Agenda item

MJC introduced the application as above, identical to the previous application which was refused on policy RC1 and the building being an Asset of Community Value. This situation has changed and the pub is no longer community asset list bringing with it important fall-back positions which were less relevant when considering the previous scheme.

Public speaking

Mr Rowles, neighbour, in objection

Speaking as owner of 7 Hambrook Street which backs onto the application site, is concerned about the  loss of privacy, particularly from the first floor window of Plot 3. This window only achieves a distance of 19m between facing windows and 9m to the sites boundary - less than the 10.5 stated in the Local Plan. All other properties in close proximity to the application site meet these distances.

David Jones, agent, in support

This application seeks full planning permission for alterations and conversion of existing public house to form a single dwelling and erection of two new dwellings. Officers having weighed the planning balance recommend  that the application be permitted. The proposal generated 18 public comments, summarised as follows: traffic impacts and parking; overlooking and loss of privacy; number, height and appearance of new dwellings; impact upon TPO Oak tree; loss of public house. Those in support commented that a residential development would result in less noise and disturbance to local residents than a pub. Neither the highways authority or tree officers raise any objection. An identical scheme was refused at the May committee because the building was listed as an Asset of Community Value and the scheme contravened Local Plan Policy RC1; an appeal has been lodged to the Planning. In the intervening period the property has been removed from the asset of community value list, and details of decided appeals have been submitted which demonstrate RC1 does not prohibit the redevelopment of public houses, as confirmed by the officer report. Furthermore, the property could now be demolished or converted to a shop or office without planning permission.  Those writing on behalf of CAMRA allege that the property was not on the market, but ACV regulations require that any community group simply make an expression of interest in bidding for the property within the initial six-week moratorium period, with a further six months to formulate a bid. No such expression of interest was forthcoming and thus quite rightly the property has been removed from the ACV list. Subject to committee approval of this proposal, the appeal against the earlier refusal will be withdrawn; therefore urges committee to support the officer recommendation and approve this application

Member debate:

LS: would like some initial advice on the relevance of attached appeal in Devon.

MJC, in response:

-          the appeal is relevant as the Inspector has assessed a similar proposal and has allowed it.

LS: But is it nationally significant or just for context?

MJC, in response:

-       it is just for context.

BF: as this is an identical resubmission and the previous application was only refused because the pub was an asset of community value but has now been removed from the list, does this remove the original refusal reason? Are we able to introduce new refusal reasons?

CH: the attached appeal decision shows an allowed decision but are there any comparable appeals that refuse?

MC:  isdisappointed that the trees officer has provided the same comment as before and that no tree protection details have been received. The scheme may be the same as before but it should still be assessed independently. Was not at previous meeting and will therefore vote as sees fit.

HM:  the public speaker in objection raised  a point on the distance of the development to his property not being in compliance with regulations.  Is this correct?

MJC, in response:

-       to BF, the total refusal reason doesn't fall away, only the fact that that the pub is no longer an asset of community value. The role of the pub in the community and the relevance of policy RC1 is still relevant but removal from the asset list brings with it other important considerations, such as permitted development, under which the building could become a shop, for example. There are also now demolition rights.

-       to CH, there may be other appeals that support the Committee’s decision to refuse but officers are not aware of any. The appeal decisions provide context but the report mainly seeks to outline the important change in circumstances.

-       to MC, tree protection was not considered necessary prior to determination because due to the location of the tree, it will not be affected by this proposal. There is a condition that requires the tree to be protected and this is a reasonable approach.

-       to HM, the comment from the neighbour in objection is a valid comment and the local plan advises that first floor windows should achieve a distance of 10.5m to the boundary. This is covered in original report with reference to a recent appeal decision on St. Luke’s Place. This brought with it a similar issue in relation to dimensions but the Inspector did not consider that the proposal caused an unacceptable harm and was comparable with the surroundings. Would advise against refusal on this point as it was raised previously and was not challenged.

PT: is puzzled by this advice because if there is a discrepancy in the dimensions, it should have been brought to members attention.

MJC, in response

-       this issue was set out in detail in the original officer report.

CH: cannot support as a matter of principle and is disappointed that no work has been done to create a building that has a community value; this is happening in Hewlett Road following a previous committee decision. Also disappointed about the appeal decisions that have been provided only giving decisions that support the officer recommendation. Reports should provide appeals in objection as well as support so that members are presented with balanced information. Feels that appeals are only produced to support officers’ views and requests we have both sides in the future. We should also take the concerns of the neighbour on board.

GB:  officer reports are well balanced and whilst we may not always agree with their content and recommendations, officers always produce reports that assess the merits of particular applications in a balanced way. Members are of course entitled to vote as they consider appropriate.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit:

8 in support

5 in objection

2 abstentions

PERMIT