Agenda item

(Councillors Peter Argyle, Brian Bedwell, Keith Lock and Royce Longton declared a personal interest in Agenda item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that they knew the agent.  As their interest was personal and not prejudicial they were permitted to take part in the debate and vote on the matter). 

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 10/00727/FUL in respect of a change of use of a public house to a four bedroomed house.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Barry Morris, Parish Council representative, Mr David Alston, objector, and Mr Arthur Hedges and Mr M Postles, applicant and agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Mr Morris in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    The Parish Council objected to the loss of the only public house in North Street as it was a central point for the community.

·                    A lack of use was only true for the past two years as the public house had provided a good service in the past and could do so in the future as a free house.

·                    The previous tenants had little experience of running a public house and it operated as an expensive restaurant instead, which was not wanted by locals and trade was lost as a result. 

·                    It was purchased as a business premises and it had been fully marketed.

·                    The Parish Council requested that the application be rejected and the opportunity be allowed for the public house to continue to trade as a free house. 

Mr Alston in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    He was speaking on behalf of the residents who objected to the scheme.

·                    He felt that greater consideration was needed based on the economic history of the public house, which showed trading as a free house and under the right ownership was a viable option.

·                    The independent report provided by Cookseys Chartered Surveyors was based on incorrectly low profit figures/estimates and the resulting trading valuation of £270k was, as a result, incorrect.  

·                    Further considerations were needed based on correct information and trading valuations. 

In response to Member questions Mr Alston advised that:

·                    The car parking area was part of the site.

·                    The public house was sold by the pub chain, Punch. 

Mr Hedges in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    The pub had been failing for some time.  Numerous landlords and tenants had sought ways to make it viable but without success.  This included new signage.   

·                    It was based in a small hamlet of only 20 houses and there were seven pubs/restaurants elsewhere in Theale.

·                    It was poorly located on a narrow back road and the access road from Englefield was dangerous. 

·                    The car parking area was found to be insufficient when the pub had custom in the past and this was another factor in its failure.

·                    The independent surveyors report found the pub as being an unviable venture.  The valuation provided in this report was for the building and not the business. 

·                    There had been a decrease nationally in the purchase of alcohol in public houses. 

·                    The applicant had met the requirements of SPG19 and the Local Plan. 

·                    This was an opportunity for a new house with an extended garden that would enhance the existing appearance of the site. 

In response to an earlier question, the applicant, Mr Postles, advised that he purchased the building for £265k.  This had been reduced by around £60k as it could not be sold.  At the time of purchase it had been closed for over a year as a pub and it was his intention to turn it into a family home. 

There was a view expressed among Members that it was disappointing to see pubs close. 

However, some Members felt that it was not economically viable to maintain this building as a pub due to issues including location, parking and the number of other pubs nearby (some of which had also encountered economic difficulties).

Councillor Alan Macro therefore proposed to accept Officers Recommendation and grant conditional planning permission.  This was seconded by Councillor Keith Lock.  This was put to the vote but was not agreed by the Committee.  

(Councillor Royce Longton abstained from the vote). 

It was pointed out that SPG19 was enacted to prevent the purchase of pubs for residential use and this should have been brought into force to prevent this happening in this instance. 

An alternative proposal was then made by Councillor Richard Crumly to reject Officers Recommendation and refuse planning permission as the proposal was not compliant with SPG19 and to enable the pub to remain with its economic viability, which was not certain, reassessed.  This was seconded by Councillor Tim Metcalfe who raised a concern that any change of use would need to be formally approved in any case.  

A view was also given that any marketing to support changing the use of a pub should be undertaken directly by the existing owner.  This needed consideration in future.

(Councillor Royce Longton abstained from the vote). 

RESOLVED that the Head of Planning and Countryside be authorised to refuse planning permission for the following reason:

1.         The applicant has provided insufficient detailed and convincing financial information to enable the Local Planning Authority to make a decision as to whether or not the loss of the public house can be justified when assessed against the guidance contained in West Berkshire Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance 19 – ‘Public Houses’ and paragraph EC.1 of PPS4 ‘Determining Planning Applications Affecting Shops and Services in Local Centres and Villages’.