Agenda item

Proposal: Change of use of public house (Use Class A4) to 1 No. dwelling with associated parking.

This application was discussed in conjunction with the following application 17/00918/OUT and comments made on this application also refer to that application.

Prior to presenting the application, the Planning Officer updated members that since the agenda had been published a nomination had been received, and accepted, to register the property as an Asset of Community Value. There was now a 6 month moratorium period and until that period expired the property could not be sold. This did not change the officer recommendation for the planning application, but he advised members that they may wish to discuss if they considered it appropriate to make a decision about the planning application at the current time.

The Planning Officer presented the application as detailed in the agenda and made reference to the efforts to market the business and its viability. It was considered the business had been marketed sufficiently to meet policy. The main consideration for members was whether now was the time to determine the application.

The Chairman was of the opinion that due to the moratorium period the application should be deferred, as if approved it would likely increase the value of the site which would be unfair to members of the community who may submit a bid to purchase. Many members concurred with the Chairman, and the Chairman proposed deferring both applications which was seconded.

In response, the Development Manager reminded members that the applicants could appeal on non-determination.

As members were minded to defer the applications the Chairman did not invite a public speaker to address committee but did offer the opportunity for the agent to respond to comments made.

Agent, Mr C Miller addressed members in response to the late news that the Asset of Community Value application had been accepted, and confirmed he had spoken with the applicant. He did not believe the Asset of Community Value moratorium affected the planning process. The applicant had indicated they would be happy to sell to the community at pub value, and so he didn’t feel the designation as an Asset of Community Value warranted a refusal of the application. He asked members to consider the application now so that if the community didn’t buy before the end of the moratorium period, then the applicant could move quickly. He noted if the application was determined now, and approved, and the pub later sold to the community at pub value there would be restrictions regarding selling on.

There was no further discussion and the proposal to defer the application until the end of the moratorium period for the Asset of Community Value was put to the vote, and carried 8 in favour, 0 against, 1 abstention)

(Voting: 8 in favour, 0 against, 1 abstention)