From the Dover Express and East Kent News. 1 March 1939.

OLD PARK CORNER LICENSE REFUSED

At the Adjourning Licensing Sessions at Wingham, on Thursday , Mr. Christmas Humphries instructed by Messrs. Mowll and Mowll, applied on behalf of Messrs. Thompson and Co., Brewers, Walmer, for a provisional license in respect of a public house they propose to erect on a site at the top of Whitfield Hill.

Mr P. Bracher opposed on the application on behalf of the "Royal Oak," Whitfield and the "Railway" Hotel, Kearsney, and Mr. E. E. Chitty on behalf of 33 owners and occupiers of houses in the immediate neighbourhood of the site.

Supt. Webb said that he had been instructed by the Chief Constable of Kent to oppose, on the grounds of erection of fresh premises in the district being unnecessary.

Mr. Christmas Humphries said that the applicants had purchased the freehold of a piece of land  at the top of Whitfield Hill. Since the previous application, the Parish Council had passed a resolution in favour of the application, and those persons presented the desires and views of those who should be considered. Then there were the new barracks which were in course of being built exactly opposite the site, and twelve hundred men and 300 woman and children would be accommodated there. The plans provided for a small social hall at the back of the premises, about 30ft square, which could be used as a social centre for whist drives, club room etc. for persons who at present had no such facilities at all. The site included not only the ¾-acre on which they proposed to build but also land which they proposed to develop. The application was made first, for the population of one thousand persons living within one-third of a mile from the house: then on behalf of those who were going to live in the barracks - and people living in barracks liked to get out of them at times. Where thee was development there would be shops and buildings and the neighbourhood would be entirely changed. Then there was a traffic of  8000 vehicles of one sort or another per week  and hikers who wanted refreshments. Also there was need for a certain amount of hotel accommodation. On those grounds he asked for the application to be granted. The site would be at the cross-roads, which were so important that the County Council were now busy widening the road, and were providing for a roundabout. The house would have an adequate draw-in for vehicles, and if the application was granted they would immediately develop the remainder of the site on the other side. They proposed to build five or six shops and seven or eight garages. They would also build a bus shelter, which at present did not exist. As regards the barracks, it might be said that they had their own canteen, but the new public house would provide not only refreshments of that kind but also food and snacks, and there would be a social hall where the men could take their women. They were no allowed to take their women folk into the canteen. Those people would need a hall and shops. The nearest place now was two-thirds of a mile along the road, and at night it was pitch black. That was the "Royal Oak," and that did not pretend to be an hotel or a refreshment house. The "Railway" Hotel was a long way from the people in the neighbourhood and would be useless for the barracks. Mr. Humphries continuing, said that the public house would cost £3000. There would be a large car park at the back and front, and an entirely separate off-licence. Then there would be a public bar, private bar, and saloon bar, and lunch and tea room. Upstairs would be about five bedrooms. Mr. Humphreys added that a petition in favour of the application had been signed by 163 persons who were closer to the proposed house than to the "Royal Oak." They were prepared to pay a monopoly value of £1000.

Mr. W. B. Traynor, V.C., Sandwich Road, Whitfield, said that he was a member of the Parish Council, and he was present on Tuesday, 7th March, when a resolution was passed unanimously that "this Council are of the opinion that the proposed application should be granted as they consider it would be of beneficial to the parish." Four of the five members of the Council were present, the vicar being the absentee.

In reply to Mr. Bracher, witness said that he lived opposite the site, and had been thereabout six years.

Frederick James Bourne, a S.R. station inspector, living at Singledge Lane, Whitfield, also spoke in favour of the application, and said that the "Royal Oak" was a mile away from his house, and there was no lighting and no footpath on the road.

Mr. Bracher addressing the bench, said that as regards to new barracks, the last place a soldier would go to drink was a public house on his door-step, and as regards their social side, in these days every conceivable social side of the Army was catered for. It was more likely that the local people would be going to functions in the barracks than that the soldiers would be going outside. No one had shown the need for a new license there; he had a petition from thirty-six people asking that the application be not granted. Mr. Bracher added that the "Royal Oak" had a new car park 150ft. long and 30ft. wide, and the lavatory accommodation had recently been improved.

Mr. Chitty said he was speaking on behalf of sixty persons living in the immediate neighbourhood. The houses were not little bungalows but good class residential houses. If the proposed house was to be a "Guest" house or a road house they would get large numbers of people rolling up in the evening, including young people to make "whoopee" as they called it and to have a beano. Young people of to-day did not want to go to the nearest public Place. As regards requiring a public house there because of the barracks, Dover Castle had been in existence since 1066 and all that, but it had never been suggested that a public house was required apposite the castle!

Supt. Webb said that from the Police point of view they considered that circumstances had not altered materially since last year, when the application was refused.

After a short retirement the Chairman (Viscount Hawarden) said that the Magistrates had discussed the matter, and had come to exactly the same conclusion as last year, that a public house there was not necessary.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, 9 February 1940.

Whitfield Roadhouse Application

Mr. Rutley Mowll, on behalf of Messrs. Thompson and Son. Ltd., brewers, Walmer, applied for a license for a hotel it was proposed to build on a site acquired at the top of Whitfield Hill.

Mr. Lancelot Monketon (Maidstone) appeared for Messrs. Fremlin's, owners of the "Royal Oak," Whitfield, and the "Railway" Hotel, Kearsney, to oppose the application.

Supt. Wheatley also appeared on behalf of the Police.

Mr. Mowll said that it appeared that he had succeeded in getting rid of the opposition of the people who lived near the site. The Bench had had that matter before them on two previous occasions so he would cut down his remarks. He claimed that the remarkable growth of the district proved a need for increased facilities. The premises they proposed to build would not be what might be called a drinking house, but an up-to-date place where people could get luncheons and teas without going through that part of the premises which was devoted to the sale of intoxicating liquor. Messrs. Thompson had brought a freehold of the land for £650, and the house was to cost about £4000, and the agreed monopoly value was £1000, which made £5650, which the brewers thought worth investing. Mr. Mowll went on to say there was always one difficulty that arose in such a case. At Herseden, the magistrates refused a license for a proposed public house and a club grew up almost opposite the site. Messrs. Thompsons' since their last application for a license at Whitfield, had been approached to provide the money to put up a club and had been promised the trade if they did it, but they had declined the proposition, partly because they did not own any clubs and because they realised it was better to have drinking facilities under the license of the Justices. A club was not so easily open to police supervision. Was it not obvious that at some time a license would have to be granted for those premises? As regards the opposition, the Railway Hotel would not be effected in the slightest degree, and the village of Whitfield had outgrown the "Royal Oak," which was two-thirds of a mile from the proposed house.

Fawcett Martindale, F.R.I.B.A., produced plans for the proposed premises. Taking a line half-way between the "Royal Oak" and the new hotel, there were 159 houses on the new hotel side and 121 on the "Royal Oak" side.

William Bernard Traynor, V.C. gave evidence in support of the application, and said that he was a member of the Parish Council who last year passed a resolution in favour of the new premises.

Further supporting evidence was given by John Balsom, "Fairhaven," Sandwich Road: Frederick Charles Bourne, "Westbourne," Singledge Lane: and George Aubrey Leech (on behalf of those working at Old Park).

The Justices then retired for about fifteen minutes, and on their return the Chairman said that they would not have to trouble the opposition as they had decided not to grant the license.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 6 June 1958.

NEW PUB AT WHITFIELD?

Much Depends on Road Scheme.

WHITFIELD may have a new public house. Charington and Co. Ltd. have applied for permission to erect one at the corner of Archers Court Road and the Sandwich Road and they also envisage a block of shops, dwellings and garages.

The plan came before Dover Rural Council's public health committee on Tuesday when the matter was adjourned so that the committee could find out the latest development about the proposed road improvement at the top of Whitfield Hill.

The chairman of the plans sub-committee, Councillor J. Collard, who represents Whitfield, recommended they should adjourn consideration until the road scheme was known.

"If such business premises are needed or desired is not a matter for this committee," said Councillor Collard.