Thanks for the additional info, Andy, which confirms my feeling that the Friends are keeping a close eye on these moves.

The report I read (I didn't say it was 'widely' reported, woodsie) was in the current issue of the local magazine 'Senine' - it means postcode SE9 - (sorry - the mag has been recycled!) which gave the facts about the assignment in a bit less detail than Andy gives.

I can understand that a folk club might be uneasy about a move from pub to a less boozy atmosphere (if that is happening for sure), but I can't see that the council can be accused of anything but dealing with a lawful request that any lessee is free to make.

I was interested to hear that the talk of 'boarding up' comes from the present incumbent who, presumably, was the one who set the assignment process in train. Don't know what to make of that.

Provided the new lessee, of whom I know nothing, runs the place in an orderly manner with proper respect for this rare and precious building (and, as to that, we can only watch and wait) I can't see what one can object to.

I agree, Essex Girl, that a vacant building is open to vandalism and we do, as you say, have at least two horrible examples in this area. But we haven't reached that point yet. It would certainly be sensible to press the council to say precisely what provision they will make to ensure that no unguarded period occurs between the two occupations, since this will be the time of maximum risk. If they fail to cover that risk, then the council could reasonably be accused of dereliction of duty. But allowing or not allowing a change of use (whatever that may mean for the Mob) is not per se a cause for criticism.