Agenda item

Change of Use from Public House to Dwelling

Appendix 5 (Appeal Decision in Hildersham) is available by visiting the agendas page on the Council’s website: www.scambs.gov.uk > The Council > Committees

Having been invited to state what its resolution would have been, had it been determining the application itself, and in order to help inform the Council’s representations to the Inspector at the forthcoming Appeal for non-determination, the Committee indicated that the application should be refused, contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director. Members agreed the reason for refusal as being that the proposal would lead to an unacceptable reduction in community facilities as a result of loss of this asset of community value, contrary to Policy SF/1 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Development Framework 2007 (Protection of Village Services and Amenities)."

John Koch (Planning Team Leader, West) was not present for this item.

The Senior Lawyer clarified the reason the Planning Committee was considering the matter. He reminded Members that, as the applicant had now lodged an Appeal on the grounds of non-determination, determination of the application was now the responsibility of a Planning Inspector. The Committee’s view would help to inform the approach adopted by the Local Planning Authority, which was a party to the Appeal. The Senior Lawyer said that the process followed by the LPA had been a perfectly proper one. Referring to some very late representations received the day before the meeting, he said that consideration of such representations would have put the Council in a difficult position had the Committee been determining the application itself. However, the risk was less in a case like this, where an Inspector would make the decision. It was therefore safe for officers to assess the late material. The Senior Lawyer advised Members that, if there was new material evidence, including from public speakers, then they could either delegate to officers a decision on how to treat that evidence, or else instruct officers to report that evidence to the Committee at a future meeting.

The Chairman told Members that, in the fourth line of Paragraph 2 of the report from the Planning and New Communities Director, the word ‘required’ should be replaced with the word ‘invited’.

Mrs. Dale Ingram (acting for the Three Tuns Action Group objecting to the proposal), Councillor Barry Holme (Guilden Morden Parish Council) and Councillor Cicely Murfitt (local Member) addressed the Committee. A statement from Kirk Saban (supporter of the application unable to attend in person) was read out to the Committee.

Mrs. Ingram highlighted the fact that the Three Tuns was a Listed Building warranting special interest, but pointed out that no Listed Building consent existed and no heritage statement had been submitted with the application. The King Edward VII pub in Guilden Morden provided for a different clientele. She stressed the Three Tuns’ status as an Asset of Community Value, and that its loss as a public house would be detrimental to the village.

The Chairman read out a statement from Kirk Saban (supporter of the officer recommendation, and Licensee of The King Edward VII in Guilden Morden for the last 20 years). The statement said that if the Three Tuns re-opened as a pub, there could be consequences leading to the closure of the King Edward VII pub. The action group had listed The Three Tuns as an asset of community value. The statement argued that the King Edward VII also played a significant role within the community. As a committed licensee, Mr Saban said there was simply insufficient trade to support another pub in this village. Councillor Sebastian Kindersley said that, had Mr. Saban been present, he (Councillor Kindersley) would have asked him why he (Mr. Saban) was only worried now when The Three Tuns and King Edward VII pubs had competed with each other for 20 years.

Councillor Barry Holme (Guilden Morden Parish Council) reiterated the Three Tuns’ status as an Asset of Community Value.

Councillor Cicely Murfitt outlined the unique attraction and benefits of the Three Tuns. She urged the Committee to “give it a chance”.

Committee members emphasised the considerable weight carried by the Three Tuns being registered as an Asset of Community Value. They also recognised that the Three Tuns and King Edward VII pubs catered for completely different markets and interest groups.

The Senior Lawyer reminded Committee members that, in reaching a decision, their starting point must be adopted policy. Against that policy, was the application considered to be “good enough”? He said that maintenance as a Listed Building was not a material consideration, but that the status of being an Asset of Community Value was material. It was for Members to determine what weight should be given to that fact.

Having been invited to state what its resolution would have been, had it been determining the application itself, and in order to help inform the Council’s representations to the Inspector at the forthcoming Appeal for non-determination, the Committee indicated unanimously that the application should be refused, contrary to the recommendation in the report from the Planning and New Communities Director. Members agreed the reason for refusal as being the unacceptable diminution in the value to the community in contravention of Policy SF/1 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Development Framework 2007 (Protection of Village Services and Amenities).