Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Change of use from Public House (Class A4) to use as a single dwelling house (Class C3); Single storey rear extension following part demolition of existing rear extension; Insertion of dormer window to rear roof slope; Single storey rear extension following demolition of existing single storey lean-to extension. Front canopy following demolition of existing front porch.

RESOLVED: That application 17/00442/1 be REFUSED planning permission, for the following reason:

1.       The proposed change of use of the public house to residential use would not promote the retention of this important local facility. Moreover, the applicant's evidence on sustaining a viable business has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. The proposal therefore conflicts with the National Planning Policy Framework.

Proactive Statement

Planning permission has been refused for this proposal for the clear reasons set out in this decision notice. The Council has not acted proactively through positive engagement with the applicant as in the Council's view the proposal is unacceptable in principle and the fundamental objections cannot be overcome through dialogue. Since no solutions can be found the Council has complied with the requirements of the Framework (paragraphs 186 and 187) and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.

Change of use from Public House (Class A4) to use as a single dwelling house (Class C3); Single storey rear extension following part demolition of existing rear extension; Insertion of dormer window to rear roof slope; Single storey rear extension following demolition of existing single storey lean-to extension. Front canopy following demolition of existing front porch.

The Area Planning Officer presented the report of the Development and Conservation Manager, supported by a visual presentation consisting of plans, drawings and photographs of the site.

The Area Planning Officer advised that Members of the Committee had been copied in on a message by Councillor John Bishop, who considered that the Maiden Head Public House would under progressive management still be viable as a public house.  Councillor Bishop was concerned that no viability figures were available to support the officer recommendation.  Councillor Bishop requested that the Committee refuse planning permission on the same grounds as the refusal of planning permission for a change of use of the White Horse at Kimpton to a dwelling.  The application was refused by the Planning Committee in August 2015, and Councillor Bishop had attached the Decision Notice regarding that decision to his e-mail for the Committee’s reference.

The Area Planning Officer reported the formal comments of St. Pauls Walden Parish Council.  The Parish Council referred to the listing of the Maidens Head as an Asset of Community Value and the significant level of financial support that may be available within the local community that could be invested.  The Parish Council considered that the retention of the property as a public house would help maintain the strong community values within the Parish and they pointed to the Red Lion at Preston as an example of a successful community pub.  The Parish Council considered that the retention of the No. 67 High Street, Whitwell as a public house was of considerably more community value to the village than a private residence.

The Area Planning Officer reported a letter received from Mr Widdowson on behalf of the Society for the Protection of Pubs in Whitwell representations not being on the Council’s website and the inability of the Society to see the viability reports.

The Committee was addressed by Mr David Widdowson (Society for the Protection of Pubs in Whitwell), supported by Mr Kai Allen (local resident), in objection to application 17/00442/1.

Mr Widdowson began by referring to the key point of viability.  He understood that the applicant had submitted a report and the Planning Officer commissioned an independent review of that.  He had seen neither of those so he could not possibly challenge some of the assumptions that they may contain.  However, the question of viability depended on a number of factors including personal perception:

·                this was clear from the fact that the independent report apparently rejected a number of the conclusions drawn by the applicant’s report; and

·                Also, as to the CAMRA Public House Viability Test referred to in the Planning Officer’s report at Paragraph 4.3.5.  He was of course unable to comment on how the viability reports had applied this test.  He had applied it and had come down overwhelmingly in favour of viability.  Time did not permit him to go through this in detail.

Essentially, however, Mr Widdowson considered that viability turned on two points, namely demand and cost.   The conclusions of the independent viability report on which the Planning Officer had relied in reaching his recommendation that this application be granted were set out in Paragraph 4.3.6 of his report. Dealing with each bullet point in turn:

1.(a)  The Society accepted that there was substantial capital investment involved – as the Planning Officer noted and did not challenge.  The Society had set this at £200,000.  The Society’s Business Plan had not been put together on the back of a fag packet.  It had been compiled with the assistance of experienced accountants, licensed trade managers, current and former landlords and, in particular, the owners and operators of the Red Lion at Preston.  It is a credible plan which will be financed almost wholly from members of the community at the level stated. Our costings have factored in the possible cost of loan finance solely for working capital and we have had positive discussions with commercial lenders based on this business plan;

1.(b)  Crucially, of course, the Society’s Plan did not depend on returning a profit for the owners.  The vehicle used would return any profit made to the community, but did not depend on it.  The Society had the funds to purchase the property and saw no reason why they should be deprived of this opportunity;

2.       As to local support, this was set out in greater detail in the Society’s submission. However, the decline in the trading was a succession of disastrous tenants following Mike and Barbara Jones.  He challenged one point in the Planning Officer’s report – trade was emphatically not declining during Mike’s time – indeed he won North Herts Pub of the Year in the year before his retirement.  He left because he was old and wished to retire.  What was key, however, was providing what the community wanted.  The two surveys carried out by the Society had indicated this was good quality food, decent beer and good wine. The Red Lion at Preston and the Horns at Bulls Green were two examples among many others who did that brilliantly.  The projected growth in population should also be taken into account.  Once the Maidens Head was gone it would not be coming back;

3.       The fact that there was another pub in the village was, he suggested, irrelevant both because people wanted choice and because it catered for a particular and small section and did not relate well to the wider community.  The population of Whitwell was very similar to Pirton, which maintained two successful pubs;

4.       The vague unevidenced assertion that people’s drinking and eating habits had changed was not a basis for concluding that was the case in this community. He could hardly leave his house without being asked about the pub.  This was direct evidence as against vague assertion;

5.       The same would be true of supermarkets’ competition. A village pub was not just a drinks dispensary – it was a time honoured social hub which provided much much more to social cohesion – as set out in the Society’s submission;

6.       The argument that the fact the property had been on the market for some time and there had been no interest was, he felt, entirely specious.  It would drive a coach and horses through the Asset of Community Value scheme if an owner was able to set a residential price on a pub and then say when he had no takers at that price that it showed no demand for it as a pub.

The Chairman thanked Mr Widdowson for his presentation.

          The Committee was concerned that it had not seen full versions of the various viability reports referred to by both the Area Planning Officer and Mr Widdowson in their presentations.  The Committee discussed the possibility of deferring the application until such time as they had read and digested the various viability reports.  However, Members were advised that there was no guarantee that they would be able to see the full viability reports as some of the information may need to be redacted on the grounds of commercial sensitivity.  On this basis, the Committee felt that the applicant’s evidence on sustaining a viable business had not been demonstrated to its satisfaction, and considered that the proposed change of use of the public house to residential use would not promote the retention of this important local facility.  It was therefore

RESOLVED: That application 17/00442/1 be REFUSED planning permission, for the following reason:

1.       The proposed change of use of the public house to residential use would not promote the retention of this important local facility. Moreover, the applicant's evidence on sustaining a viable business has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. The proposal therefore conflicts with the National Planning Policy Framework.

Proactive Statement

Planning permission has been refused for this proposal for the clear reasons set out in this decision notice. The Council has not acted proactively through positive engagement with the applicant as in the Council's view the proposal is unacceptable in principle and the fundamental objections cannot be overcome through dialogue. Since no solutions can be found the Council has complied with the requirements of the Framework (paragraphs 186 and 187) and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.