Agenda item

Proposed by: Councillor C. Hay

Seconded by: Councillor Walklett

In the last decade more than 800 Public Houses have closed in Gloucestershire, of which 115 have closed in Cheltenham alone. Many of which provided a valued social amenity, these have been lost forever. Community assets - such as local pubs, can be afforded protection from changes of use and demolition. Cheltenham planners do look at the viability of local pubs in coming to any recommendations and decisions, however, it has proved very difficult to stop the 115 closures.

In order to preserve those pubs that do provide a community asset, this council resolves to;

Adopt the Public House Viability Test developed by CAMRA (Campaign for Real Ale) and develop policies which further protect local Public Houses and other community assets.

Councillor C. Hay, seconded by Councillor Walklett, proposed the following motion:

In the last decade more than 800 Public Houses have closed in Gloucestershire, of which 115 have closed in Cheltenham alone. Many of which provided a valued social amenity, these have been lost forever. Community assets - such as local pubs, can be afforded protection from changes of use and demolition. Cheltenham planners do look at the viability of local pubs in coming to any recommendations and decisions, however, it has proved very difficult to stop the 115 closures.

In order to preserve those pubs that do provide a community asset, this council resolves to;

Adopt the Public House Viability Test developed by CAMRA (Campaign for Real Ale) and develop policies which further protect local Public Houses and other community assets.

In proposing the motion, Councillor C. Hay had done so as there had been issues locally in his ward, where residents had been vocally opposed to the closure of public houses.  The figure of 155 closures would, he suggested, need to be looked at with care, as some had in fact closed and reopened as restaurants.  He considered that many pubs that had closed in recent years across the town could, in the right hands, have continued to serve their local communities as well as providing a decent living for those running them and CAMRA were at the forefront of protecting these community assets.  The majority of those pubs closed each week were owned by pubco, not small breweries or owner/occupiers, who tended to change the business model to meet the need.  He proposed that pubco had adopted a business model based on significant borrowing that meant that they were worth more in development terms than they were as public houses and his suspicion was that pubco had in place a run-down process which aimed to justify the closures.

As seconder, Councillor Walklett spoke in support of the motion by highlighting that 4 of the 7 public houses in his Ward, St. Pauls, had closed in the last 10 to 12 years.  He saw the motion as a means of making communities aware that there were alternatives to the closure of local pubs, which were a community asset and should be protected. 

Those Members who felt unable to support the motion, admired the sentiment behind it, but were unconvinced that the Council could do anything locally to prevent the closure of public houses in the Town.  The situation was the same across the country and was attributed to the rising cost of alcohol which was undoubtedly leading people to purchase alcohol for consumption at home.  These Members were unwilling to agree to ‘adoption’ of the viability test without sufficient detail of what this would entail and suggested that they would be more comfortable if the motion proposed that adoption be considered. 

A Member considered that some would argue that there were too many pubs, or too many of the wrong kind of establishments in Cheltenham.  He queried whether in addition to public houses, the proposed closure of ‘community assets’ including churches, post offices, banks, etc should also be considered.  He was unconvinced the Council should interfere in the way private individuals and/or businesses use their assets. 

Another Member reiterated the point that any individual had the right to submit a Planning Application to demolish and rebuild.  Some years ago the Council had developed a list of non-listed properties which it felt had architectural merit worth preserving but there was nothing to stop these properties being demolished as there was no force of law.  Planning Law was specific and this was why the Council had Planning Policies. 

Members speaking in support of the motion did so as they felt that pubco were sacrificing community assets in place of financial reward and considered it more viable to demolish instead of developing a more sound business model.  The CAMRA Public House Viability Test looked beyond the current financial business case and Members felt that it would be a useful tool for the Planning Committee.  They commended Councillor Hay for challenging the status quo that nothing could be done. 

Councillor Hay felt that there had been a lot of discussion of the issue which he had imagined would have been done outside of the meeting, perhaps by a working group.  He was happy to amend the motion so that council resolves to;

Investigate the adoption the Public House Viability Test developed by CAMRA (Campaign for Real Ale) and develop policies which further protect local Public Houses and other community assets.

He reiterated that the pubco business models didn’t work and seemingly had one thing in mind, realising their market value. 

Upon a vote the substantive motion was CARRIED with 2 Against.