Good work. But this may not be good news. Not least because it hasn't happened.
The original planning permission seems to have been 05/00287/FUL which iirc (I wrote about it above) stated that the Priory "must be refurbished before the hotel opens".
I had never been able to find the revision / re-application to to renew 00287/FUL, which as I understood was made last year then withdrawn. (this is discussed above at some length. Now something very similar is there as an open item (05/00287/CND) from Wed 30 Apr 2014 that includes 15 documents. Due to time constraints I will say - I think that I assumed there was no challenge to the condition above.
The next application on record for the postcode (that I can find) is 14/02243/VAR - Which is about footpath access but whose decision
includes no reference to refurbishment of the Priory..
Then we come to September - some 2 months before the hotel is scheduled to end, and the hotel to open. I'm slightly confused about the linkages here (I am in a hurry), but we have:
The one mentioned by oxford1893, dated 24th September: asks that the condition 3 287/FUL be varied so that the work specified under an
External Facade Survey of 2007 be permitted to complete
6 months after the hotel opens rather than before. This is 2 months before the hotel is scheduled to open. To be fair the letter mentions that the scope of refurbishment should be enlarged to include internal refurbishment so that the Priory could re-open. It further mentions "The council's estates team will be aware of the discussions regarding the agreement of a 125-year lease which will facilitate the lager [sic] investment needed".
There's another letter dated the 23rd September:
link which refers to separate correspondence - presumably the one above.
Surmises (mine):
Sometime in or around 2007 the full refurbishment (if it was ever there) clause was watered down to a 'facade refurbishment'.
By masterly inaction (and as predicted) OGB has attempted to circumvent the clause that the Priory should be refurbished before opening the hotel. This by the (pretty reasonable imo) argument that to refurbish the entire Priory will enable the Priory to be used and is a better deal for the council which he can undertake subject one suspects to council agreement to lease it back to him at what I cynically imagine is a low rent; this being in no way, manner or means linked to the planning concession.
Summary: it looks like OGB has (subject to council approval) done it again! There doesn't seem to be much in it for the council to block the hotel opening and, as long as they don't have to pay for the repairs they 'save' an at-risk listed property and secure it's use. Doubles all round!
A cynic might wonder if this was the 'arrangement' that English Heritage referred me to when they declined to register the Priory as a 'building at risk'? A prudent man would consider what's to prevent OGB from failing do refurbish the Priory - well I guess as long as he gets his lease at the right price the earning potential of the building as Harvester is probably the answer.
My opinions and guesses - make your own minds up.