Change of use from pub to dwelling.
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Stephen Churchman
Minutes:
Change of use
from public house to dwelling house.
(a) The
Planning Manager elaborated on the background of the application, noting that
the application had been deferred at the Committee held on 26 February 2018 in
order to give a local community group an opportunity to submit evidence of
their intention to purchase the building in order to retain its use as a public
house.
The Planning Committee's attention
was drawn to the fact that the proposal would not involve any external
structural change and the rest of the development's details were referred to in
the report along with late observations on the form submitted to the Committee.
In terms of the principle of the development, attention was drawn to paragraphs
5.1 and 5.2 which assessed the criteria of policy ISA2 and, having weighed up
the evidence submitted against the policy and the fact that it was highly
unlikely, based on the information to hand, that the building's use as a public
house would be reinstated on account of the costs and nature of the community,
it was believed that justification had been shown for the change of use.
An observation had been received from
the Economic Development Service that this type of rural public house business
faced a number of challenges, and that the information submitted had been
assessed and that it confirmed that it was not viable in its current form.
It was noted that the relevant
requirements in the policies had been adhered to, such as marketing the
building as a public house since 2010 and that there was justification for
changing the use as outlined in the assessment of the report. In addition, it
was noted that the Community Group in Garndolbenmaen had submitted information
regarding their intention to develop the public house, and reference was made
to the information in point 5.14 of the report. It was noted that there was no
doubt that the Group's intentions were genuine, but the Planning Authority had
to determine the application based on
policies that were current at the time the application was submitted and
within a specified amount of time. An application could not be refused based on
a third party wish rather than a genuine plan that could be realised; that is,
a decision could not remain unresolved until such a wish had been realised.
It was explained that the information
submitted referred to general information about the current situation, the
history of the site and the Group's future aspirations. Despite being a worthy cause, it was noted
that the evidence that this would happen in the near future was not indisputable.
After considering all relevant information
submitted, it was recommended to approve the application with the conditions
listed in the report.
(b) It was proposed and seconded to approve the application.
During
the ensuing discussion, the following main observations were noted by members:
·
That nobody had been noted down on the
form to speak, and the Community Group's spokesperson was here, therefore would
it not be appropriate to receive an update?
·
That the information received by the
Community Group had been sufficient evidence that they were expressing an
interest in the building along with the pledge of £10,000 which was a
substantial sum for a village such as Garndolbenmaen.
·
That the campaign by the Community
Group seemed quite good and that it was a shame for the public house to close,
and it was asked when the work of changing it into a house would commence.
·
There was concern that there would be
no resources left in rural areas since public houses and schools were closing,
and that we should fight to help the Community Group.
·
That the Committee had a duty to the
Community Group and it was suggested to defer making a decision on the
application for six weeks to enable the Group to make a statement to a meeting
of the Planning Committee, considering that they also did not have a Local
Member to support them as he had declared an interest and, consequently, it was
asked whether it would be possible to nominate a member of a nearby ward to
assist them.
(c) In response to these observations, the Senior Planning Service Manager
noted:
·
That it was a matter for the owner and
the Community Group to discuss the timing of converting the public house into a
house if the application was approved
·
That the property had been for sale as
a public house since 2011
·
In terms of evidence from the Community
Group, an effort was made was to commence discussions and no firm proposal was
put forward
·
Based on the evidence put forward, it
would be difficult for the Planning Committee to justify refusing the officers'
recommendation to approve it; it was also possible that the applicant would
submit an appeal on the ground of non-determination that would ultimately be a
decision for the Inspectorate and this had to borne in mind
·
That the Community Group had already
had time to submit information
(ch) In terms of speaking at a Planning Committee, the Senior
Solicitor explained that a system had been established where if such an
application would be approved, the arrangements would have to be changed and
this would risk setting a precedent for the future. However, it was explained that there was an
option for the Committee to change the arrangements for the future if they
wished to do so but, in accordance with the current situation, the arrangements
did not allow it.
In the context of nominating a Local
Member, it was suggested that the Senior Solicitor would deal with this matter.
It
was further suggested that if the Planning Committee decided to defer the application,
the need for them to accept the findings of the Community Group was emphasised,
namely:
·
That they were submitting information
for a realistic financial package to show that it was possible to fund the
venture
(d) An amendment to defer determination of application for nine weeks
was proposed and seconded to give the Community Group time to submit evidence
and further information as suggested in (ch) above, to the Planning Committee
in June. There was a vote on the amendment and the original proposal and the
original application to approve it fell, and the amendment to defer for nine
weeks carried.
RESOLVED to defer making a decision on the
application for nine weeks to give the Community Group time to submit evidence
and further information about their intentions to fund the venture.
Supporting documents: