Agenda item

Tennille Bergin addressed the Committee in objection to the application.  Jonathan Dixon spoke for the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/14/0690/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

Councillor S Rutland–Barsby, as the local ward Member, highlighted her concern regarding the proposed loss of a village pub.  She stated that the Authority had always taken the position that village pubs should be protected.  She emphasised that any change of use had to be backed up by evidence of non-viability being submitted and the report clearly illustrated that this had not taken place.

Councillor Rutland–Barsby commented that she knew this pub well and under previous private ownership, it had been a thriving and popular village asset.  She stated however, that constant changes in management and the style of delivery, or non-delivery in some cases, had contributed to the current situation.

Councillor Rutland–Barsby stressed that, in the right caring ownership, the situation could be totally different but there had been no marketing of the premises as a pub.  If Members were minded to approve the application, she considered the retention of the pub building to be essential and she felt that the general design of the cottages was good.

Councillor Rutland–Barsby concluded that there was too much on the site causing the proposed development to be crammed up to the current neighbouring residences.  She stated that, although she could not refute Highways opinion, she disagreed with Officers and stressed that Members should consider whether there were special circumstances for approving the application without proper marketing of the pub.

Councillor P Ruffles stated that he was supportive of the overall application aside from the loss of the pub.  He expressed concern regarding the proximity of the proposed development to the cottages adjacent to the west quarter of the site.  He agreed with the views of the Highways Officers and commented that this was the local pub for quite a wide area.  He stated that Members had not seen any figures that would normally be available regarding the marketing of the pub and he felt that the application should be refused on the pub closure grounds alone.

Councillors M Alexander, K Crofton, J Jones and M Newman addressed the Committee in support of refusing the application to protect a pub in a rural area.

Councillor P Ruffles proposed and Councillor M Alexander seconded, a motion that application 3/14/0690/FP be refused on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the re-use of the site as a public house would not represent a viable commercial business and the proposed development was therefore contrary to policy STC8 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, this motion was declared CARRIED.  The Committee rejected the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that, in respect of application 3/14/0690/FP, planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.        In the absence of sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the re-use of the site as a public house would not represent a viable commercial business, the proposals which result in the loss of the public house business would be detrimental to the provision of valued local services and facilities.  The proposals are thereby contrary to policy STC8 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007 and the National Planning Policy Framework.