Agenda item

Change of use of existing public house and associated works to create one 4-bedroom dwelling together with 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 a change of use of existing public house and associated works to create one 4-bedroom dwelling, together with 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.

This application was previously presented on 19 October to Planning Committee. The Plough public house will not be listed as an Asset of Community Value.

The viability report had been approved by an independent assessor who stated that The Plough is not economically viable as a public house.

Councillor David Hignall from Sutton Courtenay Parish Council spoke relating to the application.  He noted that:

·         Losing the public house was disappointing for the village.

Rebecca Tyler (a local resident) and David Cooper (CAMRA) spoke in objection to the application:

·           They did not believe that the viability report was accurate as it is based only on barrelage, not other sales.

·           They believed that the loss of viability coincided with the purchase by the current owner.

·           They wanted the opportunity to purchase it as a community run public house.

The committee asked questions to the objectors:

·           What were the plans and funding to fulfil the project? There was a group of 20 people who would put the public house into a community interest company, namely Friends of the Plough Ltd.

Julian Philcox, the agent for the owner, spoke to the committee:

·           The independent reports show that it is not viable as a public house.

·           The pub was advertised for sale for an entire year.

·           Sutton Courtenay has three other public houses and other community facilities.

The clerk read a statement from the ward member, Gervase Duffield, who paid tribute to the work of those in support of saving the public house.  He acknowledged that the case was unanswerable, however, and accepted that planning permission be granted.

The officers received questions from the committee:

·         Was the additional dwelling added, as the Vale did not previously have a 5 year housing land supply? The committee was satisfied that the impact on the amenity is acceptable.

The committee noted that the villagers’ tenacity was admirable, but on purely planning grounds, the viability report was compelling and the application was not considered refusable.  Furthermore, there was a presumption in favour of sustainable development for planning reasons on economic, social and environmental grounds.

A motion, proposed and seconded, to accept the officer’s recommendation to grant planning permission was declared carried on being put to the vote.

RESOLVED: to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

1.     Approved plans.     

2.     Time limit - full application (full). 

3.     Submission of details (full). 

4.     Submission of joinery details (full).  

5.     Materials (samples) (full).

6.     Sustainable drainage scheme (full). 

7.     Tree protection (implementation as approved).

8.     Access (details not shown) (full). 

9.     Turning space.

10.  No drainage to highway (full). 

11.  Car parking spaces.