Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Two storey rear extension to provide enlarged kitchen and ground floor and additional residential accommodation on first floor (Section 73 application to vary condition 3 of permission granted under ref 05/00469/1 to allow ancillary residential accommodation for the public house but not for any additional operational floor space in connection with the public house).

RESOLVED: That application 20/00627/S73 be GRANTED planning permission unconditionally.

Audio Recording – 50 Minutes 18 Seconds

Two storey rear extension to provide enlarged kitchen and ground floor and additional residential accommodation on first floor (Section 73 application to vary condition 3 of permission granted under ref 05/00469/1 to allow ancillary residential accommodation for the public house but not for any additional operational floor space in connection with the public house).

The Development and Conservation Manager provided the Committee with one update before presenting the report, as follows:

·                The Asset Community Value was created on 7 September 2016 and would expire on 7 September 2021.

The Development and Conservation Manager presented the report in respect of application 20/00627/S73 supported by a visual presentation consisting of photographs and plans.

Councillor Gerald Morris thanked the Chair for the opportunity to speak as Member Advocate in objection to application 20/00627/S73, including:

·                Parish Councillors were concerned that The Tally Ho did not repeat what had happened to the Cabinet pub, in the adjacent village of Reed where the owner had converted the entire building into a house without permission;

·                At the Cabinet pub, owing to planning refusal and appeal dismissal, an application was submitted similar to the Tally Ho to subdivide the pub into ground floor, part residential and part wet trade only bar - that application was refused by NHDC in April 2019;

·                The entire ground floor area of this pub, including its kitchen had been in business for a long time;

·                The case officer stated that the application was adapting and improving the living conditions of the person running the local community facility;

·                The applicant’s planning consultant stated that the first-floor lacked living space. However, as illustrated from the approved plan 1.2, the first floor included two bedrooms, two bathrooms, a living room and study/office;

·                The existing owners had lived on the first floor for many years. To expand the residential accommodation at the expense of the ground floor pub would not benefit a local community facility; and

·                Many villagers have said that the owners were setting up the business to fail in order to attempt to use the entire building residentially.

The following Members asked questions of Councillor Morris’ presentation:

·                Councillor Sue Ngwala

In response to the Member’s question, Councillor Morris said that along with himself, the Parish Council were concerned that the pub would be lost as a community facility.

Mr James Gran thanked the Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee in support of application 20/00627/S73, including:

·                The use of the ground floor at the rear extension would not increase parking on demand at the site;

·                Officers were of the view that permission should be unconditional and not restrict the use of the ground floor to residential only;

·                It would allow the owner to use the space for ancillary residential accommodation or for Public House use, increasing viability of the pub not reducing it;

·                Officers were seeking to allow full flexibility of the ground floor space in the best interest of the long-term viability of the Public House;

·                The application needed to be judged on those merits only;

·                The residential use was ancillary to the Public House use and would remain as such even if the ground floor were to change to habitable residential space;

·                The proposal still supported the need for a local community facility through improving the living conditions of the persons running the Public House;

·                The owner has sought to provide a quality community facility and their intention was to continue with that aim;

·                Instead of a full food offer being prepared in the premises, the owners now provided outside catering services which has proved popular with passing customers;

·                This had allowed the owners to focus on wet-sales which was their main source of income;

·                The ceasing of serving food in house had increased their profit;

·                There was no aim to close the pub.

The following Members sought clarification of Mr Gran’s presentation:

·                Councillor Mike Hughson;

·                Councillor Tom Tyson; and

·                Councillor Sue Ngwala

In response to questions, Mr Gran advised as follows:

·                The pop-up catering services were mobile units that offered a variety of different cuisines.

The Development and Conservation Manager responded to points raised as follows:

·                There were no restrictions on the ground floor extension, enabling the occupiers to manage the whole floor space as they felt fit;

·                The application was not a material change of use; and

·                The owners were not required to use the ground floor in a certain way or for certain purposes.

The following Members took part in the debate:

·                Councillor David Levett and

·                Councillor Tony Hunter.

Points raised during the debate included:

·                Removing the condition that hindered flexibility of the use of the ground floor;

·                The opening hours of the business;

·                The use of the building as a community facility;

·                The viability of a wet-sales only pub; and

·                The future use of the premises.

Councillor Tony Hunter proposed to refuse the application. However, as there was no seconder to the proposal, the motion to refuse was lost.

It was proposed by Councillor Ngwala to move the Officer’s recommendation to grant planning permission which was seconded by Councillor Levett. Upon the vote, it was:

RESOLVED: That application 20/00627/S73 be GRANTED planning permission unconditionally.