Change of use from pub dwelling.
LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Stephen
Churchman
Minutes:
Change of use from
public house to dwelling house
Attention
was drawn to the additional observations that had been received
a) The Planning Manager elaborated on the
background of the application, noting that the decision had been deferred at
the committee on 16 April 2018, in order to ask the representatives of the Garndolbenmaen Community Group for further information, in
the form of a realistic financial package, for their proposal to purchase the
building and keep it as a public house, along with evidence of a reasonable
financial package to purchase the property.
Since this
decision to defer, it was expressed that the application was now the subject of
a formal appeal to the Planning Inspectorate for non-determination within the
appropriate timescale. It was noted that
there was a formal procedure for dealing with non-determination appeals and it
was highlighted that the relevant regulations within Planning Legislation noted
the following:
For
Planning appeals where an appeal had been made regarding the Local Planning
Authority's failure to come to a decision on the application within the
specified period, there is a period of four weeks from the receipt of the
appeal where a Local Planning Authority has an opportunity to continue to
determine the application.
In this case, the
appeal had been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on 18 April and a
decision was required by 16 May. Members were reminded that the application had
also been deferred at the Planning Committee on 26 February 2018 in order to give the local community group an
opportunity to present evidence of their intention to purchase the building in
order to retain its use as a public house.
It was noted, that
it was reasonable to consider that the existing use was not viable as a public
house. Information had been received with
the application from an accountancy firm, confirming that there had been a
decline in the business' turnover for some years.
It
was expressed that the officers' recommendation was clear in that the
application should be approved; however, reference was made to three options,
included in the report, highlighting the risks to the Council, and these were
open for the Committee to consider.
b) It
was proposed and seconded to approve the application in accordance with the officers'
recommendation that would mean that the appeal would end without any further
action, thus avoiding costs to the Council.
c) During the ensuing discussion, the following points were highlighted by
individual Members:
·
That
community assets received much more attention in England under the Localism
Act.
·
That
the Committee had already given the Community Group nine weeks - they should
keep to their word and keep to the timetable.
ch) In response to a question regarding the
timetable, the Senior Planning Service Manager
noted that the Committee was being forced to discuss the application due to appeal arrangements. He reiterated that he would wish to see the
public house continue as a public house,
but the business had been on the market since 2011, and no purchaser had come
forward. He noted that the Community
Group were attempting to purchase the site, but there was no realistic
financial package or any robust offer made.
d) In response to an observation regarding the
likelihood of the Community Group reaching
its target, the Planning Manager noted that the additional information received was included in paragraph
5.14 of the report. It was reiterated
that a community meeting had been held
and it was accepted that the intentions of the community
group were valid and it had a very ambitious business plan that was to be praised. Nevertheless, it was noted that only a few
thousand had been pledged to the
campaign, to date, which was way off the target.
dd) In
response to a concern that the community could challenge the Committee's
decision in terms of changing its mind about the timetable, the Solicitor noted
that the challenge would be unfounded as the Committee needed to come to
conclusions sooner due to the statutory timetable. He noted also that nothing prevented the
Community Group from making an offer for the building.
e) A request was made for a registered vote
In accordance with the Procedural Rules,
the following vote to approve the application was recorded:
In favour of the proposal to approve the
application, (8) Councillors: Anne Lloyd Jones, Huw Wyn Jones, Berwyn Parry Jones, Edgar
Wyn Owen, Dilwyn Lloyd, Eric Merfyn Jones, Siân Wyn
Hughes, Owain Williams
Against the proposal to approve the
application, (2) Councillors: Gruffydd Williams and Eirwyn Williams
Abstention
(1) Councillor Catrin Wager
f) Resolved to approve the
application
Conditions
1. Time
2. Compliance with plans
3. Removal of
permitted development rights
Supporting documents: