Why should the Crown Estate close this historic Indian restaurant after 99 years in Piccadilly?

The oldest Indian restaurant in Britain, Veeraswamy, at no. 99 Regent Street, has an oddly poky little entrance on Swallow Street. It’s only when you get to the upper floors that you see the colourful Indian interiors and are enveloped by the courteous service. As the Michelin Guide (it has a star) observed, “It may have opened in 1926 but this celebrated Indian restaurant just keeps getting better and better!”

Not for long at this address though. Thanks to the Crown Estate, the landlord, the restaurant may serve its last lamb rogan josh on its historic site in June. The Estate wants that measly entrance area to provide better access for its expanded offices on the first floor and has informed the owners, Ranjit Mathrani and Namita Panjabi, that the coveted 11 square metres will be taken over and no, it isn’t up for a compromise about alternative access next door. Now, I ask you, dear reader, given that you and I pretty well own the Crown Estate (for we are stakeholders in this enterprise), which would you rather have? An historic Indian restaurant serving delicious Mughal/Kashmir food or easier access for the Crown Estate for its ever expanding offices for its extensive admin team? I know; tough one.

The reason why this is so egregiously awful is that the Crown Estates make much of their claim to be socially responsible. They administer what are in theory the land properties of the Crown but in reality belong to all of us, which in practice means the Treasury. It covers everything from offshore windfarms to forests but the best bit in the Crown Estate, the Picadilly of the Monopoly Board, is the area covering St James’ and Regent Street.

The revenue from that is terrifically lucrative and there are two beneficiaries – HM Treasury – which represents us all – and the Crown itself, which gets a share annually. That’s ironic … in order that Charles and Camilla can live in the style to which they have accustomed themselves, the Crown Estates that fund them intends closing down a favourite restaurant of the late Queen which is unique in having done the catering at Buckingham Palace for the President of India.

You’d never suspect this frankly unpleasant aspect to the Crown Estate as landlord if you judge by the window space they occupy elsewhere in St James’s, which is covered with eloquent texts about social responsibility. If you step your way over the guff on its website about being “Guided by our purpose and rising to national challenges, our strategy leverages our unique set up and diverse portfolio”… you’ll find the following aim, of “Creating inclusive communities and through our activities supporting economic growth and productivity”. That’s perfectly lovely, isn’t it? But what is more likely to create inclusive communities and produce economic growth – a successful and historic Indian restaurant or even more office space for the Crown Estate?

It's time, I think, for the Establishment to rally round Veeraswamy. Perhaps someone could have a word in the King’s shell-like about this on his return from Italy? Maybe Rishi Sunak, who is proud of his Indian heritage, might persuade Sir Robin Budenburg CBE, the Crown Estate’s genial chairman, about the merits of flexibility? Perhaps Princess Anne, who has patronised it, might muse aloud about how the late Queen enjoyed it. Maybe David Cameron, whose lobbying skills are of course legendary, might deploy them in this good cause?

Because, as the witness statement by co-owner Ranjit Mathrani makes clear – and has not been refuted – he and the restaurant staff have been shabbily treated by the landlord. No one is asking the Crown Estate to act like a charity; what we – who are, as I say, stakeholders in it – are entitled to expect is that it should respect its longstanding tenants and allow this admirable restaurant to reach its centenary next year on its historic site.