Potential buyer withdraws, citing owner

behaviour and ineffective enforcement

At the end of last year we were notified that The Cabinet had been put up for sale and that the owner was negotiating with a buyer. Nine years of involvement with the campaign has taught us to be sceptical, but the potential buyer was revealed to be a national chain that specialised in small, bespoke hotels. During a meeting of the Parish Council March it was explained that representatives had attended a meeting with the Parish Council. Their plans involved restoration of the pub and improving its viability by providing accommodation. The Parish Council were clearly persuaded that the interest was genuine. At the beginning of April they informed the Parish Council that they had withdrawn, citing inconsistencies in what the owner was telling them, and daily changes of position. They also commented that their experts were astonished about what the owner had been able to do to a listed building with such minimal input from the planning authority, citing comparisons with other authorities with which they were familiar. The latter point chimes with the concerns of the Action Group from the very start. It has been a free- for-all for the owner. A combination of lack of effective action by the local authority and appalling delays in the Planning Inspectorate has largely led to the situation we see today. Whether the scheme proposed would have delivered, and whether it would have been acceptable in planning terms, we will now never know. But the feedback from the hotel group suggests strongly that this was not a negotiation in which the owner was engaging in good faith.

Another enforcement notice and another

appeal

In January 2025 the owner of The Cabinet successfully let out the outbulding in the car park, which he has named “The Cottage”, to tenants who are now living there. This is the same building which was the subject of an emergency prohibition notice in 2021, when it was occupied by staff of the Spice Cabinet. Officers from the Environmental Health department at North Herts Council were of the view that the standard of accommodation posed an “imminent risk of serious harm to the health or safety of any of the occupiers.” An appeal against the order was dismissed in early 2022. The effect was that the building could be used for rest breaks but not as overnight accommodation. We understand that the prohibition order remains in force, although it appears that internal improvements may have been made to the building. On 6 February 2025 North Herts Council served an enforcement notice on the grounds that there had been a material change of use of the outbuilding to self-contained residential accommodation, something that required planning permission but does not have it. The notice argues that the accommodation is of substandard quality and that the use is inappropriate. The owner has now submitted an appeal, arguing that the outbuilding had been in continuous use as accommodation since 2016, and that the “four year rule”, under which if a planning breach is not enforced against within 4 years it becomes lawful by default, meant it was not open to the council to make an enforcement order. (That law has now been changed, but it will not affect this case.) He put forward a similar argument during the appeal against the emergency prohibition order. At the time the Council’s representative “doubted the authenticity” of the tenancy agreement that had been put forward in evidence (see the judgment, at paragraph 21). Estate agents’ particulars dating from 2020 described the outbuilding as being used for storage, and photographs taken in 2020 suggested that the building had not yet had windows added or other changes made to what was a store. The only other ground of appeal asks for more time to comply. It is notable that the appeal does not argue that planning permission should be granted. Anyone can comment on the appeal. The notice from North Herts and details on how to comment are here. The deadline is 8 May. Submissions should focus on the grounds of appeal, and not on more general feelings or observations about the wider case. All the documents relating to the enforcement notice and the appeal are available here. The substantive appeal appears, on the face of it, to be hopeless, something that should be dismissed on the facts. It is probable that the new appeal with be linked with the three other enforcement appeals that have been waiting at HM Planning Inspectorate for over 2 years. Given these delays, there is an obvious incentive to appeal, notwithstanding how hopeless the case because. meanwhile, presumably the owner continues to collect rent.

MP writes to complain about delays in the

Planning Inspectorate

Following a meeting in Reed with members of the Action Group, Chris Hinchliff, MP for North-East Hertfordshire, wrote to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in February to draw attention to the “unacceptable delays” at HM Planning Inspectorate, drawing attention to the case of The Cabinet, that there appeared to abve a shortage of suitable-qualified planning inspectors, and pointing out that such delays were preventing “more impactful” enforcement action by North Hertfordshire District Council. You can read his letter here. The Parliamentary Under-secretary of State responded apologising for the delay, describing measures being taken to improve the efficiency of the planning inspectorate,

Cabinet “for Sale”

We have learned that Reed Parish Council has been notified by North Herts Council that The Cabinet is for sale. We understand that this relates to the entire site, not just the former Spice Cabinet. This triggers a moratorium under the Localism Act for 6 weeks, during which a relevant community organisation can notify an intention to make a bid. If they do, a further moratorium for 6 months is initiated. As matters stand, Reed Parish Council is the only existing organisation with standing to make such a bid. The moratorium would not force the owner to sell to a community group, but it would delay a sale to a third party. Naturally the Action Group will follow developments closely. This follows a recent attempt by the owner of The Cabinet to rent one of the outbuildings - a former storage building - as a separate dwelling. There is no planning permission for a separate dwelling on the site - something that will not surprise regular followers. This is the building that was subject to an emergency prohibition order in 2021 when staff of the Spice Cabinet had been accommodated there; however the photographs on the selling particulars suggested it had been substantially improved since then. UPDATE: During a meeting of the Parish Council on 5 March it was explained that the interested party was a hotel group which specialised in small hotels. They proposed making The Cabinet into a gastropub supported by hotel rooms, which would be sited around the car park. At the time of writing no plans have been made available. Whilst this development is naturally of interest it would be premature to take a view on it without seeing the plans which would, naturally, require planning permission. We nonetheless await developments with interest.

Spice Cabinet closes among recriminations

The proprietor of the Spice Cabinet has announced closure of his business on local social networks, citing a number of problems including issues with his landlord, the owner of The Cabinet. The Action Group genuinely sympathises with Tarique and his staff. It is not their fault that they have found themselves mixed up in such a difficult situation. We have for some time been concerned about the welfare of the staff in what he describes as “unacceptable living conditions” which, he says, “culminated in illness due to lack of basic utilities”. Regular readers will recall that, according to North Herts Council, the residential use of the main part of the building is supposed to be “incidental” to the “pub use”, giving rise to the expectation that the main building would be used for accommodation connected with the business. It is clear that this is not the case, and that North Herts’ finding in this regard no longer has any credibility - if it ever did.

No appeal against listed building consent

refusal - while decisions awaited in

enforcement appeal cases

The long-awaited decision to refuse listed building consent for the various damaging changes made to The Cabinet was made at the end of October 2022. Applicants have 6 months to appeal, and some 6 weeks after the expiry of the deadline there is no sign of an appeal. This is good news; an appeal would have been hopeless. Meanwhile, the appeals against the three enforcement notices (see below) continue. We expect them to be dealt with on paper, that is to say, without the need for an expensive and time- consuming hearing, but HM Planning Inspectorate have not yet indicated a target date for the decision. The waiting game continues.

Chance to have your say on planning

enforcement appeals

The owner of The Cabinet, Richard Newman, has appealed against three planning enforcement notices issued by North Herts Council. Residents and interested parties have the opportunity to make representations about them to HM Planning Inspectorate—but hurry—the deadline is Wednesday 15 March. If you’re not familiar with the lengthy and sad story about The Cabinet, Reed’s 400-year-old pub, and the campaign to save it and re-open it fully, you’re in the right place. Check out the recent planning history here. It’s entirely up to you whether you would like to make representations, but if a number are made it would once again demonstrate to North Herts Council and to HM Planning Inspector the passion that remains in Reed to preserve our lovely old pub. The Action Group will be making representations along the following lines. You are invited to make comments in your own words. Notice A (reference APP/X1925/C/23/3314159) relates to the erection of a fence across the pub garden, railings at the front, a the smoking shelter and the siting of the gas tank in the garden. Newman argues that planning permission should be granted and, in the alternative, that insufficient time (between 4 and 8 months) has been allowed for the actions required by the notice to be carried out. Regular readers will remember that the current split of the Cabinet into a residential section and a “Spice Cabinet” section was determined by North Herts to be legitimate on the ground that the residential use was incidental to the pub use – a finding we have always disputed. We propose to argue that • the pub garden and the patio were both important assets to the pub when it was fully open, and making part of them private is inconsistent with the notion that the residential use is incidental to the pub use. Anything designed to frustrate the building’s lawful use as a pub should not be granted planning permission. • The smoking shelter is ramshackle and out of keeping with a Grade II listed building, as is the gas tank. • As to time, Mr Newman is currently serving a prison sentence. By the time the appeal is determined his family will have had ample time to deal with his affairs. Notice B (reference APP/X1925/C/23/3314199) is concerned with the siting of “railway carriages” and a touring caravan in the pub car park. Newman argues that these are temporary and that no planning permission is needed. Again, it’s also argued that insufficient time has been allowed. We propose to argue that • they have been in place for approaching 2 years (slightly less for the caravan). The wheels of the blue carriage are inadequate to allow it to be moved. The “skeleton” carriage has no wheels. • the blue carriage is plumbed into mains water and drainage and connected to mains electricity. Its interior includes a shower room and a bed. It’s obviously not temporary. • As before, by the time the appeal is determined the family will have had ample time to deal with Mr Newman’s affairs. Notice C (reference APP/X1925/F/23/3314167) concerns lack of listed building consent for a domestic kitchen on the “residential” side, and the kitchen store. Newman argues that listed building consent should be granted, and once again argues that the time for compliance is too short. SCAG contends that there are numerous other breaches of listed building control; however North Herts Council found it expedient only to issue enforcement notices in relation to these matters. We propose to argue that: • it’s hard to see what the purpose of a domestic kitchen is when the residential use of the building is supposedly incidental to the pub use. • the principal heritage asset in The Cabinet is its status as a pub. Anything which represents a departure from the lawfully permitted use of the building as a pub, such as using it as a separate residence, would be damaging to that heritage asset. • the kitchen store is dilapidated and out of keeping with the listed building. • As before, by the time the appeal is determined the family will have had ample time to deal with Mr Newman’s affairs. If you would like to submit representations, you can do so by post or email to HM Planning Inspectorate: For comments relating to Notices A and C please email teame2@planninginspectorate.gov.uk And for comments relating to Notice B please email teame1@planninginspectorate.gov.uk In the subject heading please quote the site address: The Cabinet, High Street, Reed, ROYSTON SG8 8AH as well as the reference numbers in full. If you decide to write to The Inspectorate, then the address is Room 3B, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol BS1 6PN. Please remember to quote the site address and reference numbers.

Owner appeals against enforcement notices

Appeals have been lodged against the three planning enforcement notices originally issued in November. The owner, who is currently serving a prison sentence for sexual assault, argues through his agent that planning or listed building consent should be granted, or, in the case of the railway carriages situated on the car park, that they are temporary and do not require planning permission. He also argues in the alternative that the time allowed for the work required by the enforcement notices (ranging from 4 to 8 months) is too short. Listed building consent covering the matters referred to in the enforcement notice was recently refused, and an application for planning permission for the erection of a dividing fence and other matters was withdrawn by the owner last year. The appeals will be considered by HM Planning Inspectorate, most probably using a written procedure. This is likely to take some months. North Herts Council will need to submit written observations responding to the appeal. Interested parties, including the Action Group and neighbours, also have the option to submit written observations; the deadline for doing so is 15 March. We are considering carefully what to submit on behalf of the Action Group. This is an unsurprising development, given the owner’s track record of submitting appeals against almost every finding against him, and we suspect is more about trying to delay enforcement than any real expectation of success. The documents, including the appeal notices, are available to view here.

Enforcement notices

issued on The Cabinet

Three enforcement notices have been issued by North Herts Council on The Cabinet. According to the covering note dated 4 November displayed outside the building, one relates to the railway carriage and touring caravan situated, apparently permanently, in the car park of the old pub; the other two relate respectively to the work done requiring planning permission and listed building consent, the latter having recently been refused. The Save the Cabinet Action Group is seeking clarification as to the exact content of the notices and what they require should be done to bring the premises into compliance with planning control. The Action Group has been calling for effective enforcement action in relation to numerous breaches of planning control since the group’s creation in 2016, when the 400-year-old hostelry was turned by its (then) new owner into a house without planning permission or listed building consent. Planning permission for change of use was refused in 2017, and a subsequent appeal heard in 2018 dismissed. Since then, various attempts to gain planning permission and listed building consent retrospectively for various aspects of the development, either for the entire building or in relation to a scheme to subdivide it, have either been refused or been withdrawn. The latest action is therefore welcome, albeit several years late. We need to understand the details of the enforcement notices, but on one level this could be seen as the best news for our campaign since the appeal was dismissed in 2018 and, potentially, an important moment in our campaign to save the lovely old pub. Update: The enforcement notices are available here. They are narrower in scope than the covering letter led us to expect. We are in contact with North Herts Council over this.

Listed Building Consent on The Cabinet

refused

In an important and welcome development, North Herts Council have refused listed building consent on The Cabinet. The present owner acquired the premises in 2015 and set about changing it into a house, ripping out old lathe and plaster walls and taking up historic floor tiles, without bothering to obtain consent in advance, as the law requires. The conservation officer's report notes, among other things, that the current use of the entirety of the historic core of the building for residential purposes relegates the "pub" business to the less historically significant northern extension. He calls into question the longer-term viability of this arrangement - a concern held by the Action Group for some time. The application also focused on the kitchen flue and the external store area, and although the decision notice deals with these specifically, the entirety of the application has been refused. The current application for listed building consent dates from 2020, although it was supposed to cover the works carried out since 2015. It's not clear why it has taken so long to reach a decision, but the decision is welcome nonetheless. Planning law allows a 6-month period to appeal. We will have to see what Mr Newman, who is currently serving a prison sentence for serious sex offences, decides to do - but seen from here the case for refusal of listed building consent appears solid and any appeal hopeless. See also: Decision notice Conservation Officer’s report (18 pages)

Owner of The Cabinet jailed for serious sex

offences

In a horrifying and wholly unexpected development, the owner of The Cabinet has been jailed for three an a half years for serious sexual offences which took place in 2017. According to the Royston Crow, Richard Newman denied the charges against him but was found guilty. The investigating officer said "Newman despicably took advantage of the victim as she slept. She was so traumatised by what had happened, that she was initially unable to speak during her 999 call to police as she could not stop crying. I’d like to praise her for the bravery she has shown throughout the trial and I hope she can begin to move forward now that Newman is behind bars.” Our thoughts are naturally with the victim of these offences, but beyond that the Action Group will not be commenting on the conviction or sentence. We will, however, be seeking advice on the implications for our campaign.

Owner’s appeal against emergency

prohibition order dismissed

As many as six staff of the Spice Cabinet at Reed may have been sleeping in a timber outbuilding that was considered unfit for human habitation, a property tribunal has been told. Dismissing the owner’s appeal against an emergency prohibition notice, the First Tier Property Tribunal sitting at Cambridge upheld the argument put forward by North Herts Council that fire risks, hazards of excessive cold, and the danger of falls from the internal staircase, involved an imminent risk of serious harm to the health or safety of any of the occupiers. (Full decision available here.) The decision was published on 1 February 2022. The court had heard that the outbuilding had been converted by the current owner from its former use as an external store. A staircase and an upper floor had been added, with the upstairs ceiling just 1.5 metres high. Four beds were on the upper floor. Two more beds were on the ground floor. No planning permission or building control certification for residential use of the building existed or had (at the time of the hearing) been applied for. This is just the latest chapter in the long and unhappy recent history of The Cabinet, which the details set out on this website recount. The current policy of North Herts District Council not to provide information to interested members of the public, campaigners, parish councillors, or even elected Members of the Council means we have no information from which to gauge whether the case is being pursued with any energy, or whether it is mired in bureaucracy. We fully understand the Council’s concern not to prejudice any future legal action, but when no such action is taken over a period of months and years it is hard not to call that concern into question.

Latest planning application withdrawn

We have been waiting for some months for news about the current planning application on The Cabinet. Although it related on its face to retention of rear fencing, railings at the front, the external kitchen flue and the external rear store, the Action Group objected strongly to it, being concerned that if granted it would perpetuate the effective subdivision of The Cabinet. The application has now been withdrawn. The existing listed building consent application remains. The Action Group is considering the implications of these developments. Meanwhile the works mentioned in the application, including the unsightly kitchen flue, are unlawful, because no planning or listed building consent exists for any of them. The council now needs to take effective action to demonstrate that continuing beaches of planning control by the owner will no longer be tolerated.

Staff accommodation in former barn “put

lives in danger”, says Council

As many as six staff of the Spice Cabinet were sleeping in a timber outbuilding in the grounds of The Cabinet that was considered unfit for human habitation, a property tribunal was told on 16 November. The owner of The Cabinet was appealing against an emergency prohibition notice preventing anyone from sleeping in the outbuilding, which had been converted from its former use. A staircase and an upper floor had been added, with the upstairs ceiling just 1.5 metres high. Four beds were on the upper floor. Two more beds were on the ground floor. No planning permission or building control certification for residential use of the building existed or had been applied for. The prohibition notice was issued earlier this year by the Environmental Health department of North Herts District Council following an unannounced early morning visit. Resisting the appeal, the Council representative identified several risks, including fire, excess heat or cold, risk of structural collapse, and overcrowding, which they argued gave rise to significant danger to the occupants of death or serious injury. The owner responded that he had commissioned his own survey which had found the building to be suitable to be lived in. But the council disputed the survey, suggesting that it did not relate to the building in question. The Tribunal must give its decision within six weeks.

Enough is enough: Action group issues formal

complaint to District Council

Nearly six years have passed since the present owner of The Cabinet acquired it and turned it into a house without applying for planning or listed building consent. Unfortunately, the record of the local planning authority in this case remains a pretty poor one. North Hertfordshire District Council have allowed the owner to get away with one abuse of the planning system after another. We don’t know what damage may have been done to the fabric of the lovely, Grade II listed Cabinet, which has been a hostelry for local people for 400 years. As far as we know no proper survey has been carried out. What we do know is that these unlawful developments have wrecked the inside of the poor old pub: the old timber bar and the familiar public facilities are all gone, and the character of the building has been changed fundamentally. We have tried hard to work constructively with the Council, most notably in 2018 when our lawyers worked together to resist an appeal against the decision to refuse permission for change of use. We might have hoped that the failed appeal might have led to swift action to enforce planning controls and enable us to get our village pub back. Unfortunately, such enforcement action as the council has taken has been ineffective. In 2019 the council rightly refused planning permission and listed building consent for subdivision of the pub – an arrangement whereby the larger part of the building would remain a house, with a small part being kept as a pub – and issued an enforcement notice designed to stop the pub being used as a private residence. But in 2020 the owner subdivided the pub anyway and, days before the enforcement notice came into effect, opened The Spice Cabinet, a small “bar, restaurant and takeaway” occupying a third of the former trading area. And the council decided, to incredulity within the community, that the residential use of the rest of the building was “ancillary” to the pub use – among other things because it could be used for storage and for overnight accommodation of staff – so that they did not need to take further enforcement action. But they made clear that the file remained open. Construction or conversion of outbuildings for storage and for accommodation, and exclusion of the public from the residential areas including parts of the patio and garden, all call the decision further into question but, as yet, the council’s planning department has taken no further action. We have nothing against The Spice Cabinet itself and would welcome it or any other suitable restaurant as part of a fully reopened village pub. But a small “bar, restaurant and takeaway” on its own does not perform the same function within a community as a village pub, and the current arrangement still lacks planning permission and listed building consent. Retrospective applications for planning and listed building consent that would effectively authorise the alterations carried out until now remain before the council for determination. They are poorly argued and incomplete, and there are strong reasons to refuse them. In spring 2021 we were given to understand that a decision on the latest applications was imminent. But the owner managed to delay matters by making two separate amendments to the plans, triggering two public re- consultations. The second of those expired in early May. Four months have passed since then, without decision or explanation. What’s more, those applications don’t cover conversion by the owner of an outbuilding to residential accommodation, apparently for the staff of the restaurant, without planning permission – a move that we understand has attracted the attention of the environmental health department, among others. And at no stage have any building control or fire safety inspections been carried out following the works at The Cabinet – an alarming fact bearing in mind that these relate directly to the safety of users of the building, including staff and customers. Nor has a food hygiene certification inspection has ever been carried out on the restaurant, although it has been trading for over a year. Even with the challenges of Covid we would have expected this to have been done by now, especially given the history of the owner of the building in failing to follow due process. This points to serious failings of internal communication within the council. Local people often ask us what is stopping the council taking tough enforcement action. The answer is we don’t know. And the Council has recently decided it won’t talk to us, the parish council or even its own elected members about planning enforcement cases. The Save the Cabinet Action Group alone has spent over £34,000 on professional services to help us fight to preserve the pub – money raised through private donations, sponsorship and fundraising events. That, together with what we are certain must be many thousands of pounds of public money, could have been saved if the Council had made proper use of its extensive powers from the outset. Enough is enough. The Save the Cabinet Action Group has now submitted a formal letter of complaint to the managing director of the Council. We consider we owe nothing less to our supporters, and to all those who have donated to the cause, sponsored us or come to our fundraising events.

Still no news from North Herts

It’s hard to write a news item when there is little to report. The flurry of activity during the spring, with amendments to the plans, necessitating consultations and re-consultations, led to the usual spirited response from the Reed community and beyond, and no less than 49 objections are showing against the planning application (thank you, as always, for the support). In the spring we were given to understand that a decision might be made within days. We are now into July, and enquiries as to the state of play by action group members and by our District Councillor have not provided any guidance as to when a decision will be made. Regular readers will understand that we think there are strong reasons to refuse the current applications - read below for more about this. Indications are that the planning department at North Herts have a substantial backlog as well as resourcing constraints, and there is no reason to think that the case of The Cabinet is in any way singled out - although given how long this case has been running we might have hoped it should be given a bit of priority. We will, naturally, report news when we have some. Separately, we’ve been approached by the grandson of a former publican at The Cabinet who has plugged one of the gaps in our account of the recent history. Read the account here. __________________________________ More news stories in News Archive