Erection of free standing timber deck to front of Public House, deck to include ambulant stepped access.  Provision of satellite dish to building frontage.

Erection of free standing timber deck to front of Public House, deck to include ambulant stepped access.  Provision of satellite dish to building frontage.

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and updates / additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided; the schedule of committee updates is appended to these minutes.

She added that a representation had been received from Bartestree Parish Council after the updates sheet had been produced. This representation reiterated the Parish Council’s stance in respect of the application and raised no new material planning considerations.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Brunt spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor DW Greenow, the local ward member, commented on a number of issues, including:

• The Parish Council had met on Tuesday and were therefore unable to register to speak, Chairman should allow late registration of speakers in these circumstances.
• The applicant had addressed all of the issues raised at the previous meeting including landscaping, colour, disabled access, and ensuring that the decking was free standing and not attached to the original building.
• Landscaping needed further discussion as oak and cherry were not ideal materials for screening, this could be addressed through a suitable condition.
• The applicant had proved that the decking had been beneficial to the trade of the public house and the application should be granted.
• The applicants were happy to move the satellite dish from the front to the side of the building.

Members opened the debate by stating that in their opinion public houses needed to remain the heart of the community, they were therefore sympathetic to the needs of the applicant in the current financial climate. They did however note the concerns raised in respect of the application and questioned whether the decking could be relocated to the side of the public house. Members also voiced their concerns in respect of the proposed screening. They felt that Oak and Cherry were not suitable materials for screening the decking but felt that this matter could be rectified through an appropriate condition.

Some members questioned the merit of the application and noted that there was a large garden area to the rear of the public house that could be used for seating. They felt that the decking was inappropriate for a grade 2 listed building and agreed with the case officer that granting the application would result in an unacceptable impact on the visual amenity of neighbouring properties.

In response to a number of questions from members, the Senior Planning Officer advised Members that there was not currently a disabled access into the premises and that the applicant had stated that the proposed ramp would ensure an easy access into the building. She added that she could not confirm if there had been an increase in trade since the decking had been in situe and she also advised Members that concerns had been raised by the Traffic Manager in respect of the vehicular access to the site.

During the debate Members noted that English Heritage had not objected to the application and that a number of other public houses throughout Hereford benefitted from exterior decking. They also raised concerns in respect of the number of public houses currently closed throughout the county.

The Development Control Manager advised Members that the Planning Department supported the need to keep public houses as a vital part of the community. He noted that the application was retrospective and that a number of the concerns could have been addressed if the applicant had consulted with the Planning Department prior to erecting the decking. In summing up he advised Members that the application was contrary to Policies HBA1 and HBA4 of the Unitary Development Plan and that it should therefore be refused in line with the Officer’s recommendation.

Councillor Greenow was given the opportunity to close the debate in accordance with the Council’s Constitution. He reiterated the issues raised in his opening statement and also made a number of addition points, including:

• Temporary permission could be granted.
• The decking could not be located on either side of the public house as there would be an impact on neighbouring residents.
• The decking overlooks the children’s play area and enables parents to eat their meal outside whilst supervising their children.

A motion to refuse the application failed. Members were then advised by the Locum Lawyer and the Democratic Services Officer in respect of section 4.8.10.2 of the Council’s Constitution regarding the Further Information Report process. The Development Control Manager and the Locum lawyer, representing the Monitoring Officer, both felt that there were critical policy issues at stake and therefore felt that a Further Information Report would be required and the determination of the application would have to be deferred until the next meeting of the Planning Committee.

Members voiced there concerns in respect of the Further Information Report process as currently set out in the Council’s Constitution.

RESOLVED:  

That consideration of planning application DMCE/091754/F be deferred for further information.