Agenda item

The DMTL introduced the report to Members and the recommendation for approval subject to strict planning conditions. It was noted that this was a revised planning application following the refusal of planning application PF/19/1816, which had been for 9 units. The revised application was considered acceptable by Officers in principle, subject to conditions including those to mitigate noise, controls regarding external lighting and strict conditions controlling of the use of the site. The Public House and application site were designated as an Asset of Community Value (ACV), and whilst the proposed development would result in the partial loss of an ACV, the revenue from the development would contribute towards the ongoing survival of the other half of the ACV; the Butchers Arms Public House.

At the discretion of the Chairman, Members were furnished with copies of written statements from East Ruston Parish Council and from a local resident, objecting to the development. These representations were received after the deadline for public speaking at the meeting had closed.

Public Speakers

Malcom Dixon – Agent

       i.          Cllr L Shires – Local Member, expressed her support for the concerns raised by the Parish Council and of residents on the impact to their quality of life by result of increased noise levels, loss of privacy, as well as the loss of greenspace and inadequate provision of parking. She thanked the DMTL for his engagement with both herself and local residents and for considering residents’ concerns as reflected in the strict conditions placed on the application subject to approval. Cllr L Shires asked the Committee to consider a possible extension to the Butchers Arms to accommodate rooms within the Pub as opposed to permitting a separate structure, or a further reduction in number of external units to 4 or 5.

      ii.          The ADP advised the Committee of the planning process and affirmed that any extension of the Public House would require a different planning application. He advised Members to consider the application before them, and noted the Applicant had previously revised their application and may not wish to revise it further.

     iii.          The DMTL commented that the Applicant and their Agent had reluctantly reduced the number of units from 9 to 7, which Officers determined to be agreeable.

    iv.          At the discretion of the Chairman the Planning Agent was permitted to make an additional representation for the purposes of clarity. The Agent advised that a further reduction in the number of units would erode at the viability of the business.

      v.          Cllr P Heinrich commented that he was very familiar with the Butchers Arms Public House, and acknowledged that the Pub had always required a second revenue stream to remain viable. He acknowledged the revised application subject to conditions was much improved. He sought assurances with respect to the impact of the external lighting on the dark skies policy. On balance, and considering the economic benefits, Cllr P Heinrich proposed acceptance of the officer’s recommendation.

    vi.          Cllr J Rest stated his concern that the Public House had not yet been refurbished, and in its present condition would be unable to provide amenity to the holiday lodges. He questioned why the redevelopment of the Pub had not been done first, and what would happen to the units should the Public House fail.

   vii.          The DMTL advised should the Pub fail in the future, this was not directly relevant to the consideration of the planning application. The ADP added to the DMTL comments and referenced page 25 of the officer’s report, and that the accommodation would be formally tied to the Public House. The accommodation was key to the diversification of the offer the ACV and part of an investment strategy. The ADP advised, should Members be so minded, they could apply conditions that should the Public House close, the accommodation would also be required to close, as the units were intended to provide diversification to the ACV and additional value to the Public House. Alternatively, permissions could be applied which would require the removal of the units after a set period of time, though the addition of too many conditions would not be advisable.

  viii.          Cllr N Pearce expressed his concerns over the visual appearance of the units which would not be in keeping with the historic setting. He supported comments made that the Pub should be developed first and stated that this was a challenging planning application, as reflected in the number of conditions attached with the officer’s recommendation. He believed that the application would have an adverse effect on the rights of local residents to a calm environment without undue interruption or nuisance.  Whilst he understood the needs of the business to trade, he commented he would not support the officer’s recommendation.

    ix.          Cllr A Fitch-Tillett stated that Pubs in rural settings were important to their local community, and that the Butchers Arms had successfully been designated as an ACV. It would therefore be difficult to close the Pub given its ACV status, and it was important to ensure that it remained a viable business. Cllr A Fitch-Tillett seconded the proposal to accept the officer’s recommendation. 

      x.          Cllr G Mancini-Boyle expressed his support for the application and noted that the Applicant had demonstrated willingness to compromise and revise their application on the advice from Officers. He commented that whilst the noise generated from the air source heat pump was not desirable, this type of infrastructure was better for the environment. The units were set back from housing which would aid in minimising the impact on residents.

    xi.          Cllr A Brown commented he would prefer the use of restrictions to ensure that the units could not be sold separately to the Pub, and that this be applied with a planning agreement rather than as a planning condition. He expressed his disappointment over the loss of greenspace, and was sympathetic to comments made by other Members with respect to the visual appearance of the units. Whilst the accommodation would be visually constrained behind the Pub, the use of materials including zinc roofing were undesirable and more effort should have been made in using sympathetic materials to the area. He acknowledged the economic growth unit’s report and hoped, should the application be approved, the development would aid to sustain the Butchers Arms Pub.

   xii.          In response to questions by Cllr A Brown, the PL advised of the guidance that where restrictions can be imposed by either planning condition or by agreement, it was preferred that it be by planning condition. Securing restrictions by legal agreement would not prevent that agreement to be varied, and would therefore provide no greater protection than a planning condition. ACV status would not prohibit development or the sale of the Pub, rather it would allow for the community to submit a bid to purchase, though it would not be guaranteed to be sold to the community.

  xiii.          Cllr V Holliday stated that the extensive conditions placed on the application indicated that the development was not suitable. The Pub was not currently operating and therefore could not provide amenity to the units, this would impact on carbon emissions with tourists requiring a car to access alternate services, which contradicted the Councils Net Zero Strategy.

 xiv.          Cllr A Yiasimi expressed his support for the officer’s recommendation and commented that this was a finely balanced planning application. He acknowledged that the Applicant had addressed the issues raised with the prior application including the inclusion of solar panels, electric charging points, drainage concerns, and noise and light pollution.

   xv.          The DMTL advised with respect of external lighting, should this be proposed in future, that a condition would be added which would require the prior approval of any external lighting on the units. Such lighting would need to adhere with Council guidelines in being both low energy and downward facing.

 xvi.          Cllr R Kershaw spoke against the officer’s recommendation, and remarked that the money intended to be spent on the 7 units could have been used on developing the food offering and kitchen of the Pub in addition to temporary outside accommodation, which would have aided with the viability of the business. The volume of conditions applied to the application would make it challenging to enforce.

xvii.          The Chairman reflected on a similar development within the district which had been positively received and had resulted in the increased use of that Public House.

RESOLVED by 6 votes for, and 6 against.

That planning application PF/21/2469 be approved subject to conditions contained within the officer’s recommendation.