Agenda item

(All Members declared that they had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(1).)

1.     The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 20/02245/FUL in respect of Swan Inn, Newbury Road, Great Shefford, Hungerford, RG17 7DS.

2.     Mrs Sian Cutts, Senior Planning Officer, introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable in planning terms and officers recommended that the Head of Planning and Development be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

3.     The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard, Team Leader (Highways Development Control), if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Goddard stated that the access is existing, long-standing, and should raise no issues. Mr Goddard stated that research has shown that only 30% of traffic around a new commercial development is new to the network, and Highways had concluded that there would be no significant impact. Mr Goddard noted that there were 26 spaces of proposed parking, a reduction from 27 existing spaces. Highways does not consider that loss of one parking space enough to warrant objection. In response to objections on the basis of parking overspill, Mr Goddard stated that a proposed condition limiting open hours of the shop to prevent opening when the public house is most active should mitigate these concerns, noting that a parking survey undertaken by Highways did not find any occurrences of parking overspill.

4.     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Ms Sharon Brentnall, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Agent Representation

5.     Ms Sharon Brentnall in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Since 2001, West Berkshire has lost 35 public houses, with 60% lost in the last ten years. Supermarkets are undercutting pub prices, and it is essential for rural pubs to remain viable through diversifying their offering.

·         The public house has an excellent reputation, but the Covid-19 pandemic has underlined that financial viability cannot always be guaranteed.

·         A new focus on sustainability has forced public houses to look at how they can support local areas, and this proposal for a farm shop underpinned by a local supply chain for produce supports that. This supports local suppliers and creates benefits for the wider community.

·         The farm shop will be run by the public house, and not as a separate entity, and will be a linked business so that a customer can visit both. Additionally, the produce in the farm shop will be used in the meals the public house prepares.

·         The applicant is happy to follow all conditions set by Planning, particularly the condition limiting opening hours, noting that farm shops and public houses have different peak times. To address concerns, the applicant has entered into an agreement with a local business to ensure that staff can park off-site, and the applicant is willing to address concerns about non-customers using the parking site.

·         The applicant has put a significant personal and financial commitment into the public house, and have continued to strive to make improvements to their business. The public house has an outstanding restaurant, but is primarily a pub, and employs local people. Currently, it has 20 staff.

·         Local people regard the public house and farm shop to be a well-designed asset, and require support, particularly if they are employing local people. Ms Brentnall noted that there were more letters in support than opposition.

Member Questions to the Agent

6.     Councillor Tony Vickers asked what the applicant considered to be “local suppliers”. Ms Brentnall responded that the applicants had an ideal radius was in mind, outside of which products would not be sought.

7.     Councillor Barnett asked for clarification that alcohol sales would not be done within the shop. Ms Brentnall confirmed that that would not be the case.

8.     The Chairman asked if there was any risk of crossover between the two businesses. Ms Brentnall responded that there was not, as they were entirely different business models.

9.     Councillor Andy Moore asked if there was any scope for reduction of the development’s height, noting that the cited height of 6.3 metres was not on the plans. Ms Brentnall stated that they were to scale and the height in the plans would be correct. Councillor Moore asked if there were any considerations to reduce the height. Ms Brentnall stated that she would have to confirm with the applicant.

10.  Councillor Claire Rowles asked for clarity in how the shop differed from the two existing village shops. Ms Brentnall responded that the shop sought to sell fresh produce with regular local deliveries, rather than the longer-life products of conventional shops.

Ward Member Representation

11.  The Chairman noted that Councillor Clive Hooker could not attend.

Member Questions to Officers

12.  Councillor Tony Vickers asked whether a public house needed to substantiate that an additional diversified business was viable or needed. Ms Cutts responded that the business such as the public house did not need to prove either, and that a desire to expand alone was enough. On the viability of other businesses, Ms Cutts understood that it was difficult to prove that a development would not damage the viability of others, but that the applicant’s statement that other products would be sold was satisfactory. Mr Till added that it was not the Council’s role to regulate competition between businesses on this scale.

13.  Councillor Howard Woollaston noted that he had regularly observed that the car park was full or overflowing, and so expressed surprise at the findings of the parking survey. Councillor Woollaston stated that it was his understanding that the planned ramp would remove four parking spaces. Mr Goddard responded that Highways did not disregard that parking overspills happened, just that it could not be substantiated as a regular issue, and that the plan quoting a loss of one parking space was possible.

14.  Councillor Moore asked whether the height of the building should be shown definitively on the plan. Ms Cutts responded that scaled drawings were required, but that all measurements were not. The height of 4.6 metres was from the submitted plans, as well as a previous application which stated the height of the garage definitively.

15.  Councillor Moore asked how the historical element of the application was considered. Ms Cutts responded that the application was submitted with a Heritage Impact Assessment, which referred to the historical pattern of development, and the Conservation Officer had initially raised an objection to the development blocking views of the public house. However, photographs of a similar building next to the public house in 1910 proved that the proposed development fit a historical layout.

16.  Councillor Moore noted that light good vehicles would supply the shop, and whether the Council had any control over that. Mr Goddard responded that a condition could potentially be set to limit deliveries or delivery vehicles.

17.  The Chairman asked for clarification that the previous enforcement matter could not be considered. Mr Cutts stated that they could not, as they did not relate to the

18.  Councillor Carolyne Culver asked why the Environment Agency’s statement was an informative, rather than a condition. Ms Cutts responded that it was a duty of care obligation to reference the need for this permit, but it was not an issue under planning legislation.

19.  Councillor Culver asked how many houses were being built as part of a nearby housing development, and how this would impact the flood risk. Ms Cutts responded that she did not know the number, but that the Flood Risk Assessment had been submitted alongside the application. In this area, most of the flood risk came from the local landscape.

20.  Councillor Culver asked what the cut-off point was for BREEAM to not be considered. Mr Till responded that the BREEAM scoring scale becomes impractical at this small building size, as well as for those who are open-sided. This development has very little scope to implement changes for a higher BREEAM grade.

21.  Councillor Culver asked if an additional disabled space next to the shop could be made a condition. Mr Goddard stated that the space could be placed in a row of five closest to the shop, and that it could be made a condition through amendment of Condition 11.

22.  Councillor Rowles noted that parking was tight, and asked whether the space closest to the shop had enough room to be safe. Mr Goddard responded that there were dimension standards for car parking spaces, which had been met by the application. Mr Goddard accepted that the car park was narrow, but that was an existing issue with the site.

23.  Councillor Rowles asked whether the potential cycle stands could be placed if it was made a condition. Mr Goddard stated that further details had been requested as part of Condition 12.

24.  Councillor Rowles noted that there was a sharp bend on the road near to the public house, and asked if there was a potential scenario with parking overflow and delivery vans causing congestion. Mr Goddard added that the nearby housing development was for three dwellings, and had its own car parking spaces. Mr Goddard added that in evidence provided by objectors, no overspill cars were parked on the sharp bend, noting that it was an illogical place to park in any scenario. Mr Goddard added that no additional developments on the site were likely to be considered with this parking situation.

25.  Councillor Rowles asked if conditioning delivery vehicles was limiting the supplies available to them. Mr Goddard noted that this would additionally break a precedent as large trucks were being used to deliver alcohol to the public house. Mr Till added that conditions needed to be deemed to be reasonable and enforceable, and that as it limited the abilities of suppliers to the applicant, it was unreasonable and unenforceable for the applicant or Council.

26.  Councillor Barnett asked whether it was safe to cross the road at the point near the sharp bend further down the road to the south. Mr Goddard responded that the bend is 100 metres away, and so there is sufficient distance for people to cross.

27.  Councillor Barnett asked whether the development would be secure, and whether protections around the building were feasible. Ms Cutts responded that the building was timber-clad but would likely be reinforced by concrete, and that the ramp in front would not be an issue. Ms Cutts added that the public house would likely be able to provide their own security. Mr Till stated that security issues were likely beyond planning concerns.

28.  Councillor Woollaston stated that back in 2013, there were 33 car parking spaces for 70 covers, and added that this had since expanded, particularly in the summer. Councillor Woollaston asked for a comment on parking during the summer. Mr Goddard responded that evidence provided by objectors had been year-round, and that the parking survey was taken at a reasonable time in February in March, with no evidence to suggest seasonal variance, reiterating that it had concluded that parking overspill was not regular.

29.  Councillor Jeff Cant asked whether the application complied with the minimum number of car parking spaces.

30.  Councillor Cant asked for clarification that there had not been a road traffic accident for 17 years, and that if there had, that would have been taken into account by Highways. Mr Goddard stated that the crash map had been consulted, and no incidents had occurred near the site since 2005. If there were more, it would have been considered.

Debate

31.  Councillor James Cole opened the debate by stated that he veered towards approval, it was within planning requirements, and that there were business and historical cases. The main issue was parking, and that he had concluded that it was not a strong enough issue to refuse planning permission.

32.  Councillor Jeff Cant stated that debates over financial viability were beyond the remit of Planning, and that the applicant had made enough of an effort most customers would go home if they could not park. Finally, he noted that it could not be ignored that most

33.  Councillor Tony Vickers stated that financial viability was a public concern, and this case needed to be heard, and that he agreed with others that parking was the main issue. Councillor Tony Vickers was concerned by the growth of the business, and that the policy may needed to be changed to look more thoroughly. Overall, he was in favour of the application, as it was an issue of social and economic enterprise and supporting public houses.

34.  The Chairman stated that the two major issues of competition and parking had been thoroughly addressed. He believed that it was a credit to the applicant to see a thriving public house, and would support officers’ recommendations.

35.  Councillor Barnett stated that he was in support of officers’ recommendations, as he did not see much room for competition between the shops, as it would cater to a different group of customers. Councillor Barnett expressed his concerns about parking, and concluded that he believed these issues would be resolved, along with flooding concerns.

36.  Councillor Rowles concurred that it was good to see a public house be in some ways a victim of their own success. However, expressed concerns over whether the available parking and local roads could accommodate the additional business.

37.  Councillor Woollaston concurred with Councillor Rowles on parking, and asked for conditions to set a minimum of 26 parking spaces, and to ensure that the development does not later become a café. Ms Cutts confirmed that the limitation of the application’s use class precluded it from being a café or selling any hot foods, but that it was difficult to limit the goods sold and enforce that as a condition. Mr Till concurred, stating that he had advised on the enforceability of a condition limiting the sale of goods, and concluded that it was not reasonable or enforceable. On parking, Mr Till stated that Condition 11 could be amended to require a new parking plan before the development is used. Mr Goddard stated that he was content with the plan for 26 parking spaces, and that he would resist a provision of just 23.

38.  Councillor Tony Vickers recalled an amendment for a condition for an additional disabled parking space near the shop be added, as well as a condition to require no less than 26 parking spaces.

39.  Councillor Tony Vickers proposed to accept Officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report and update report. This was seconded by Councillor Jeff Cant.

40.  The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Tony Vickers, seconded by Councillor Jeff Cant to grant planning permission. At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Service Director for Development and Regulation be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

Informatives