News

Opposing groups fight for future of Tumbledown

By Tim Harris
March 15, 2013

PLANS for a McDonald’s restaurant on the site of an historic Farnborough pub have received backing in the same week that a protest was held against the move.

It came to light at the end of last year that the Tumbledown Dick, in Farnborough Road, was linked with a sale to the international fast food chain.

McDonald’s says a planning application for the proposed restaurant on the Tumbledown site will be submitted in April meanwhile there has been the emergence of a new support group.

Support Tumbledown Dick McDonald’s came to life on March 10 – a day after the rally by opposing group the Friends of the Tumbledown Dick.

McDonald's bid for Tumbledown is imminent
Listed building blow for pub campaigners
Tumbledown Dick gig to help fund campaign
McDonald's confirms plans for pub site

The new group harbours different hopes to those of the campaign, which began last October to save the Tumbledown.

North Farnborough resident Gavin Harris, creator of the chain’s support group, described his view that a McDonald’s restaurant could save the pub from dereliction.

He said: “I have seen the Tumbledown fall into disrepair over the years and nothing has really happened to it. [A McDonald’s] would bring job creation for the area, regenerate the area and reduce congestion in north Farnborough.

“I think there is a silent majority in Farnborough who want the McDonald’s.”

Mr Harris said if the Tumbledown remained as it was now, this would be the ‘worst case scenario’. He voiced concerns that the Friends group might not be able to follow through with their proposals to make the pub a community/live music venue, and it could remain ‘a derelict building’.

“I am not against the idea of having a community venue,” added Mr Harris. “It is just not clear what their main aim is, what they are trying to achieve from the support group. The cost to actually fix the venue would be so prohibitive.

“My concern is they have got their rose-tinted glasses on and they want to relive the days from 15 years ago.”

The protest rally last Saturday saw around 50 people march from the Tumbledown up Farnborough Road, ending at the Farnborough Gate McDonald’s. The protesters were armed with whistles, tambourines and megaphones.

Fran Beauchamp, of the Friends of the Tumbledown Dick, defended the group’s aspirations for the pub.

She said: “We are just a community group, a group of committed people in Farnborough trying to save an old building from demolition. We are a community group, a set of local people who want to save our pub. This guy hasn’t got a solid argument, it is ridiculous what he is saying. The support group is undermining a hard-fought campaign.”

Ms Beauchamp added that the Friends group will only reveal their business plan once it actually has a right to bid for the Tumbledown, which at the moment is not the case.

She said the dispute about the Tumbledown, on social media websites, has got ‘out of hand’. Support Tumbledown Dick McDonald’s currently has around 41 supporters on Facebook in comparison to the 2,749 supporters on the Friends’ page.

Sir Gerald Howarth, MP for Farnborough, put his view that if the Friends group can’t fund a community use for the pub then there would be ‘no other option’ than the McDonald’s restaurant.

Sir Gerald confirmed he met representatives of the fast food firm, and persuaded it to consider retaining the frontage of the Tumbledown.

The landmark Tumbledown Dick, which is believed to have been around since the 1600s, has previously hosted bands like Reuben, Hundred Reasons and The Jam.

The Tumbledown Dick has been empty since 2008, after it failed a health inspection.

A McDonald’s spokesman added: “We welcome support for our application, which we believe to be the most viable proposal for the Tumbledown Dick.”

| Submit Comments | View Comments (94)

« Previous Story | Next Story »

Most recent user comments 15 of 94

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | ... | 7 | Next Page Show 15 | 25 | 50 per page

squeak

Si G, Farnborough
25/03/2013 at 14:43

The key is that the protest and alternative needs to be taken to the people who can actually make a difference here, which is not RBC. they are merely the executioner, not the judge. They cannot block the sale to McDonald's - which is what the petition calls for. No council can block the sale of a property. Planning will look at a proposal and if it meets local laws and guidelines, which a proposer would be well advised to ensure that it did before submission. Planning cannot be rejected on grounds of obesity/already have a McDonald's/too many takeaways etc.

Some have compared this to the West End Centre, which RBC did an about turn on after public pressure. the big difference of course is that that was owned by RBC, the Tumbledown is not.

The group have a viable business proposal now, so they should take that to the right people, not the council, then we might get some progress.

You can't accuse me of hiding, by the way!

Phooto, Farnborough
25/03/2013 at 14:14

Be that as it may Phooto, I'm not sure that you fully understand. The power of protest is designed to make controlling partners and bodies aware of the feeling and will of the people. In order to achieve this it is in the interest of the protest group to outline an alternative to that which they object to. The louder the voice becomes and more objections are placed, whether grounds for legal review or not, the more likely the involved parties become aware of the protest. Whether victorious or not the protest is valid and supported by elected officials. You never know what can be achieved if you never try. If you would prefer to save the Tumbly, don't just hide because you think it's a done deal, don't consider a protest a loser because it involves an all powerful multinational and a pathetic excuse of a council, these are the times when we have to stand tall and raise our voices in a just and rightful cause. What are you a man or a mouse?

Si G, Farnborough
25/03/2013 at 13:42

:) Planning law as I say, cannot take into account alternative proposals, just the one in front of them. What good a meeting does is questionable. It cannot influence a planning decision. If it was found to have done so, then McDonalds would easily win an appeal.

Phooto, Farnborough
23/03/2013 at 15:47

That is one point, after you miss so many more in my earlier posts. It is clearly not worth my time arguing this point with you any further. You have your opinion and I have mine, good luck and goodbye.

Baggy the Tumble Saver, Farnborough
23/03/2013 at 15:37

The point is that someone else's alternative is not any part of the planning decision.

Phooto, Farnborough
23/03/2013 at 15:13

But we are not taking about the house you own, we are talking about a property owned by one party which another one will apply for planning permission on, your comparison is flawed.

Baggy the Tumble Saver, Farnborough
23/03/2013 at 15:09

Yet, they cannot take into account other propositions for planning against the planning in front of them.

It would be like me putting in planning for an extension to my house, and my neighbour saying they have a better idea. My planning will pass or fail on its own merits, not what someone else suggests might be better.

Phooto, Farnborough
23/03/2013 at 14:52

My understanding is that currently McD and Bride Hall have possibly agreed terms, subject to planning permission, therefore even if I approached Bride Hall with double the money McD are offering it doesn't matter, a legal agreement is already in place. Could Bride Hall withdraw from the agreement, without seeing the terms that is a difficult one to call, but I would say probably not, and if they did the other party ,may seek compensation. Therefore based on this, if the group, another individual, another brewery, etc wanted the site currently it is in the hands of: RBC with regard to the planning permission, McD and Bride Hall with regard to their agreements. So, in my opinion, the Planning Permission aspects are important and at this time pivotal to the future of the site. I take your point that the council will grant planning permission based on legal and local guidelines but, in my opinion, what I believe the group are seeking at this time is the chance to demonstrate to the council the full aspects of their plan to show that this alternative plan would also meet those guidelines.

Baggy the Tumble Saver, Farnborough
23/03/2013 at 14:40

A recent post by FoTTD complains that Rushmoor BC will not have a meeting with them -

"We asked the head of Democratic Services to help us organise a meeting with the Councillors at Rushmoor Borough Council so that Friends of the Tumbledown could present our vision and prove we have a viable alternative to the McDonald's proposal. We have been refused.

Rushmoor have replied : " at the present time, our councillors have taken the view that a council-organised meeting would not move the issue any further forward for them, given the uncertainties around the premises and the information already in circulation, including from the Friends of the Tumbledown D**k. If you choose to organise an event, which you invite our councillors to, it will be up to them, as individual councillors, to decide if they attend, or not."

Our request of a meeting was not to instigate things moving forward, It was simply to educate people to our intentions and to put their minds at ease that we do in fact have a credible alternative. As we understand - the McDonald's planners will have the opportunity to meet with the planning committee and present to them their vision. Before the RBC planning committee come to a decision, wouldn't it be sensible, democratic and fair for them to hear other opportunities that are on the table? Where is the democratic process Rushmoor?"

What they have failed to understand is that planning is NOT a democratic process. Planning meetings will look at the application in front of them & establish if it is within legal & local guidelines.

If the group have an alternative, the only way to meet the planners is to put in a counter-proposal to the site owners and convince them to sell or lease the site to them.

It's Bridehall who own the site, not Rushmoor, after all. They could decide to reject McDonalds now and re-open as a pub. Why not? If there was more money in it, they would. I'm sure a lease would be on offer to the right business plan.

Phooto, Farnborough
23/03/2013 at 13:59

Ah well. I would have put it in, no reason to leave it out. (Don't know who you are anyway?)

Phooto, Farnborough
22/03/2013 at 11:24

Definitely made that information available before you left. So you are convinced you got nothing ad I am convinced I gave you this, probably best if we just leave it there, to argue the point any further woud be somewhat pointless. Good Day.

Baggy the Tumble Saver, Farnborough
22/03/2013 at 10:18

Didn't get any of that from anyone. Maybe you gave that to your new guy?

Phooto, Farnborough
22/03/2013 at 10:14

Nope.

Phooto, Farnborough
22/03/2013 at 10:13

Wow, this is not how I remember it at all, as I am sure I gave you figures/input on turnover, margins for different drink types, style and type of food, ticketing and payments for bands. Ah well.....................