite a few articles published on the subject. Do they answer all the questions? I’m not sure. What I do know, from what I have read is that more questions seem to have popped up. Let’s get the ball rolling though and start to take a look at the Red House update.

Firstly, let’s go back to almost a year ago. Back in December 2021 an application was made to change the use of the premises from a restaurant to offices. That in itself changed the landscape (no pun intended) quite considerably. In achieving this change of use, the following occurred.

Both of these uses fall within use Class E. Effectively what this now means is that as these uses both fall within use Class E, a change of use within the same use class is not considered ‘development.’ Therefore it is a change without the need to obtain planning permission.

Furthermore, as planning consent is not required, the Council were also “satisfied that the change of use to offices as described in the application can be lawfully carried out”.

These Class amendments came into force in September 2020.

At this stage allow me to say that I am reading and digesting information, as best I can, about the situation as it’s unfolded since the summer of 2021. So, in that instance the change of use is understood. That bit seems quite straightforward. The premises are to be used as offices and not a restaurant. Is that the case though?

It’s at this point however that questions started to kick in and my naturally inquisitive mind started to stir.

Red House Update – Change In Business Usage

As I say, on the face of it a change in business use seems easy enough to comprehend. Not being aware of hearing of any new offices being set up on Sandy Lane and still being mindful that, as far as I was aware, the Red House, incorporating Et Allia restaurant, was and still is operating as a restaurant.

But maybe that’s not the case. I’d better check. A simple Google search confirmed what I thought. Et Allia is still operating as a restaurant. And not only operating. It seems that it is doing so successfully. I could be wrong but then a closer look at their website provided some sort of a clue.

Have a look HERE. As you will see, they announce and recommend “We book up well in advance, particularly on weekends so reservations are highly recommended.”

This is where my confusion kicked in. Wasn’t the reason to sell it and demolish it as a result of it struggling? Does the above sound like a struggling business? And if it is such a busy restaurant then doesn’t that also suggest that it is a valuable and popular part of the community? A venue for the use of the whole community and beyond. As opposed to it being replaced by a handful of luxury apartments that would only be enjoyed by a handful of private residents only.

In other words, people enjoy going there, so why demolish it?

Change Of Use Decision

I’m assuming that the change of use to offices was so that more income could be raised from rental income and also, costs would be reduced. Costs like business rates – NNDR.

I don’t know, but generally, does anyone know if a business would pay more NNDR as a restaurant, or more as office(s)? I know NNDR payable is an annual multiplier applied to the rateable value. And I know that there are different valuation methods within the hospitality industry. Pubs, hotels and restaurants rateable value starting position will most likely differ.

And how do hospitality related NNDR rates compare to an office? In other words, are Et Allia on course to save money as an office?

A quick delve back into the information oasis available in the public domain (Google) and check the gross amount (before any possible local authority applied discounts or reliefs) to see how much an office related business would pay in the post code area of CH3 5UX.

Offices Or A Restaurant Or A Pub?

A simple process but not a simple answer. As it happens, the Red House’s business isn’t identified as “Offices” on the VOA website. It is identified as “Public House and Premises.” It’s not even identified as a restaurant. Mind you, I understand that it can take a while for VOA updates to occur and feed through. And of course, there was the added complication of Covid business rates relief (particularly for the hospitality business) that made what was actually paid or received even more complex.

But anyway, putting that to one side, it does seem clear that the Red House was and still is operating as a restaurant? To coin an old phrase. If it “looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck” then it would appear that it is…..you’ve got it….a duck. Or, in this case a restaurant.

All in all though, what was the thinking behind in changing the business use from restaurant to offices? Just thinking out loud as you do.

The Appeal and the Inspector

Having said all that though, the developers made an appeal against the decision to reject the demolition. And this appeal was made to the Secretary of State, who then in turn appointed an Inspector to review ALL aspects of the situation. I would imagine that this exercise would involve reviewing quite a lot of independent reports and information in an open minded, independent, professional manner.

Would being a local or at least having knowledge of the area help? I’m not sure. But at least, as I stressed above, ALL aspects would be considered. Apart from the independent reports etc, consideration would also be given to local opinions and concerns I imagine. From the general public, local businesses and other local community organisations.

So, in a quick summary, where are we up to? The local council’s decision to reject the demolition of a seemingly popular, busy, iconic, historic building has been appealed against. Also, the business premises use has been successfully amended from being classed as a restaurant (or pub) to being used as offices. Or an office (singular)? Even so, it does also look as though it is however, still being used as a restaurant.

Another question springs to mind at this point. Despite the change, on paper, in usage status and following the “looks like a duck….etc” comparison, does the practical use negate what the official red tape paperwork says?

Anyway, there’s more.

Red House Update – And There’s More

Around about the same time the decision was made to reject the demolition request, the local authority also announced that the Red House was also to be listed as an Asset of Community Value (ACV).

At this stage you would think that such a decision was made after due care and consideration. Not only from the services and amenities suggested by those behind the successful ACV application, but also you would think that the Council will have adequately carried out its own due diligence and considered other local ACV venues and what they had to offer.

That assumption being the case, then a question arises as to how this status was revoked so soon after? The answers to this and other questions may lie in this quote from the independent Inspector.

“It is also of significance that there are many other community facilities within the local area which provide alternative provision as places of social gathering for the local community. There would therefore be no unacceptable impact on the quality of life, health and well-being of residents and visitors as a result of the loss of the facility.”

Many Other Community Facilities

I’m not 100% sure as to whether the above relates to its status as as a pub, a restaurant or an ACV? Let’s assume it means all of it. With regard to its status as an ACV then this seems to suggest that the Red House would, effectively, be surplus to requirements.

However, when it was given ACV status in 2021, The Rake, further down the road in Huntington, also enjoyed the same status. Again, working on the basis of adequate due diligence etc, then since awarding the Red House a status of ACV, the Rake have decided not to re-apply to extend their initial 5 years award.

In other words, the Rake will no longer be one of the “many other facilities” the Inspector referred to. So along that stretch of road, instead of there now being two venues offering some, many or all of the ACV services and amenities the Rake and the Red House could offer, there aren’t any now. Or is there? And where are they? And, importantly, are we comparing like for like comparisons.

On that basis, you must assume that the Inspector will have carefully considered all aspects and provided an accurate, independent and impartial opinion. Unfortunately, a brief snippet from the local press does not elaborate a great deal.

Or Does The Inspector Mean Pubs Or Restaurants?

Maybe the mention of “many other community facilities” refers to other pubs? Or restaurants? I don’t think this can be the case. Again, pub wise let’s make sure we’re comparing like for like. You could apply the same logic to all pubs in any area when comparing in the correct way.

For instance, if you wanted to go to a pub with a certain style of specialised own brand drinks and not be bothered by the noise of people spending time on their mobiles, then you would go to The Boot. Mind you, the Vic pub is a mere 100 yards away or so. And the attraction of the Vic is totally different to the appeal of The Boot.

Another example. You’re in Brook Street and you fancy a really good pint of cask ale. And you want to avoid Sky Sports as you’re not a footie fan. So, you go to The Cottage and not the Egerton a very short distance away. Two good pubs but different in their own right, offering different options to their customers.

I think you get the drift. So, in what way and with which pubs did the Inspector compare the Red House to? How did he arrive at the ‘like for like’ correct outcome and decide that there were “many other community facilities” etc . Merely being relatively close in the same locality doesn’t mean they’re the same product or service. That’s nowhere near the case. If locality was the key then footie fans in Liverpool would support both Liverpool and Everton as they are so close together.

No, sorry Mr Inspector. Based on what appears in the local press in the snippets, I don’t see the logic applied.

What else raises questions in the Red House update?

Red House Update – The Story Of A Struggling Business?

Another snippet from the Inspector in the local press goes like this, “The report states that the business had become unviable despite attempts to turn its fortunes around.”

So, it’s unviable? And yet, according to the website statement above, “We book up well in advance, particularly on weekends so reservations are highly recommended.” Add to this the hashtags of #weareheretostay and #businessasusual and you can begin to see how things are getting even more confusing.

As there wasn’t a great deal to support the ‘unviable’ suggestion in the local press article, I thought I’d see if that at least stacked up. So, I did a search again in the wealth of information available in the public domain, aka Google, and looked for the easily available latest accounts for Et Allia. This will support the ‘unviable’ statement I thought. Not so though as this search only added to the confusion. The latest Et Allia accounts submitted was in respect of year ending 31st July 2017. And even those accounts did not seem to show the amounts of initial investment of £1.7m and a further £300k.

So, on that basis and in the absence of independently produced (or audited) filed accounts, what financial information did the Inspector see to arrive at his conclusion?

Business Sold As A Going Concern

I seem to recall seeing somewhere that attempts had been made to sell the business as a going concern. And, clearly, these attempts had failed. But again, in the absence of up to date, independently produced accounts, such efforts would be futile. No one would buy a business without up to date, independent financial information.

And if it was marketed to be sold, who was it marketed with? If it wasn’t, then why wasn’t it? In short, has there been genuine attempts to sell it as a going concern? The lack of up to date, independent, filed financial information seems to suggest not.

I do get that business owners may wish to run their business as they see fit within the parameters they need to follow. What I’m unsure about though (bearing in mind the limited information as seen in the public domain), is how the Inspector has made the massive leap from full steam ahead in keeping it as a valued, treasured, popular, historic community venue to saying it’s OK to demolish it? Especially given all the questions and head scratching.

Imagine trying to build a jigsaw. And the jigsaw is trying to follow and understand the movements from the summer of 2021 and the Inspector’s current independent findings. We seem to have some of the bits but not all of them. Just from my own observations I’m struggling to see how this situation has arisen from where it was at in 2021. At this stage and from the information easily available in the public domain and as Johnny Nash would sing, “There Are More Questions Than Answers.”

Let me give a few more “for instances.”

Red House Update – Other Questions And Considerations

I’m sure these aren’t exhaustive but these few questions, or issues, also spring to mind.

I understand that there were in the region of 400 objections from locals against the demolition. I’ve not seen anywhere how these objections were reviewed and subsequently dealt with and resolved.

And what about the Council’s current housing policy policy? In my initial post back in March 2021 (link above), the emphasis seemed to be very much on a greater focus on affordable housing. Has this policy changed since? If not, then I don’t see how developing seven luxury apartments fits the affordable housing objective. Does the area, or Chester generally, need more luxury apartments?

Also, I heard or read somewhere recently that during development it will be necessary to close the road. If that is the case then how did the Inspector view this inconvenience? As building on a river bank, or there or thereabouts, is not one of your more conventional developments, there is a possibility that development could be somewhat more troublesome. If so, does that mean that the road may be closed for longer than during a more conventional development? And if the answer to that is, yes it will be, then how will visitors gain access to the special needs school across the road from the Red House?

The area has history of development issues. Some years ago in fact when the White House was demolished and replaced. Take a look at this from the neighbouring Huntington Parish Council’s Minutes of their meeting in March 2021.

First off, see this significant comment.

“We acknowledge that we are not a statutory consultee, being a neighbouring Parish Council and not having the Red House within our parish. However, we believe that our residents may be directly affected by this development.”

Furthermore, these observations were recorded.

“We have concerns regarding the demolition of the existing structure and the necessary excavation works.
In another development in the past few years, further up towards the city centre, Sandy Lane did need
further structural work as a result of the development. We believe that there will be a structural risk on the
road itself if the development goes ahead and we would like Cheshire West to enquire further as we cannot find any consideration in any of the documents submitted as part of this application or in offering solutions as to their mitigation.”

“Whilst we acknowledge that the view of the river corridor cannot be seen from the road, the public car park that current exists is accessible and residents walking along Sandy Lane, would be able to observe the view. Likewise, the Red house is a public house and restaurant so residents and tourists alike can enjoy the view that the Chester River Corridor presents. If this development is to be approved, the view becomes exclusive to the few who buy an apartment.”

Wildlife and Conservation

What about the wildlife and conservation aspects? Regarding wildlife generally, what materials and substances will end up in the river during development? What is the policy regarding riverside developments over the border in Wales? Is Chester consistent with the approach exercised in Wales? If not, why not?

Red House Update – Job Losses and Job Opportunities

Has there been any consideration to things like job losses or missed employment opportunities? For instance, how many staff are currently employed at the restaurant? What happens to them when their jobs disappear? Presumably, if the ACV status had been maintained then there may well have been additional jobs created. To add to the current staff jobs being maintained of course.

I’m sure there are other considerations and possibly the answers could well be on CWAC’s website. But, is it worth checking it all out as it would appear that no matter what, the demolition is happening. No matter the objections. The red tape re-usage swerve seems to have by-passed a lot of practical, feasible issues. And as such it appears to have achieved a way of eliminating a lot of resistance and questions being asked.

Another Historic Landmark To Bite The Dust

Although different circumstances, who remembers when the excellent Ship Victory pub was demolished? Wasn’t it a Grade II listed building or something similar? And wasn’t there also plenty of objections as well? But it still got knocked down didn’t it. Would anyone be surprised that in time, the vendor and the developers would have eventually found a way come what may after their initial knock back?

Also, in a week where we lost another landmark soaked in history and tradition (Chester Market), to be replaced by something many considered to not be a requirement, it seems strange to report on losing such iconic, historic properties from a city steeped in, and supposedly so proud of, it’s history and heritage.

How long before the Amphitheatre is turned into a Starbucks or something similar?

Red House Update – Who Benefits?

Well, clearly not existing residents of Great Boughton that’s for sure. Nor those restaurant staff that will lose their jobs. The wildlife and the conservation area won’t either. What chances some rare, protected wildlife live on the river bank. This aspect reminds me of a certain episode of the classic BBC TV series, Hustle.

People looking to get on the property ladder by acquiring affordable housing won’t benefit either.

The developers will benefit of course. If they sell the properties that is. As will the vendor of the Red House. Do the Council benefit? I’m not sure. Cheshire West may well be in receipt of a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) fee from the developers. For more information on this, have a read of this HERE. If they are to receive any CIL, will it be ring-fenced whereby it will be available for the benefit of the local community? That may well be worthy of a Freedom of Information request in due course.

They will also receive additional Council Tax from any new residents, but this will be offset of course by additional costs. And of course, the new residents will benefit by ultimately residing in a desirable, popular, picturesque suburb of Chester. A suburb however that ironically has unfortunately lost one its iconic and much loved landmarks. A landmark so sadly destroyed to enable them to live there in the first place.

Red House Update – In Conclusion

All in all, on the face of it, it seems like a decision has been made by one person for the benefit of a select few but to the detriment and disapproval of so many others. I would love to have been in the room when that decision was made. A long history dating back as far as the 1850’s enjoyed by so many wiped out by an out of town Inspector who may have generated more questions than answers.

Don’t get me wrong, there may be legitimate answers to all the questions posed above. However, from the details I’ve read, I haven’t seen anything that clearly justifies the leap from the situation in 2021 to demolition. And I haven’t seen anything to convince me that this is a great idea for the local community. Also, it is certainly not a decision that considers the preservation and memories of such an historic beauty spot in an historic city.

What price preserving local historic values, local beauty, the wishes of so many and maintaining local traditions when compared with the short-term profits of so few?

Chester Lifestyle Blog Posts

Many thanks for reading my latest blog post – Red House Update – and thanks for visiting my Chester Lifestyle website. It is very much appreciated. Yes, a sad day indeed when the Red House is demolished. I just hope that those involved with the decision and those involved with the new project are 110% certain they have done and are doing the right thing.