Thanks to the campaigns detailed object the consideration of the application has been pushed back to April so object now while you can: https://publicaccess.medway.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=_MEDWA_DCAPR_145421 My take down of the developer's flawed viability statement is below: The viability assessment submitted by the developer is seriously flawed for a number of reasons (set out more fully below) most obviously its failure to account for income from food or accommodation. The fact that the report estimates turnover for the Royal Oak at less than a third of the amount published by the neighboring sans pariel shows how wrong this assessment is. It is also directly contradictory of statements by enterprise inns in their former marketing of the pub. The council must get a properly independent professional assessment carried out by District Valuer Services, part of the Valuation Office Agency which is itself part of HMRC. Uniquely, DVS has access to detailed trading accounts submitted as part of the rating assessment process, which no commercial surveyor would have. DVS only act for local authorities so there can be no conflict with commercial clients as the private practices have. The council can recharge the cost back to the applicant. An example of where the planning inspector supported such an approach is the Feathers Linhope Street NW1 Westminster CC see: https://www.ftbchambers.co.uk/sites/default/files/The%20Feathers%20Appeal%20Decision.pdf Accommodation It states that the accommodation above is uninhabitable. While it is far from luxurious it is still habitatable with a modern bathroom. The cheapest two bed property in Strood/ Frindsbury is currently a 2 bed house for £825 pcm. Even allowing 725 a month or even 625 this would still produce a substantial income if rented out or saving for any operator to be factored into their living costs. Condition The report concludes that the pub is not suitable for trading in its current condition and gives an unsupported figure of 100k restoration costs without substantiating this. The only immediate costs would be to reinstate the bar and to provide furniture etc. We have had a quote of circa 20k to do this. please note their statement that 'we are not a firm of qualified building surveyors' their 100k figure therefore has no professional basis. Competition The report notes the number of pubs nearby as a hindrance but the Royal Oak has long existed in harmony with these other pubs. Given the number of pubs which have closed in the local area and the huge new market for the pub in the temple school development the competition is not an issue as there will be a large increase in potential customers. There are very few other local dining options so a good kitchen here would do well. The sans pariel is always full as is the three crutches suggesting that existing demand , let alone increased demand is not catered for. While the market had suffered from the smoking ban etc trade is now picking up. There is such a demand in the locality for good pubs that a new micro pub has been established in strood: http://www.1050fromvictoria.co.uk/ Food The viability report is wrong based on the assumption that the pub would not provide food as it says the pub is not in a suitable location. However it is not at all far away from the junction with the A289 providing easy access to medway. The report also notes the successful food trade of the nearby sans pariel pub, which is similar in terms of its dated appearance, yet states that the Royal Oak would not be able to do the same. This statement that the pub is not suitable for food is directly contrary to how it was marketed by enterprise inns where it appears in their food led opportunities section when advertised on page 8. It also notes its prominent location and lower costs. https://issuu.com/enterpriseinns/docs/pub_opportunities_spring_14_south_e Coffee No attempt was made to factor in day time coffee/ community use which would be a vital element of a modern business strategy Volunteering Even if the viability study were accurat,e which it is not, it fails to account for the volunteering which community pubs are operated under to involve the community. Improvements The viability of the pub would be much improved by the improvement works to be carried out through grant funding and volunteering. Also the community plans to establish it as a post office and click and collect hub draw people in to the pub increasing turnover. Trade The viability report absurdly assumes that the pub would only be able to attract trade from a half mile radius. If the pub was opened there are not many other listed pubs of the same character so would have a wider reach than 1/2 mile which is not even limited to walking distance of the pub. even on this limited basis the assessment assumes an income of 100k and gross profit for a wet led business to be in region of £60,000 but then does not set out estimates for how it arrived at a figures for the costs that it states will reduce the net profit to £10,000 for an operator. As there is no break down these figures cannot be relied upon. Contrast these for the figures for the similarly old fashioned Sans Pariel which is very nearby: Accounts to the year end 31.07.15 show an income of £311,199. This shows how out of line the viability assessment is. This is taken from the advert for the lease of the sans pariel: http://www.rightmove.co.uk/commercial-property-for-sale/property-62573279.html The also double count wages once in the reduction from 60k and then in assessing the 10k. We do not know what the wages costs that have been attributed in the 40k section. It has also not factored in the slowly improving economic conditions since the financial crash. For all these reasons the viability assessment is fundamentally flawed and the council should request that the developer obtain an independent viability assessment.