Agenda item

Change of use of a public house to form 2 x two-bedroom dwellings with associated internal and external alterations (following part demolition of external toilet block).

DECISION – Refuse  

Reasons for refusal:

1.    The proposal would result in the loss of a community facility, and it has been neither satisfactorily demonstrated that the premises have been appropriately marketed nor that it is no longer required or not viable. As such the proposal is contrary to policy INF5 of the Hart Local Plan (Strategy & Sites) 2032, policy 13 of the Odiham & North Warnborough Neighbourhood Plan 2014 – 2032 and the guidance contained in the NPPF.

2.    The proposal would not provide appropriate car parking to meet the needs of the development and would be contrary to policy INF3 of the Hart Local Plan (Strategy & Sites) 2032 and ‘saved’ policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan (Replacement) 1996 - 2006.

The Principal Planner summarised the application for the change of use of a public house to form 2 x two-bedroom dwellings with associated internal and external alterations (following part demolition of external toilet block).

Members considered:

·       Site constraints for parking provision, how car parking patterns between a residential development and a public house would differ, and the implications of such changes for residents living in the locality.

·       How the building was marketed once it was designated as an Asset of Community Value.

·       The marketing methods used for the sale of the Public House – it was debated whether there was a ‘For Sale’ sign erected at the site or not.

·       How the Parish Council and Odiham Society were communicated with regarding the sale of the building.

·       When the premises stopped functioning as a public house – this was confirmed as March 2020.

The Legal Services Manager highlighted that the decision regarding an Asset of Community Value is different to the application decision that the Committee would be required to make at the meeting.

Members questioned the speakers on:

·       The length of time the community may need to acquire resources for the building – this was confirmed as six months.

·       The effect the pub closing has had on the local community.

·       How the Balance of Harm scores were determined by the Odiham Society in their objection letter.

·       How busy the pub had been prior to its closure in 2020.

·       How many other pubs in Odiham have had to close recently.

·       The marketing of the pub and how this has been done.

·       Possible grants that may be available for Assets of Community Value.

·       The price of the building – this was confirmed as £500,000.

Members debated:

·       The history of the pub.

·       Lack of parking provision at the site and the potential car parking impacts that changes of use to the building may cause to existing residents.

·       The type of insulation and further work that may be needed to retain the building. This was deemed partly a Building Control issue but was relevant to the Listed Building Consent application.

·       The terms of the NPPF in that it “promotes retention of community facilities”.

·       The marketing process of the building and the amount of time given for it.

·       The viability of local pubs in the Hart area.

·       What the Council could do to ensure that the pub’s ongoing restoration work is done in a timely way.

·       Ongoing costs to maintain the building.

·       Paragraphs 363 and 366 from Hart’s current Local Plan were also discussed.

A Member stressed their disappointment that there was no official site visit undertaken by the Committee.

The Executive Director – Place reminded the group of the Parking Standards in the Technical Advice Note on ‘Cycle and Car Parking in new Development’, that were adopted by Cabinet in August this year. These standards are neither maximum nor minimum, but a guide as to the appropriate quantum of parking to be provided. However, where different standards are used, planning applications must include information to demonstrate that the functional parking needs of the development will be accommodated.

The Legal Services Manager provided advice to Members on considerations they need to take under the planning regime, a summary on the Asset of Community Value legislation and briefly discussed the Local Authority powers under a Listed Building Repairs Notice.

Members undertook a recorded vote for the officer’s recommendation and the results were:

For: None

Against: Blewett, Coburn, Forster, Kennett, Makepeace-Browne and Southern

Abstention: Oliver

Officer’s recommendation to Grant, subject to planning conditions was not carried.

Members proposed a revised motion to Refuse.

Reasons for refusal:

1.    The proposal would result in the loss of a community facility, and it has been neither satisfactorily demonstrated that the premises have been appropriately marketed nor that it is no longer required or not viable. As such the proposal is contrary to policy INF5 of the Hart Local Plan (Strategy & Sites) 2032, policy 13 of the Odiham & North Warnborough Neighbourhood Plan 2014 – 2032 and the guidance contained in the NPPF.

2.    The proposal would not provide appropriate car parking to meet the needs of the development and would be contrary to policy INF3 of the Hart Local Plan (Strategy & Sites) 2032 and ‘saved’ policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan (Replacement) 1996 - 2006.

Members undertook a recorded vote for the revised motion, and Refuse was carried. The results were:

For: Blewett, Coburn, Forster, Kennett, Makepeace-Browne and Southern

Against: None

Abstention: Oliver.

DECISION – Refuse  

Notes:

There was no site visit.

Cllr Angela McFarlane spoke for Odiham Parish Council against the application.

Helen Tyler spoke against the application.

Richard Murray spoke for the application.