Proposed change of use of public house to a single dwellinghouse with new porch, partial demolitions and associated external works.

Application refused contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.

The principal planning officer provided a presentation on the application and the updates/representations received following the publication of the agenda.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Mr. Harris spoke on behalf of Brimfield and Little Hereford group parish council, Mr Comley local resident and Mr Haslam, CAMRA, spoke in objection to the application and Mr Leonard, the applicant, spoke in support.

In accordance with the councils constitution the local ward member spoke on the application. In summary, he explained that the pub had been closed since February 2020 and the buildings were now in a state of disrepair. There had been a worrying trend concerning the closing of pubs nationally and the closure of the Temeside Inn was a great loss to the village of Little Hereford. The parish council strongly objected to the application which had also received a number of objections. The application was contrary to core strategy policy SC1 as there were no other local facilities as alternatives to the pub. The loss of a local pub also was contrary to core strategy policies RA6 and SS1. Concerns regarding flooding were queried as the impact on a private dwelling would be similar to that on a pub. The pub offered jobs to local people, it was popular with tourists and contributed to the local economy. Other local community facilities, such as village halls were not suitable alternatives to the pub which also help to address isolation and loneliness.

The committee debated the application and was divided regarding the acceptability of the proposals to agree a change of use of the public house to a dwelling house.

It was the contention of some members of the committee that given the flooding of the pub and the inability to secure public liability/flooding insurance that the pub was no longer a viable commercial enterprise and that the application should be approved.

Other members of the committee were concerned that the application represented the loss of a vital community facility for which there was no adequate alternative locally which was contrary to core strategy policy SC1 and policy BLH 6(a) of the local neighbourhood development plan. It was felt that insufficient evidence had been provided that the pub had been adequately marketed recently. The loss of such an important element of a local facility would undermine the retention and development of accessible local services and community facilities which was contrary to paragraph 88(d) of the NPPF.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate. In summary, he explained that significant local flood events has occurred in 2007 and 2020. There had been no recent evidence provided of the marketing of the pub. It had not been adequately demonstrated that the pub was no longer required nor that it was no longer viable nor that there were appropriate alternative facilities local to the area.

Councillor Bruce Baker proposed and Councillor Dave Davis seconded a motion that the application be approved in accordance with the case officer’s recommendation.

The motion was put to the vote and was lost by a simple majority.

Councillor Matthew Engel proposed and Councillor Simeon Cole seconded a motion that the application be refused for the following reasons:

• insufficient evidence had been supplied with the application that the pub had been adequately marketed recently as an ongoing concern;
• the alternatives to the facility identified were not adequate which was contrary to core strategy policy SC1 and policy BLH6(a) of the Brimfield and Little Hereford neighbourhood development plan; and
• the loss of the pub would undermine the retention and development of accessible local services and community facilities which was contrary to paragraph 88(d) of the NPPF.

The motion was put to the vote and carried by a simple majority.

RESOLVED – that the application be refused for the following reasons:

• insufficient evidence had been supplied with the application that the pub had been adequately marketed recently as an ongoing concern;
• the alternatives to the facility identified were not adequate which was contrary to core strategy policy SC1 and policy BLH6(a) of the Brimfield and Little Hereford neighbourhood development plan; and

·       the loss of the pub would undermine the retention and development of accessible local services and community facilities which was contrary to paragraph 88(d) of the NPPF.