1. The minutes of 5 May meeting were agreed as accurate

2. Actions arising

a. Press articles Richard thanked Brain and James for getting the articles into last week’s Evesham Journal and Observer. These had resulted in a donation of £10 towards the ‘fighting fund’ from a lady in Eckington (he has written to thank her) and an e-mail from Guy Stephenson, who owns 4 pubs in the county and would be interested in buying the freehold of the QE. Richard had forwarded Guy’s e-mail to group members (Richard’s e-mail of 09/05/2008 13:59). Guy’s interest was further discussed under agenda item 5 below.

b. Meeting with Wychavon Richard, with Mary and accompanied by Anna Mackison, had met 2 Wychavon officers on 7 May. He had circulated an account of this meeting to group members (e-mail of 08/05/2008 22:20). Though Wychavon is limited in what they can do, their policy (demonstrated in similar cases) is not to allow closure of the last pub in a village, a necessary community asset. They would thus put a high burden of proof of non-viability on anyone applying for change of use. Their powers in respect of listed buildings are also limited, but their Conservation Officer and Anna Mackison would make another inspection of the building within the next 2 weeks. The group agreed that using these official council channels was obviously the right approach. Secretary’s note. The inspection took place on 14 May and in consequence Wychavon would be writing to Admiral requesting action on a number of points. But they cannot tell Admiral to clean the building, which is in a filthy state (Richard’s e-mail of 14/05/2008 23:44).

c. Petitions and Pledges James had not yet researched the position and undertook to do so. Secretary’s note. He has now ascertained that there is no problem with taking a petition round door-to-door (his e-mail of 14/05/2008 08:57). If it turned out that we did need to go for a community purchase (though this might be a last resort), David suggested that it could be worth investigating the possibility of getting charitable status for a ‘community projects’ organisation, one project being purchase of the building and getting it restored. Managing and operating it as a pub would be kept entirely separate. (The Fleece at Bretforton might be some kind of model: it is owned by a charity, The National Trust, but it is run as a pub business by the tenant.) Charities Commission information is accessible on-line. Secretary’s note. For the follow-up action taken on this see the exchange of e-mails between David and Richard (latter’s 15/05/2008 16:40 refers).

d. Contact with Admiral David’s contact had said that Admiral did not really want to talk to the group until the Board had made its decision about which way to go. The paper that has gone up to them offers options and the implication is that it has recommended that the Board should choose the option to sell. They apparently believe that selling it as a pub would get them more than trying to sell for development as housing, because of all the difficulties and uncertainties involved in the latter. They have always sold their holdings individually, not in bulk, and place them with 2 agents who compete to get the highest price. They have recently been trialing selling at auction. In discussion it was noted that the market was changing at present and buyers were not going to find getting loans as easy. There was a danger that Admiral might just sit on it for the present and do nothing. However, they will have allocated it a nominal value on their books and if they had to sell at a ‘loss’, it might be to their tax advantage. It was certainly possible that our continuing pressure could persuade them to sell rather than do nothing. David had been given a ‘phone number to call for when we want access for valuation.

e. Viability survey Judy & Mike had filled this in and circulated their draft to the group (their e-mail of 11/05/2008 22:48). Since the survey didn’t result in an obvious measure of viability, Mike had devised a simple scoring system, which he believed showed that overall it did look viable – but it all depended on the price someone had to pay for the building. Comments and amendments to the draft were put forward. It was also agreed that there was potential for various things and noted that there were local people who would appreciate opening for morning coffee and afternoon tea. Emphasis should be given to the historic building aspect – David Phillips might know how long it had been a pub. Secretary’s note The 1841 census, England’s first general census, records the resident of the building at that time describing himself as a ‘tailor and publican’. We cannot easily get further back than that date, but I have spoken to David Phillips, who will see if he can come up with any idea of further sources to check. It was agreed that Mike & Judy would make the requested revisions to the text and that the survey would be held as part of the body of evidence of viability as a pub, should we need it. Secretary’s note This has been done and circulated under their e-mail of 17/05/2008 10:50.

3. Other actions taken. Richard and Mary had had an informal meeting with Nicole Burrows, former landlady of The Mill. She had been encouraging on the viability side but thought Admiral’s price of £600K was just ridiculous not least for a building in that condition. This was more than twice the valuation of the Mill as a pub at the time it was sold for housing and it would have been ready for a purchaser to go in and start trading immediately. She said we needed a professional valuation by agents who dealt in pubs and recommended looking at The Caterer for names. Richard had acquired the latest issue of both that publication and The Publican. These gave an indication of the sorts of values put on pub businesses, though in each case we were talking about current going concerns (with available proper accounts for the past 2 or 3 years) and properties in which people could begin trading straight away – none of which was the case with the QE. Nicole further said that it must be run as a free house to be profitable, but that without being unreasonably tied, it was possible to get loans from breweries at advantageous rates.

4. Valuation: what to do next. Though both Wychavon and Nicole had recommended our getting professional valuations, because of other events (see the next agenda item), it was agreed that we should not at this point be spending money on getting our own valuation. However we should ask 2 local builders (Mark Axtell-Powell, who is accustomed to working on listed buildings, and Robin Eaton) if they would be willing to give informal estimates of the costs of the minimum essential work (roof, windows, electrics, plumbing, bringing the kitchen up to standard, replacement of toilets and general redecorating) plus, if possible, what it would additionally take for a more radical refurbishment scheme like that for which Admiral had got planning permission.

Action: Mike Taite

5. Guy Stephenson’s interest. As noted at agenda item 2a above, Guy Stephenson is interested in buying the freehold and running the QE as a pub. He was having difficulty getting any sense out of Admiral as to price. Richard had spoken to him on the ‘phone and though it was clear that food was not really part of his interest, a later call indicated that if successful in his bid to purchase, he would employ a known and respected local caterer to handle this aspect. He wanted to meet James, who was happy with this and Richard would put them in touch. Secretary’s note: action taken. It was agreed that anything the group could do to facilitate this – or any similar bids – was worthwhile.

6. CAMRA. Richard had now had contact from the local branch. Their AGM is on 20 May and the QE will be on the agenda. Richard was unable to go himself. It was agreed that he would get details of place and exact time and if CAMRA was content that another member of the group could attend in his place, Mike & Judy and possibly Mike Taite would go. Secretary’s note. Action taken, Richard’s e-mail of 14/05/2008 23:24 copied to the aforementioned.

7. Further actions to raise awareness and funds.

a. Mike Taite (his e-mail of 07/05/2008 20:23) had made a number of good suggestions, of which having an event outside the pub to which people would bring their own drinks was immediately attractive. Lunchtime on Sunday 25 May was agreed as a date (Richard had spoken to the Cricket Club to ensure that it did not tread on their toes) and actions to enable it were agreed:

· advertising it would be by word-of-mouth within the parish; Brian had also drafted a notice to go on village notice boards;

· David would investigate purchase of beer from the Battledown Brewery in Cheltenham. It would not be for sale: people could help themselves and if they then wished to make a donation to the ‘fighting fund’ they could do so. If there was a quantity left over, it would be offered to the cricket club for sale;

· James would be happy to lend his barbecue;

· Loans of gazebos would be investigated;

· Katie George would be asked to make a ‘Give Us Back Our Pub’ banner;

· James had a suitable camera for publicity shots of the event which would be provided to the local press and posted on the Web.

Actions: group members as agreed

b. Brian had a cutting about the Live and Let Live in Herefordshire, which had recently been re-opened following local opposition to 4 successive applications for change of use. He was away during the coming week, but would contact them on his return to see what we might learn.

Action: Brian

8. Community project ? Given the interest already being shown by at least one independent purchaser and the difficulties inherent in purchase by the community, it was agreed that the latter should be our action of ‘last resort’ and specific actions relating to community purchase should be put on hold until it was clear that this would be the only way forward.

9. Communication with parish residents. A further meeting dealing specifically with the QE would be needed at some point, but at this stage an extra sheet summarising activity to date should go out with The Link. James was also happy for a section of his website to be used and Nick Moss who runs the parish website would be kept in the picture.

Action: Mary to write summary for the July Link

10. Date of next meeting. A date would be set after the event on the 25^th.

Last Friday, I had a meeting with Clive Clinton, Operations Director for Admiral Taverns and Kate Powell, the local Business Development Manager.

We discussed the planned renovations and the business plan that I submitted. They told me that the previous interested party in the Queen Elizabeth was a TV celebrity chef, who had intended to run a cookery school as well as a high quality Gastro Pub / Restaurant.

The refurbishment plans have been costed at £650,000 by Admiral Taverns.

Such a  high level of investment means that the rent required by Admiral Taverns is £60,000 in the first year, rising to £80,000 in the second year. In order for a pub to work financially at such a high rent level Admiral Taverns say it needs to be taking in the region of £10,000+ a week. 

(This ties in with the business plan that I submitted, which shows that on a turnover of £600,000 a year and a rent of £60,000 you would make £14,000 profit, before tax)

Admiral Taverns consider that this is a very big turnover for a county pub and the original proposal had to be specially approved by their main board. It was only because of the involvement of the celebrity chef (They wouldn’t tell me who) that the deal was approved.

Without the involvement of a well know celebrity chef, it is doubtful that the turnover could get to the level required to cover the rent, leaving the pub operating at a loss.

Whilst making a small operating loss might not be the end of the world, Admiral are also looking for a guarantee on the lease. This means that if the pub fails the leasee is still responsible for the payments of £60,000 in year one and £80,000 a year in years 2 to 20.

With a worst case risk of nearly £1.6 Million and a best case reward of just over £1,000 a month, the lease option is a non starter.
(Unless of course you are a celebrity chef !) 

I think that Admiral Taverns are aware that you would have to be slightly insane to take on the Queen Elizabeth at the rent levels they require to carry out their original refurbishment plans. They did say that they had three other potential tenants to interview, but I got the impression they may have been bluffing !

However, they have said that they would now consider selling the freehold. (This is something that previously they have refused to consider)

If they are prepared to take a sensible price, reflecting the current condition of the building, then it may be possible to buy the pub outright and carry out less extensive refurbishment works.

This would make the pub financially viable at a more realistic level of turnover. (Being freehold it would not be tied for the purchase of beers, so you would also need to sell fewer pints to cover the costs)

I will be getting a firm of specialist pub valuers to take a look at the Queen Elizabeth as soon as possible with a view to making an offer to buy the pub outright.

I won’t pay over the odds for it, but if Admiral Taverns are realistic then a deal can be done.

 James Hickman
Elmley Castle

I have today finally submitted a full business plan to Kate Powell, the business development manager handling the pub for Admiral Taverns.

Having been through the process of preparing the plan I have discovered the commercial reality of running a village pub, and it certainly isn’t an easy way to make money! 

The only real option I can see to make the Queen Elizabeth viable, at the rent levels Admiral Tavern are asking for, is to focus on a good quality food offering to attract reasonable numbers of customers from outside the local area.

The plan I have put forward is based around this concept, but does retain a locals bar with a cheaper “bar snack” menu which I think is important for everyone in the village.

I would like to thank Sue Essex from DESS Ltd (Kersoe) and John Jenkinson from the Evesham Hotel for their assistance with putting the plan together. It was a huge help to have a couple of industry experts donating their time and experience to help me with the process.

As soon as I hear anything from Admiral Taverns I will post the details on this website.

James Hickman

If anybody actually knows what is happening with the proposed refurbishment of the Queen Elizabeth then please let us know so that we can replace the village rumours with some hard facts.

Latest rumours are:

“Axtell-Powell Developments Ltd have been awarded the contract for the refurbishment and will be starting work before the end of Janury.” – Mark Axtell-Powell has said that this rumour is untrue.

“Contractors have been appointed and will start work on the 28th of January.” – It is now the 29th and no sign of any work so far !

“The people who operate the Childswickham Inn have been interviewed twice and are front runners to manage the pub.”

“The selected tenant for the pub has backed out and Admiral Taverns are having to re-advertise the post”

The only things I can confirm as facts from the public record are:

1. Planning permission was granted on 12th September 2007

2. A licence was granted to the premises on 14th December 2007

The licence covers:

Opening Hours 
Sunday – Thursday – 10:00am – 12:30am
Friday & Saturday -  10:00am – 01:30am

Allowable Activities

a) The Supply of Alcohol
b) The provision of facilities for dancing
c) The provision of facilities for making music
d) Performance of dance
e) Playing recorded music
f)  Playing live music
g) Playing of indoor sporting events
f) Exhibition of films

The Admiral Taverns website is still advertising the pub as available on a 20 year lease, with a required initial investment of £73,500

http://www.admiraltaverns.co.uk/tenanciesavailable3.asp?pubID=271

If anybody knows anything more, then please email the details to editor@elmleycastle.com

James Hickman
Elmley Castle