Agenda item

Councillor Jerry Patterson had declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 he remained in the meeting during its consideration.

Further to the report the Officers explained that the accuracy of the plan in particular in respect of the width of the road between the outbuilding and the pub had been questioned.  The Officers reported that the road was 3.7 metres wide on the ground and as such it was not wide enough to enable two cars to pass.  It was explained that this contraction in width ran the entire length of the road.  It was reported that the CountyEngineer had been consulted again and it had been confirmed that due to the geometry of the road drivers would have sufficient awareness of other vehicles and could react to avoid congestion.  Therefore, the CountyEngineer had raised no objection to the proposal.

The Officers reported that there would need to be signing and possibly lighting of the access.  Furthermore, the Environment Agency had reported that there was a low risk of flooding in this area although further clarification on this could be sought.

The Officers commented that the Parish Council had asked how the car parking could be secured for the users of the village hall. In response it was reported that a condition requiring that the car park be made available for the wider community would be unreasonable.

Finally, the Officers asked Members to be mindful of the position should planning permission be granted and thereafter the Pub closed. Members were advised to think about this carefully, noting that ensuring the vitality of a pub was important. It was explained that on balance, the Officers considered that the proposal was acceptable subject to conditions regarding flooding, signage, lighting, access.  It was recommended that should the Committee be minded to approve the application, authority to do so should be delegated to the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) to enable the outstanding matters to be resolved.

Ms M Rawcliffe made a statement on behalf of the Parish Council commenting that the Pub was a valued village amenity and it was accepted that the parking was required to ensure its viability.  However, she expressed concern regarding vehicle and pedestrian safety.  She explained the dangerous layout of the road and referred to its bends just beyond the access point.  She referred to the lack of footpath and expressed concern regarding speeding vehicles and increased traffic.  She further expressed concern at the use of this access and commented that a better access could be achieve through the existing gate.  Finally, she expressed concern regarding future developments should the Pub cease to trade and emphasised that these should be in keeping with the Green Belt and the village.

Mr M Balaam made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns regarding access; pedestrian safety as the access road was close to a frequently used footpath; limited visibility; patrons of the Pub not knowing about the special care needed in travelling to the Pub in view of the proximity of the footpath to the access; inaccuracy of the plans in terms of the width of the road not being properly represented; increased traffic; traffic flow being not represented; the lane being used for access to existing properties; noise; adverse visual impact; removal of the hedgerow; loss of trees; impact on the bridleway; road surfaces including Manor Road and concern that the existing gate should be used.

One Member expressed concern regarding the possible loss of the pub and considered that approval of the application should be delegated to the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice Chair and local Members.  He raised some concerns regarding signing, lighting and landscaping.   Furthermore he expressed some concern that should the Pub be unsuccessful, the site might be developed and he questioned if this could be prevented by condition. He referred to encroachment into the Green Belt, but considered that in this case there were special circumstances to justify approval of the application.

The Officers responded that a condition preventing future alternative development would be unreasonable.

Other Members also supported the application noting that there was a balance to be struck.  It was agreed that careful consideration needed to be given to lighting and signing which needed to be appropriate for this rural location.

One Member, whilst supporting the application expressed concern regarding the improvements to the access road suggesting that traffic calming measures such as rumble strips would not be appropriate in this rural location.

The Officers reported that it was proposed that a condition be added to any permission concerning the setting back of the gates far enough to allow their opening. In response to a question raised the Officers reported that it would unreasonable to require that the gate be locked.

Other Members spoke against the application raising concerns regarding the difficulty to resist development of the site in the future should this application be approved.  Furthermore they were unconvinced that there were very special circumstances to justify approval of the application.

One Member suggested that Opposition Spokesman should be included in the delegation to the Deputy Director.

By 11 votes to 2 with 1 abstention it was

RESOLVED

that the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice and Opposition Spokesman of the Development Control Committee be delegated authority to approve application SHI/11845/3 subject to:

(1)       the conditions set out in the report; and

(2)       further conditions relating to flooding; signage; lighting and access.