Agenda item

Conversion of Public House with ancillary accommodation above to provide 2 x 3 bed single family dwellings.

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions.

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for the conversion of the public house with ancillary accommodation above to provide 2 x3 bed single family dwellings. The report set out details of the proposal, the site and surroundings, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses, analysis, equalities and human rights implications and recommended to grant permission subject to conditions.

The planning officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report. The Committee’s attention was drawn to a tabled addendum setting out details of a ministerial statement and accompanying guidance made on 28 November announcing a number of changes to national policy regarding s106 planning obligations for small scale developments. Officers identified that the ministerial statement constituted a material consideration to which the Committee would need to have regard in determining the application. The addendum also set out details of further representations received. It was additionally advised that an application had made on 8 December to designate the pub an asset of community value. The Council had an 8 week deadline within which to determine the application.

A number of objectors addressed the Committee as well as a written statement read out on behalf of a local resident unable to attend, and raised the following points:

·         The pub currently as well as historically represented an important meeting space for local people and was considered to be an important heart of the community and local asset. 

·         There were no other traditional pubs located in the vicinity.

·         The pub had been run as a viable and successful business over many years, with no evidence provided by the applicant that this position had changed. The last landlord, who had run the pub for 10 years until its closure at the beginning of the year, had confirmed that the business had been financially viable.

·         The freeholder was selling the site at short notice to a speculator in order to make money from the change of use to residential with limited concern on the impact on the local community.

·         The redevelopment would make no contribution to the area as a local asset and would only provide one additional residential unit above that currently provided.

Cllr Berryman addressed the Committee as a local ward councillor and made the following points:

·         The pub had been run as a successful business for years including through the recession.

·         The redevelopment would not provide affordable housing but two high value units on a street already containing several new residential developments.

·         Businesses in the local parade were already suffering from the closure of the pub.

·         Over 1500 local residents had signed a petition against the proposed change of use of the pub, with the campaign making the front page of the local newspaper.

 A number of supporters, including a representative for the applicant, addressed the Committee and made the following points:

·         The scheme would have a positive impact on the amenity of surrounding residential properties as the pub had been the subject of complaints over the years from local residents about noise and antisocial behaviour.

·         The site was unsuitable for the siting of a pub being surrounded by residential properties, with no garden or parking provision.

·         There was a long history of noise complaints and enforcement action against the pub particularly since the granting of a late licence and the implementation of the smoking ban. Following subsequent investigations, a number of enforcement letters had been sent to the landlord regarding the breaching of licence conditions.

·         The pub had not been run as a community pub for years as evidenced by the marketing of drinks promotions and illegal barbeques.

·         There was already a family pub in the area, the nearby Clissold Arms, which benefitted from garden space, was wheelchair accessible and made efforts to liaise with local people regarding issues such as hours of operation. 

·         Haringey Council did not have a specific policy covering the protection of pubs so the viability of the business was irrelevant.

·         The Conservation Area would be enhanced by improvements to the front of the building.

The Committee raised the following issues in their discussion of the application:

·         Clarification was sought on the policy basis for the proposed change of use. Officers confirmed that the Council did not have a specific policy covering the protection of pubs. The proposed change of use to residential was considered acceptable when assessed against current development plan policies and bearing in mind the limitations of the building for a pub operation and the location of another pub directly opposite the site.

• Further elucidation was sought from the Conservation Officer on her professional view of the scheme. The officer outlined concerns over the potential loss of vibrancy within the Conservation Area from the closure of the pub at both a visual and community level, as well as historically from the link to the old brewery.

·         The impact of any granting of an asset of community value designation was questioned. Officers confirmed that this did not impact on the determination of the application put before the Committee.

The Chair moved the recommendation of the report. In response, Cllr Carroll put forward a motion, seconded by Cllr Carter, to refuse the application on conservation grounds. At a subsequent vote, the motion to reject the application was carried and it was 

RESOLVED

·         That planning application HGY/2014/1543 be refused on conservation grounds.