Buxton Pubwatch shows small-minded mentality

I write regarding your article about Buxton Pubwatch v JD Wetherspoon's 'Buxton keeps JDW out of its pubwatch group, Morning Advertiser, 23 June.

I had my first pint in this town in 1968, and having more recently worked as a bar cellarman in various pubs in it, I am appalled at the small-minded mentality that still flourishes here. I thought we'd grown up.

Pubwatch schemes were set up to help co-operation and communication between pubs, police and the community. To exclude one pub (basically because of previous unpaid subscriptions to Pubwatch and other devious reasons I'm not privy to) is typical of the mindset of some (but by no means all) of the publicans here, and goes against the common sense and spirit that inspired Pubwatch ie, to benefit the pubs, their customers and the community.

The ostensible reason given in your latest coverage of this shameful debacle cites a JDW notice comparing like-for-like prices.

Excuse me. This is a market economy. Super-markets make these comparisons as a matter of course no-one complains.

Just because I choose to pay £1 more to drink in a real local pub doesn't mean I deny Wetherspoon's the right to sell drink cheaply they make their market, and if the rest of the pubs in the town can't capitalise by continuing the community environment that for centuries has been essential to a decent 'local then they will go the same way as the grocers of the last century who saw their trade snapped up by supermarkets.

Personally, I don't especially enjoy socialising in a supermarket, but just because I can afford to pay the premium for a more personal service doesn't give me the right to deny someone else a cheap pint at JDW.

At the end of the day, it's the patrons that make the pubs, and that's why people go there.

Paul Rees

12 Bennett Street

Buxton

Derbyshire

SK17 6NB

RICS valuers simply use open market evidence

I am writing to respond to the letter written by Brian Jacobs that appeared in the 9 June issue of the Morning Advertiser.

I am chairman of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors' (RICS) traderelated valuation group, by which the RICS sets guidance for valuers working worldwide, using the 'profits method for valuations of pubs and bars, clubs, restaurants, hotels, filling stations, golf courses, garden centres, health properties and many other classes of property, where their values are derived from maintainable profits.

The RICS valuation standards do not single out public houses for special treatment, but the RICS does issue a valuation information paper specifically to assist valuers in the UK to handle valuations of restaurant, bars, and nightclubs. It has been cited with approval in many legal and arbitration cases. It is kept continually under review and the latest edition, due for publication shortly, reflects the comments made by the Trade & Industry Select Committee. For the first time we will be including some guidance on the valuation of leases on tied trading terms.

Valuers do not make the market. The values of new lettings are set by the interaction of buyer and seller, landlord and lessee. The valuer uses that open market evidence to understand values of 'closed deals such as rent reviews; the aim being that those values will be set consistently with the outcome as if the deal had been freely agreed between parties in the open market. The RICS is not going to issue guidance that changes this principle, or which advises the valuer to use anything other than the proper international accounting standards to analyse profit and loss accounts.

There is not automatic assumption that rent represents half of net profits. If open market deals were struck by willing parties at a higher share of net profits for free-of-tie rental deals and a lower share of net profits for tied deals, the valuers would follow that evidence. But the evidence does not indicate that this is the case. Tied pubcos continue to let the tied leases at much the same share of net profits as for free-of-tie leases. While this is the available evidence, RICS would expect its valuers to continue to use it.

When the valuer is assisting an arbitrator or a court in a valuation dispute, the RICS has very clear rules in line with the Civil Procedure Rules that the valuer is always to take an impartial view to assist in reaching the right result. Members can be subject to disciplinary measures if they fall short of this standard.

The Trade & Industry Select Committee identified that prospective lessees and purchasers should get better advice before committing themselves to deals that they might find too costly once they are running the pub. RICS totally agrees. Better advice would lead to better deals, a more transparent market and better comparisons for valuers to use in rent negotiations.

RF May MA, FRICS, ABII

Longdown Farm Cottage

Cadsden

Princes Risborough

Buckinghamshire

HP27 0NB

I used 224 pieces of paper for my licence bid

I recently sent in my application to vary my licence and was amazed that I had to give eight copies to different authorities. After consultation with several of them, ie, the police, the fire department and the council themselves unsure of several points that I raised I managed to complete the forms.

In this environmentally-friendly society, I then proceeded to photocopy my application. No less than 224 copies of paper were required to submit to all authorities.

How many pubs are there in the UK that have to create the same amount of paperwork? Let's say there are 1,000 pubs, then that would equate to 224,000 copies of paper. Now let's say there are 10,000 pubs, meaning 2,240,000 copies of paper. Wow! Mind-blowing!

Unfortunately these are the people that control our way of life.

Oh, by the way, I was told that I could have applied over the 'net, but I still had to have the photocopies with a signature on.

Eddie Cant

(Regional Welsh Village Pub of the Year 2004

Best Pub Promotions 2005)

via email