Agenda item

(Councillor Mara took his seat as a Member of Planning Committee for the remainder of the meeting.)

 

The Assistant Director of Planning:

 

1. described the application site, located on a corner plot, with Newland Street West to the north and Nelson Street to the west, within a built up residential area

 

2. advised that planning permission was sought to change the use of the ground floor from a public house (Use Class Sui Generis) and existing upper floor flat to form two maisonettes (Use Class C3), which included demolition of the rear outbuildings to facilitate a two-storey extension and the erection of one new dwelling to create 3 residential units in total

 

3. provided details of the policies pertaining to the application, as follows:

 

·         Central Lincolnshire Local Plan

·         Policy LP15: Community Facilities

·         Policy LP26: Design and Visual Amenity

 

4. advised Planning Committee of the main issues to be considered as part of the application to assess the proposal with regards to:

 

·         Principle of Development

·         Asset of Community Value

·         Loss of the Public House

·         Residential Amenity

·         Visual Amenity

·         Energy

·         No Students S106

·         Contaminated Land

·         Air Quality

·         Highways

 

5. outlined the responses made to the consultation exercise

 

6. explained the background to considerations of Policy LP15 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan relating to the loss of an existing community facility which required the applicants to have demonstrated that the application met the tests of LP15 as follows:

 

 

7. reported that following the submission of the planning application, 108 Newland Street West had been placed on the Asset of Community Value (ACV) Register (for the second time, after an appeal against a previous ACV was upheld), a process that gave communities a right to identify a building or other land to be of importance to their community’s social well-being; should the asset come up for sale communities would be given a fair chance to bid to buy it on the open market

 

8. reported that an appeal had been lodged against the current ACV but had not yet been heard

 

9. described the process for an Asset of Community Value in further detail within the officer’s report

 

10. referred to the Update Sheet which included additional responses received in respect of the proposed development

 

11. concluded that:

 

 

Jamie Bennet, Chairman, Keep the Tap Running, addressed Planning Committee in objection to the planning application, making the following points:

 

·         He thanked Members for allowing him the opportunity to speak.

·         He wished to bring it to the Committee’s attention that CAMRA had recommended refusal of the planning application due to the policy tests of Policy LP15 and requirements of the National Policy Framework not being satisfied.

·         He agreed with this view.

·         The applicant’s claim that the pub was not viable was untrue.

·         The last landlord at the pub had said it was viable.

·         The application site had not been offered for sale at a fair rate.

·         Criminal activity at the premises was unrecognisable.

·         The statement that no group had attempted to run the pub since the last tenant vacated was not true.

·         The public house contributed positively to the community area.

·         The majority owner also had three pubs in York

·         The retention of the public house was supported by community, investors and expert industry, including public houses in the vicinity.

·         The West End community would be deprived of one of its most historic, popular, socially and culturally significant amenities.

·         Please support the request to Keep the Tap Running.

 

Councillor Neil Murray addressed Planning Committee as Ward Advocate representing local residents. He presented the following main points:

 

·         As Planning Committee could see from the huge public support present this evening, large numbers of residents in Carholme Ward were opposed to this planning application.

·         City and County Councillors were against this planning application.

·         The only person in support of it was the applicant due to financial considerations and he didn’t live in the community.

·         The proposed change of use would result in the loss of a historic community pub.

·         Additional housing was not good for this community here, it was already very tight for car parking spaces.

·         There would be more cars on the street in an already densely populated Residents Parking Zone.

·         Those people who didn’t live in the area probably did not care.

·         He was appalled to see that the only evidence provided regarding viability for the Public House was submitted by the applicant.

·         This represented the applicant’s opinion only which was not fair.

·         It was true that there were alternative venues available such as The Horse and Groom, however, this was now a restaurant with a different offer.

·         The Queen of the South was quoted at page 40 of the officer’s report as an alternative venue which in fact referred to a football team, the pub in reality was called The Queen in the West which provided a different offer.

·         Why was the applicant qualified to decide what should be provided in the West End?

·         The campaign to save the Tap had resulted in a huge turn-out this evening.

·         It was part of our historic Townscape.

·         Why wasn’t a balanced input presented from Mr Mackown who had a different view?

·         Competitors at the Joiners Arms and Queen in the West public houses were also here in support of the campaign.

·         He urged Members to reject this planning application.

 

Lewis DelaHey, representing the applicant, addressed Planning Committee in support of the planning application, making the following points:

 

·         He thanked Members of Planning Committee for allowing him the opportunity to speak.

·         The Public House was no longer a viable trading option.

·         The importance was in the company name.

·         Mr Mackown was not an investor in the Tap.

·         Mr DelaHey wanted this to be known to protect his company.

·         The property was bought as the former Vine Inn which had proved unviable.

·         He lived on a building site for 5 months whilst it was being renovated.

·         The pub opened in 2013.

·         After four years it was realised the venture was not viable.

·         The financial burden was too great, and Lincoln Tap Pubs was put into liquidation.

·         In 2019 the pub was incorporated into the owners’ other business ‘The Tap House and Kitchen’, but this also proved to be economically unviable and both operations closed.

·         In 2021 the public house now leased to another tenant was closed due to drug activities.

·         He transferred the pub into his name in February 2021 with no formal offer to buy the pub.

·         The applicant had spent seven years trying to make the pub viable, however, common sense prevailed, and it was no longer a viable company.

·         He urged that the planning application be approved as a viable alternative to preserve the buildings use.

 

The Committee discussed the content of the report in further detail.

 

The following comments emerged:

 

Councillor Watt

 

·         Planning officers had worked in a professional manner in respect of this planning application to arrive at a viable option for the building.

·         Planning Committee should not be concerned with disputes surrounding the pub’s history, viability or ownership. Our remit was to consider the viability of the scheme presented before us.

·         We would be taking a risk if the application was refused. Public houses had been protected in the past as an Asset of Community Value and still closed down.

·         Residents could potentially be given the chance here  to ‘use it or lose it.

 

Councillor Hewson

 

·         We were elected as Councillors to support our residents.

·         This was a difficult situation as it was unclear who owned the assets to the business.

·         We must decide whether local residents should be given the opportunity to make the business viable before it was lost for good.

 

Councillor C Burke

 

·         This was a local pub in a cohesive community.

·         As an ACV, Policy LP15 applied.

·         Two local public houses were promoting the request to save The Tap although they were competitors.

·         Public Houses were being lost at an alarming rate.

·         They were vital community meeting places.

·         The West End was promoted as an important part of our City.

·         There were many written objections to the planning application.

Support should be given to the property as an Asset of Community Value.

 

Councillor B Bushell

 

·         He was not against the retention of the pub.

·         He had carried out a site visit today and knew this area well as where he used to live.

·         There were so many pubs and shops closed down due to being unsustainable.

·         We must consider the application before us. Policy LP15 identified there were alternative venues in the area.

·         The Monson Arms had been registered as an ACV however it was now being demolished.

·         There was no guarantee the building would re-open as a Public House in the future. There was also confusion as to its ownership.

·         The owners did not have to sell the pub to anybody at a specific price.

·         We must be realistic as to the potential outcome of what was decided this evening.

 

Councillor Bean:

 

·         There was huge support for saving the pub here tonight. The community had spoken.

 

Councillor Longbottom

 

It was difficult to absorb the 26 extra pages released yesterday in the Update Sheet to be prepared for tonight’s meeting. She asked:

 

·         Should the planning application be passed, and the property turned into homes and was then sold on, how would this affect the status of the building as a Community Asset?

·         The building was registered as an Asset of Community Value after the planning application was submitted. Why wasn’t this taken into consideration as part of the planning application?

·         Why wasn’t point C mentioned as part of the consideration of Policy LP15 criteria for the loss of an existing community facility?

·         She had concerns regarding the viability or otherwise of the pub. Was it sufficient to include one point of view? Non viability had not been proven.

·         Did other Planning Authorities have stricter tests of what was considered viable?

 

The Assistant Director of Planning offered the following points of clarification to members:

 

·         Regardless of the status of the planning application, whether or not it was approved, the building would remain on the ACV Register for five years.

·         The wording of the policy criteria for Policy LP15 required either point A, B or C to apply and not all three. Little weight had been given to the cross-flow of correspondence regarding ownership and viability of the Public House. Point B had been relied upon in respect of alternative service provision being available within reasonable vicinity to the existing venue.

·         Planning officers had no vested interest in the viability of use for the building as housing or otherwise. The policy framework for the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan had to be followed. This was different to other policies in other local authorities; however, it was the framework in which we operated.

 

A proposer was not forthcoming to support the grant of the planning permission.

.

RESOLVED that planning permission be refused.

 

Reasons

 

Insufficient evidence was available for discharge of Policy LP15 in respect of both of the following two criteria points:

 

1.    The facility is demonstrably no longer fit for purpose and the site is not viable to be redeveloped for a new community facility; or

 

2.    The service provided by the facility is met by alternative provision that exits within reasonable proximity; what is deemed as reasonable proximity will depend on the nature of the facility and its associated catchment area;