Change of use from pub to dwelling.
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Stephen Churchman
Minutes:
Change of use from public
house to dwelling house.
(a) The Planning Manager elaborated on the
background of the application and noted that the existing building provided a
public house facility on the ground floor and a living unit on the first floor.
It
was noted that Policy ISA 2 of the LDP stated that change of use of a community
facility should be withstood unless it would be possible to comply with one of
three options. Part iii. was relevant in this case, as it involved a facility
that was commercially run, and evidence of the following had to be presented:
·
That the current use had
ceased to be financially viable
·
That it could not
reasonable be expected it to become financially viable
·
That no other community
use could be established
·
That there was evidence
of genuine attempts to market the facility, which had been unsuccessful
Having weighed up the evidence submitted against
policy ISA 2 and the fact that it was highly unlikely, based on the information
to hand, that the building's use as a public house would be reinstated on
account of the costs and nature of the community, it was believed that
justification had been shown for the change of use.
An observation had been
received from the Economic Development service based on the information
submitted with the application, which stated that a rural public house business
of this type faced a number of challenges. They had assessed the information
submitted and that it confirmed that it was not viable in its current form.
Attention was drawn to additional observations that
had been received, noting that a concern had been noted in terms of the
evidence submitted. It was noted that the Joint Planning Policy Unit had noted
that the proposal must be considered in the context that the unit had been
empty for an extended period and that it had been marketed for a reasonable
price for a continuous period of 12 months. Evidence was received with the
application in relation to marketing the building unsuccessfully since 2011,
which was a significantly longer period than the required 12 months. It was
considered that the requirements of Policy MAN 4 of the LDP had been met.
Observations/objections to the proposal had been
received from local residents and a petition objecting to the proposal which
raised a number of matters relating to the proposed development and recent
history of the business.
It was believed that
sufficient evidence has been submitted to prove that the use as a public house
was not viable and although reference had been made in observations received to
an intention to attempt to buy it locally, there was no strong evidence to
suggest that the use was likely to be reinstated in the near future. It was,
therefore, believed that there was justification for the proposed change of use
to approve the building to be used as a house.
(b) Taking
advantage of the right to speak, an objector noted the following main points:-
·
The proposal was contrary to Policy MAN
4 of the LDP as it did not conform to the criteria
·
There was no such provision within
close proximity and with a recent reduction in bus services, there was no
service to the village after 9.30pm
·
The public house had been for sale for
years whilst it was still open but it had not been advertised locally
·
The public house was closed for four
night per week and had only open after 9.00pm on Friday evenings before closing
down
·
It was intended to set up a community
enterprise and the property was viewed on 22 February
·
The Committee was asked to either
refuse the application or to defer it in order to give the group an opportunity
to set up the community enterprise.
(c) Taking advantage of the opportunity to speak, the applicant noted
the following points:
·
Times had changed, and the public house had closed
three times in recent years
·
There had been no support locally for the
enterprise when the public house was open
·
The Village Hall Committee was looking into having
a bar and parties were already being held there
·
The public house had been advertised for sale
sufficiently
·
The building should not be left to fall into
despair
·
The objector had not commenced the work of
establishing a community initiative.
(ch) A
member noted that the application should be refused because it would take time
to set up a community enterprise and not enough time had been given to the
community group, therefore they should be given an opportunity to fundraise
before moving forward. In response, the Senior Planning Service Manager noted
that the property had been on the market since 2011 therefore it would be
difficult to defend a refusal on these grounds in an appeal. He noted that it
was an option to defer the application in order to give the community group
more time but a timetable had to be set because there was a risk in terms of
failing to make a decision within the statutory period. In response to an
enquiry from a member, it was noted that a four week timetable had been given
to a similar planning application.
It was proposed and seconded to defer
the application in order to give the community group an opportunity to declare
its intentions.
During the ensuing discussion, the following
main points were noted by members:
·
If the application was to be deferred, would it be
possible to receive information at the next meeting where the application would
be discussed in terms of the community group's appeal?
·
There was sympathy for both sides. It would be a
shame to lose a community resource therefore the need to give the community
group more time was understood, but evidence of local support was noted, with a
public meeting held and a business case and work programme in place, in
addition to information about any proposal made
·
The building could be a community hub, given that
there was no local shop or post office. Such a community enterprise would take
time, and if the application was deferred, it was greatly hoped that there
would be positive evidence before the Committee the next time
·
It would be a shame to let the building deteriorate
·
Would a month be a sufficient period for the
community group to declare its intentions?
·
If the application was approved, would the use as a
public house end immediately?
·
There was a need to consider whether the use as a
public house was viable. The objector had noted that the public house was open
for limited hours before it had closed down
·
A month was insufficient. Given the timetable of
the Committee meetings, six weeks would be sensible.
(d) In
response to the above observations, the officers noted:
·
It was fair to see evidence of the
community group's intention, including evidence in terms of buying the property
·
The use as a public house would end
when the planning permission would be implemented, commencing the work of
converting the building into a house.
RESOLVED to defer the application in order to give the community group an opportunity to testify their intention and to re-submit the application to the Committee in six weeks.
Supporting documents: