Agenda item

Change of use of the existing public house and associated works to create one 4-bedroom dwelling together with the construction of one 2-bedroom dwelling to the rear, including access, car parking, landscaping, bin and cycle storage.

The officer presented the report and addendum on application P16/V1457/FUL for the change of use of the existing public house and associated works to create one 4-bedroom dwelling together with the construction of one 2-bedroom dwelling to the rear; including access, car parking, landscaping and bin and cycle storage at 51 High Street, Sutton Courtenay.

Consultations, representations, policy and guidance and the site’s planning history were detailed in the officer’s report and addendum, which formed part of the agenda pack for this meeting.

The development manager updated the committee on what an Asset of Community Value (ACV) is.  She advised an application to register The Plough as an ACV had been made but had not yet been decided by the council.  She advised members that legal advice had been sought on this matter and there was no reason to defer this application on the basis of an ACV application being made to the council.

David Hignell, a representative of Sutton Courtenay parish council, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·         The village is expanding rapidly and therefore needs this community facility;

·         Request that the application is deferred until the application to register the Plough as an asset of community value had been considered;

·         The impact on the character of the area and the conservation area; and

·         There is a need for a pub in the southern half of the village, where all the new developments will be built as the three other pubs are in the north of the village.

Rebecca Tyler, a representative of ‘Friends of the Plough Group’, spoke objecting to the application. Her concerns included the following:

·         Request that the application is deferred until the asset of community value decision had been made;

·         Questions the viability tests as the pub would close at 6:00pm on Fridays and Saturdays;

·         The nearest pub from the South of the village is 1.1 miles away and the bus route doesn’t stop at near the other three pubs within the village;

·         Questions the marketing strategy as the pub was only listed in trade places;

·         The new housing allocated to the village will require new amenities; and

·         The other three pubs are more restaurants than drinking pubs, which leaves a gap in the market.

Julian Philcox, the owner’s agent, spoke in support of the application. His speech included the following:

·         The pub is commercially unviable according to Savills and the council’s independent report, incorporating data gathered from several years;

·         Savills marketed the pub on findmypub.com in the financial year ending 2016;

·         There are no technical objections to the application; and

·         The pub was bought by a developer after it had already closed.

The committee did not feel that they had enough information to judge the viability of the pub, due to there being conflicting views from the objectors. The committee expressed concern that the loss of the pub could cause severe harm to the social fabric and sustainability of the village.

A motion, moved and seconded to refuse the application, was declared lost on being put to the vote.

A motion, moved and seconded to defer the application to allow for the committee to inspect the viability reports, was declared carried on being put to the vote.

RESOLVED: to defer consideration of application P16/V1457/FUL to allow the committee to consider the viability reports for the pub before determining the application.