Agenda item

 

Application Number:			16/00166/FUL
Location:	Ryeworth Inn, Ryeworth Road
Proposal:	Alterations and conversion of existing public house (part) to form a single dwelling and erection of two new dwellings
View:	Yes
Officer Recommendation:				Permit
Committee Decision:			Refuse
Letters of Rep:		12	Update Report:		Additional representations

 

LW introduced the application as above, explaining that the Ryeworth Inn is registered as a community asset, and in accordance with requirements, CAMRA and local interest groups were notified of the application, to allow any potential bidders to come forward.  No interest was expressed within the statutory six weeks, and the application has proceeded accordingly.  Officers consider the scheme acceptable, there are no highway or amenity issues, and the recommendation is therefore to permit. 

 

 

Public Speaking:

Mr David Jones, of Evans Jones agent, in support

Is speaking as planning consultant representing the applicant.  This is an application for full planning permission for the alteration and conversion of the former pub, plus two additional dwellings in the car park.  Officers want balance, and have recommended that the application be permitted. Of the 16 public comments, only ten were in objection, primarily concerned with increased traffic and parking issues, with only six referring to the loss of the public house.  The proposal has had a number of revisions, with careful consideration of neighbours’ comments being taken into account, and as a result officers are supportive of the scheme.  Regarding the loss of the public house, this had been registered as an asset of community value, which places certain obligations on the property owners; in compliance with this, the owners have notified the parish council and  local interest groups, allowing them the opportunity to bid for the pub.  No interest has been shown.  To compare this proposal with the recent application at The Maple Leaf in Hewlett Road is wrong, as there were 70 letters of rep and major local objection to the loss of that community asset.  It is a fact that not all public houses can survive, and this scheme to use the former pub site will provide much needed housing.  Urges Members to support the officer recommendation.

 

 

 

Member debate:

LS:  this is a challenging application, and it is with a sense of sadness that we contemplate another proposal to turn a pub into housing; is aware of several other pubs across town that are threatened with closure or conversion, and CAMRA has estimated that across the country, 27 pubs a week are closing.  The government acknowledges the formative role of pubs in the community, in Paragraph 69 of the NPPF, stating that planning policies and decisions should bring together those who work, live and play in an area.  The Ryeworth Inn has always been an asset to the people of Ham, Ryeworth Road and the surrounding areas, providing a focal point and giving a sense of community.  The officer report refers to the recent decision at The Maple Leaf/Fiery Angel in Hewlett Road, which the community had rightly created as an asset of value, but differentiates between this and the Ryeworth Inn – this is a challenge.  It refers to a number of licensed premises within 1km of the site, but there are a lot more in the Fairview area than in the vicinity of the Ryeworth Inn.  The Ryeworth Inn serves a large area, and members of the community will have to walk a lot further than 1km to the nearest pub.  In addition, other pubs in the vicinity may well come under equal threat of closure in the near future. 

 

Paragraphs 6.18 and 6.19 of the officer report dismissively refers to the fact that the Ryeworth Inn does not have a function room as such, but is simply a pub with an indoor and outdoor seating area, but a pub doesn’t need a function room to be a meeting place of value to the community.  It is desirable to have a function room, but is its absence sufficient reason to deprive the people of their local pub?  This seems illogical and unfair. 

 

Is mindful of the need for new houses but without a community these will be just houses, not homes.  We must acknowledge the need to preserve our communities.

 

HM:  is also sorry to see the pub go, but on Planning View was particularly concerned about parking in the area; the minibus struggled to manoeuvre, and various objectors have referred to the difficulty of parking in Ryeworth Road.  If Members are minded to approve the proposal, can a condition be added requiring all demolition and construction vehicles be parked on site in the vicinity of the TPO’d tree?

 

PB:  confirmed that LS  will move to refuse, and also that the fact that no group came forward to protect or bid for this community asset when it was advertised will not negate NPPF Paragraph 70 and Local Plan policy RC1.  Is also concerned about this application.  One representation referred to a previous landlord, who ran a very successful, popular and vibrant local pub.  It is no longer sustainable because the owners constrain the landlords and make the business unsustainable in order to realise the asset and sell the building/land for housing.  They are making the whole process possible.  It is important to recognise the importance and community value of this building as a public house.  Will support LS’s move to refuse.

 

BF:  the report compared The Ryeworth Inn and The Fiery Angel, but many residents living close to The Fiery Angel came forward with reasons why it should remain as a community asset.  As the agent has said, no-one came forward in support on The Ryeworth Inn. We have to realise that the pub scene is changing.  The Ryeworth Inn was a nice pub; people are complaining about the potential traffic from three houses, but if this was a vibrant busy pub, the traffic would be much worse.  It clearly wasn’t vibrant; drinking habits have changed, and some pubs will go while other survive.  Loss of the pub is not a reason to refuse this application. 

 

CH:  agrees with LS and PB.  This pub was regarded as a community asset – there must have been good grounds and reasons for this designation to be validated.  PB referred to the way in which owners of pubs see this as easy pickings for development, and we just wring our hands and watch them go.  Once a pub is gone, it is gone in perpetuity.  The pub was refurbished recently  but there didn’t seem to be any desire to make sure the refurbishment made the pub more of a community asset.  We need to take this very seriously.  Pubs are being quite deliberately run down, right across the country.  There are differences between this case and The Greyhound – we hadn’t started to move on community assets at that time; and the Inspector stated that there was another pub within walking distance, but within six weeks of granting the appeal, that pub had closed too.  When working properly, these are the sorts of pubs that are used by local people.  The Kemble, for example, is a tiny pub, with no parking, but is very successful and much-valued by the people in the 20 streets nearby who have to walk 5-10 minutes to reach it.  We do nothing to encourage publicans and owners to think how they can make these pubs work rather than thinking how they can make the most money out of the site, and the community suffers as a result. 

 

A guiding principle of planning is that development should be sustainable, and this means the community too – we erode the community by taking away its community assets. 

 

KS:  is looking at this from a completely different viewpoint.  Has no strong views about the loss of the pub – doesn’t know the area, so is only looking at the plans presented.  Considers the two houses on the car park to be an overdevelopment.  It looks like the side of the existing pub will be the boundary of that property, with parking space right up against its wall.  Has lived in a house with this arrangement, and it causes problems.  It would be better if just one house with a garden was to be built on the car park.  Also had concerns about access and parking when on Planning View.  The right-hand plot looks as if it will be very awkward to get cars in and out, and won’t be easy for the people living there.  Thinks impact on amenity and over development are issues here; the conversion of the pub and one house on the carpark would be a more successful and sustainable scheme.

 

LW, in response:

-       to HM, regarding parking for demolition and construction vehicles, has not suggested such a condition and wouldn’t normally do so for this size of scheme; we would need to judge if it would be reasonable in this  case.  A condition  requiring the submission of a construction management plan  could be added ; there is some scope on site for construction vehicles, though not a huge space adjacent to the TPO’d tree.  Officers would need to take seek the views of the trees officer on this;  there is space at the front, but access to the back might be problematic.  We could add a condition and see what the developers come back with;

-       to PB’s question whether the community asset procedure trumps both the NPPF advice and policy RC1, it sits alongside it rather than trumps.  No local interest group has come forward and we have to accept that and the fact that the applicant is now free to dispose of the property.  One then needs to consider the proposals having regard to development plan policy and advice set out in the NPPF. ;

-       regarding tree protection, the tree officer has suggested a condition

-       to KS, regarding the boundary, it is correct that the flank wall of the pub building will be the boundary to Plot 3, but there is a 3-metre gap for parking and no issue regarding amenity.  The site could, of course, accommodate one dwelling but officers’ view is that there is adequate amenity space to the front, rear and sides of the proposed dwellings. This arrangement is not uncommon and in keeping with the character of Ryeworth Road, and not an anomaly; as demonstrated the site can adequately accommodate three dwellings which reflect the size, character and urban grain of surrounding development;

-       regarding car access and visibility from Plot 3, Highways officers have looked at this, and consider visibility to be good to the left, and restricted to the right, but not completely.  The situation will not be dissimilar to when the building was used as a pub, but there will be less overall vehicular movement in and out of the site, and Highways officers have no concerns in relation to highway safety.  Also the access to Plot 1 is in a similar position to the existing pub car park entrance.

 

MJC, in response:

-       on the community asset issue, would just make Members aware of the work in progress for the Cheltenham Plan and the JCS – things will start moving soon on this, andPart 2 will involve work on community assets, mainly public houses, and CBC will have to form policies to protect them, but at the moment there are no policies in the Local Plan, as highlighted in the appeal decision on The Greyhound.  Officers will be working on the Local Plan, and this may be discussed through Planning and Liaison Member Working Group, through which Members will be able to feed in.

 

CH:  would just point out that community assets weren’t around at the time of the two appeals cited, and are now an additional argument to be used in refusing an application.  It has been decided that this pub is a community asset, referred to in various planning documents; this must be something we can use to refuse.

 

GB:  reminds Members that they will need to vote first on the recommendation to permit;  if this is not carried, LS’s move to refuse can be taken.

 

 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

6 in support

9 in objection

NOT CARRIED

 

 

LS:  defers to more experienced planning colleagues for specific framing of the refusal reasons, re. planning policy and legislation.

 

PT:  is the loss of the community asset a strong enough reason to refuse the application?

 

CH:  struggles to remember which policies should be used.  KS has referred to overdevelopment of the site, but if this is included, it could be difficult – saying the site can be developed, whereas other Members would prefer it remains as a pub.  Does the unacceptable loss of a community asset count as unsustainable development?  Can a refusal be framed around this, in line with the work being done on the Local Plan? Members need advice from officers, who know what they are trying to articulate. 

 

GB:  we need good reasons to turn this application down.  Sustainability is being discussed, but we have to be able to sustain the decision against possible arguments.

 

LS:  he and CH are clear in their minds about the reasons to refuse, but need work to form these into a decision which sits in the legislative framework.  MJC has mentioned the JCS and the Local Plan; would it be legitimate to defer a decision until these documents and their protection of public houses can be looked at, as the Committee has expressed a wish to do so?

 

BF:  The Ryeworth Inn has been closed as a pub for a long time.  If there is not a decision on this application soon, it will be out of time and straight to appeal.

 

MJC, in response:

-       officers have a lot of sympathy with Members’ view – no-one likes to see pubs close if they don’t have to – but we must not let emotion slip in here.  We must be ruled by our heads not our hearts, and make a decision based on policy;

-       the report sets out all that has been done regarding the community asset; the applicant has followed the right process, registering the scheme.  No-one has come forward with an alternative use for the building, or to keep it on as a pub. If we use the NPPF to substantiate the refusal reason, the community asset argument will be diluted.  We cannot sterilise land for redevelopment because we hope that the pub will re-open at a later date, and must consider the case at appeal;

-       officer view is that this will not stand up at appeal, particularly as the applicant has gone through the correct community asset process;

-       we have had a chequered history when using the Local Plan policy, as for The Greyhound and The Fiery Angel.  The NPPF give words to help articulate a refusal reason, and a lot of what has been said makes a lot of sense, but this is not a strong enough reason on its own, and the Council will be accused of sterilising the land.

 

LW, in response: 

-       Whilst a condition could be drafted Officersdo not consider the proposals an overdevelopment of the site. The gaps shown between the proposed dwellings  are standard, as are properties butting on to each other, and this design allows for off-road parking which is a positive.  It would not be right to refuse on the grounds of overdevelopment, on the basis that the site is only suitable for one dwelling, as officers consider the site can are comfortably iaccommodate two additional buildings.

 

CH:  the Committee has voted to refuse this application, Members and officers must now explore what the refusal reasons should be.  Policies RC1 and CP1 have been suggested, relating to sustainable development.  Any development has to be sustainable, and RC1 has been used previously.  Members have heard that officers are sympathetic to their view but looking for appropriate policies at the moment.  Things have changed since the previous appeal decisions on similar schemes to this, and we should push for this to be refused.  The Maple Leaf/Fiery Angel applicant is now talking to the local community to see if there is any possibility of a scheme to incorporate flats and a small public house; this may not happen, but at least it opens up the opportunity.  Agrees with KS that a single dwelling would create a better balance on this site, although housing is a lot more dense opposite the site.  Communities with dense housing need somewhere to go.  This isn’t the town centre with lots of places within walking distance.

 

AL: the highways assessment could be considered as a reason for refusal.  The original application formed a pedestrian/vehicle access, but no new or altered vehicle access is now proposed from the public highway. On Planning View, a comments was made about cars reversing on to the road; told they couldn’t and would have to reverse into the drive. The traffic assessment clearly shows cars reversing onto the road; maybe this is something that could be included in the refusal?

 

KS:  regarding the point she is trying to make about overdevelopment, does not consider the scheme to be overdevelopment per se – the plot could take two houses – but the side of the converted pub will be the boundary wall, and this could cause potential conflict with neighbours.  The officer comment on existing access to Plot 3 is not correct – there is currently vegetation at the place where it states there is a drop kerb; the car park exit is in fact in the middle of the car park plot.  So not overdevelopment as such, but the form won’t provide satisfactory living conditions for the residents.  There are two access points; it would be more comfortable and straightforward if there was just one. 

 

Feels that the loss of the pub argument may be clutching at straws, but is angry that we have not yet got to grips with this – how many more pubs will be lost before we get the relevant policy to prevent it?  Realises that this isn’t a strong enough reason to refuse the application unless we use the NPPF, which is a risk, but believes Planning Committee should be asking for a more successful scheme of development. 

 

CM:  supports CH’s comments: this was and could be a community space. There is a similar parking situation in Eldorado Road in his ward and it is a nightmare for residents; the occupiers of these houses are unlikely to reverse into their driveways, and all cars driven in will inevitable be reversed out on to road.

 

AL:  cannot see any Highways comments in the report, but the responses on the form are ‘no’ to all the questions, suggesting no impact on the access to the highway.

 

GB:  we are going round in circles here; officers have an idea of how Members feel and can put a refusal reason together.

 

BF:  Members should remember that The Greyhound was demolished without permission, and the same could happen here.  The pub has been closed a long time.  The Fairview community came forward to save The Fiery Angel, but the same has not happened here.

 

GB:  the refusal reasons put forward so far are Local Plan policies RC1 and CP1, overdevelopment and the NPPF. 

 

MJC, in response:

-       officers have good understanding of Members’ thoughts on this application.  Can summarise these – though not endorse – as follows:

i.              loss of the pub with reference to NPPF paras 69 and 70 – its social role and contribution towards sustainable community

ii.             Local Plan policy RC1 – loss of community facilities – the criteria are not met for this to be a valid refusal reason

-       these reasons have been fully debated and Members have heard officers’ advice;

-       is unsure about the overdevelopment case, and suggests that this is not formally added.  Regarding the lay-out, it’s true that the driveway is close to the rear of the public house but this is not uncommon in various roads around town.  Ryeworth Road presents an interesting cluster of buildings and is a very desirable place to live.  Struggles with the overdevelopment argument; there are two parking spaces for each house, the oak tree is retained, and local amenity is not compromised;

-       regarding Highways comments, officers need to assess what is on the drawing, and they have endorsed the scheme based on this.  Would warn against dismissing County Highways advice;

-       the only remaining refusal reason is the loss of the pub, but this is a weak argument, and cannot guarantee it will win at appeal.

 

GB:  this scattergun approach doesn’t stand much chance of winning at appeal.  Suggests Members move to the vote, if LS is happy; officers have a good idea of Members’ concerns.

 

KS:  has been trying to say that it is not overdevelopment she is concerned about, but more of an issue of CP7/design. Using buildings or trees to define a space does not seem a good form of development, though it is not actually over development.  If the application is refused purely on the loss of the pub, the decision will be difficult to defend.  Is there no policy requiring proposals to be nice places for people to live in?  This scheme won’t create that. 

 

MJC, in response:

-       CP7 is the correct policy re design and lay-out and would not be totally unacceptable in this case. KS is concerned that the proposal feels contrived and cramped, but if the layout is changed, it will harm the public house element of the scheme, could cause neighbour conflict, and would be difficult to endorse at appeal, particularly as Ryeworth Road features similar types of development.  Would advise against this as a refusal reason. 

 

GB:  if Members are happy, officers can craft a refusal reason and agree this with the Chair and Vice-Chair.  Regarding KS’s concerns about the lay-out of the plot and MJC’s comments, it is up to Members whether or not they want to include this element in the refusal reason or simply refuse on the loss of the pub. 

 

Vote on KS’s move to include the design/over-development aspect as a refusal reason

1 in support

7 in objection

7 abstentions

NOT CARRIED

 

Vote on LS’s move to refuse on loss of community asset, NPPF and RC1

9 in support

3 in objection

3 abstentions

MOTION CARRIED - REFUSE