Agenda item
Change of use of premises from a public house and residential unit to 2no. Residential units together with the associated demolition and removal of single storey attached outbuildings.
The application has been referred to the Planning Committee by Councillor Coley, a local Ward Member, due to the “negative impact upon the neighbours, and as the Anchor Inn is the last remaining Public House in the centre of the Parish and serves the immediate surrounding community.”
Minutes:
Members were informed that the application had been referred to the Planning Committee by Councillor Coley, due to, in his opinion:
“the negative impact upon the neighbours, and as the Anchor Inn is the last remaining Public House in the centre of the Parish and served the immediate surrounding community. The Anchor Inn is integral to the Parish and has a historical and cultural benefit. The Councillor has great sympathy for the situation the licencee finds himself in during the depth of the Coronavirus Pandemic. Operating a public house in these circumstances is extremely challenging. However, everything possible must be done to retain this facility within the community. Before the Anchor is lost to the community and replaced with two dwellings there must be clear evidence that this business is no longer viable. Before this application is approved the owner must provide evidence that it has been offered for sale as a going-concern and that a sale as a Public House has been impossible.”
It was reported that this application sought planning permission for the change of use of the premises from a public house and residential unit to two residential units with the associated demolition and removal of the single storey attached outbuildings.
The Committee was made aware that the application site was located within the defined Settlement Development Boundary for Mistley, as defined by the Saved Tendring District Local Plan 2007 and the Tendring District Local Plan 2013-2033 and Beyond Publication Draft (June 2017).
It was considered by Officers that sufficient marketing information had been provided by the applicant to demonstrate that a sustained marketing campaign had been undertaken since July 2018. Supporting information demonstrated that the Anchor Inn had experienced an extended period of declining trade and had been vacant for a number of months. It was for this reason that the applicant had explored other uses for the property. The applicant had demonstrated that the proposed development complied with Policy COM3 of the Tendring District Local Plan, as the applicant had demonstrated that there was an alternative facility within walking distance and that the Anchor Inn was no longer viable and that reasonable attempts had been made to sell or let the premises for continued operation in its existing or last use without success.
Therefore it was the view of Officers that the principle of residential development in this location was acceptable and subject to conditions there was not considered to be any material visual harm, harm to neighbouring amenities, harm to highway safety and parking provision or harm to the Conservation Area. A completed unilateral undertaking had secured a financial contribution towards RAMs.
The Committee had before it the published Officer report containing the key planning issues, relevant planning policies, planning history, any response from consultees, written representations received and a recommendation of approval.
At the meeting, an oral presentation was made by the Council’s Planning Managerin respect of the application.
The Chairman of Mistley Parish Council, Charlotte Howell, spoke against the application.
Councillor Coley, a local Ward Member, spoke against the application.
During the Committee’s debate on this application, Members discussed and asked questions on the following matters:-
|
Matters raised by a Committee Member:- |
Officer’s response thereto:- |
|
The effect of a community run public house on the local area and the progress made with any bid.
Would the loss of the public house be a gain or a loss for the local community?
Benefit versus Harm |
The Anchor Inn has been added to the Council’s List of Assets of Community Value (ACV). This would now require the Applicant to inform TDC that they were in the process of selling the property. This would then trigger a six week period for Mistley PC or a community group to formally register its intention to submit a bid. This would then trigger a period of six months for the full bid to be submitted. However, the applicant would not be obliged to accept that bid.
Property has been on the market since July 2018.
Accepted that it would be a shame to lose the public house from the local community but the application had to be considered on its planning merits against relevant policies such as COM3 and HP2. Site is within the defined settlement area of Mistley. No objections had been received on heritage or archaeological grounds.
Accepted that The Mistley Thorn is a more formal setting and therefore not a like-for-like comparison. |
|
Was application contrary to paragraph 85 of NPPF? Has the rise in population expected from the building of approximately 1,000 new homes in eastern Mistley and the potential for an increased custom at the Anchor Inn been taken into account? |
Yes – that had been taken into account. |
|
Could the application be deferred until such time as a community bid had been submitted? |
Application had been submitted and must be duly considered now on its planning merits. There was a risk that the Applicant would appeal on the grounds of non-determination.
Granting planning permission would not override the requirements of the ACV legislation. |
|
Can the Committee take into account that the Council has a five year plus supply of housing land into consideration in determining applications even though Section 1 of the Local Plan has not yet been adopted? |
Yes – in view of the fact that Section 1 was at the point of imminent formal adoption this could be given significant material weight. Planning Inquiry Inspectors had already used this aspect in determining recent appeals in the Council’s favour. However, this site lay within the defined settlement area of Mistley and was not therefore contrary to policy. |
|
Are the Officers satisfied that there has been a sustained adequate marketing campaign for the public house to continue as a going concern?
When did the public house close?
What price is the public house being advertised at and is it being advertised as a business premises?
Is it reasonable to still market as a business given the current circumstances of an ongoing pandemic?
Could the Committee determine that the asking price was unrealistic in the current circumstances? |
Yes – on the basis of the evidentiary material provided by the applicant.
The public house closed in and around March 2020 at the time of the first Covid-19 related ‘lockdown’.
£425,000. It was being marketed as a going concern complete with fixtures & fittings and a residential flat above.
Yes – the property remains as a public house (albeit closed at present). It had been on the market since July 2018 and had had quite a lot of initial interest. Submitted documentation had shown that in eight of the ten years prior to May 2020 the public house had operated at a loss and had been de-registered for VAT purposes in December 2019.
Yes, on balance, the Committee’s judgement was final. Officers could only operate on the basis of the evidence provided. |
Following discussion by the Committee, it was moved by Councillor Fowler and seconded by Councillor Cawthron that planning application 20/00662/FUL be approved, subject to conditions, which motion on being put to the vote was declared LOST.
After further discussion around the planning reasons to support approval, it was then moved by Councillor Harris, seconded by Councillor Bray and:-
RESOLVED that, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation of approval, the Assistant Director (Planning) (or equivalent authorised officer) be authorised to refuse planning permission for the development due to the following reasons:-
“Section 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 relates to 'Promoting healthy and safe communities' and, at paragraph 92, states that:
'To provide the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services the community needs, planning policies and decisions should [amongst other items] …(c) guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services, particularly where this would reduce the community's ability to meet its day-to-day needs; [and] (d) ensure that established shops, facilities and services are able to develop and modernise, and are retained for the benefit of the community…'
Policy COM3 of the Tendring District Local Plan 2007 states that in order to ensure that basic community facilities and local services are retained, redevelopment that would result in their loss will not be permitted unless [amongst other items]; that:
“(b) : there is adequate provision of similar facilities within reasonable walking distance (800m); or
(c) it has been demonstrated that there is no longer a local need for the facility or it is no longer viable…."
Policy HP2 of the Emerging Tendring District Local Plan 2013-2033 and Beyond Publication Draft (2017) states that the Council will work with the development industry and key partners to deliver and maintain a range of new community facilities. This policy includes the following provisions:
“The loss or change of use of existing community or cultural facilities will be resisted unless:
(b) replacement facilities are provided on site, or within the vicinity, which meet the need of the local population, or necessary services can be delivered from other facilities without leading to, or increasing, any shortfall in provision; or
(c) it has been demonstrated that there is no longer a community need for the facility or demand for another community use on site.'
Insufficient evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that there is an adequate provision of similar facilities within reasonable walking distance of the Anchor Inn.
Furthermore, it has not been demonstrated that due to the loss of the facility, any replacement facilities will be provided on site or within the vicinity; or that there is no longer a community need for the facility given that an application for the registering of the public house as an 'Asset of Community Value' (ACV) was submitted in August 2020 and agreed to be added to the Council's ACV List in October 2020. The development would result in the loss of a community facility and is therefore contrary to Paragraph 92 of the National Planning Policy Framework; Policy COM3 of the Tendring District Local Plan 2007; and Policy HP2 of the Emerging Tendring District Local Plan 2013 - 2033.”
Supporting documents:
PDF 206 KB