Agenda item

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning and subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Obligation/Unilateral Undertaking to provide a commuted sum of £733 per unit to enhance recreation provision in the area in lieu of on-site open space provision. 

If the obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as outlined above) is not completed within six months of the date of the committee resolution, the Head of Planning be given delegated authority to REFUSE the application. 

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report. Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting. 

                        The officer detailed the background to the report and explained that there would be minimum change to the exterior of the building.  The site was in the settlement boundary of Buckley and Policy S11 indicated that the development which would lead to the loss of a public house which performed a social as well as an economic role would only be permitted where similar facilities existed in the neighbourhood or where this was not the case, the property had been advertised at a reasonable price for sale or lease in its existing use for a period of at least one year without success.  A petrol station and associated facilities situated across the road from the site performed a social role and whilst there were no public houses in the close proximity, there were several public houses within Buckley and Ewloe.  The officer referred to the additional marketing information in the late observations but as it was considered that criteria A of the policy was met it was not necessary for the property to satisfy the marketing test of criteria B or to assess its commercial viability.  On the issue of access and parking, the proposed parking area would be sited to the front of the public house and improvements would be carried out to the highway and the existing bus stop.  There was minimal change to the exterior of the building which would be retained and there was therefore no reason to refuse the application. 

                        Mrs. S. Smith spoke against the application and indicated that she had been advised that planning permission was a foregone conclusion.  She queried whether the land proposed for additional parking belonged to the Red Lion or the Council and raised concern about the access to the site which was on a blind bend.  There was no provision for disabled parking and if the building was converted into flats, the proposal would not provide employment that had been available when it was a public house.  It was a great loss to the community and even though it had been extremely popular in the past, it had recently been allowed to become run down.  Mrs. Smith felt that the building was of historic interest only yards from the Buckley Heritage Trail and the Red Lion public house had been an asset to the community for 200 years. 

                        The Democracy & Governance Manager reminded Members that the issue of land ownership was not a material planning consideration. 

                        Mr. David Williams, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He provided a brief history of the application and said that there had been a number of objections to the scheme but that there were 16 public houses within a two mile radius and the public house had been marketed by an agency for over 12 months.  The exterior of the building would remain unchanged except for the introduction of three windows and internally the building would comprise of five one bedroomed flats and there would be a communal space at the rear of the building.  Highways were satisfied with the proposals and had indicated that the proposed car parking spaces were sufficient.  There had been suggestions that the work had already commenced but Mr. Williams said that this was untrue as all that had been done was the removal of the smoking shelter.  He felt that the application complied with policy. 

            Councillor Alison Halford proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  Councillor Halford said that the Red Lion public house had not been a viable operation due to the number of pubs in the area.  She referred to the permission granted to open the Running Hare public house in Ewloe and said that she would prefer that a use be made of the building to prevent deterioration.  Councillor Gareth Roberts felt that it was sad when pubs of character closed but he added that there was no reason to refuse the application.  A car park was to be provided and the building would be retained and therefore the correct decision was to approve the application.  Councillor Chris Bithell said that lifestyles had changed and referred to pubs that had failed due to issues with the breweries and added that if facilities were not used, they would close.  He raised concern about the distance of the nearest pub from the site as this would result in people not being able to walk there.  The building was not worthy of listing and the proposals suggested would result in minimal changes to the exterior of the building and would provide car park spaces.  He queried whether the number of spaces met the Council’s guidelines and asked how many spaces would be provided in the additional area. 

Councillor Richard Jones felt that Policy S11 needed to be tightened as he felt that it was difficult to prove.  He said that there were sufficient one bedroom properties in Buckley, some of which were empty, so queried why this development was needed, but he added that it was difficult to find a reason for refusal.  Councillor Carol Ellis said that the pub had been very busy in the past but said that it was alleged that the brewery had increased the price of alcohol which had not been sustainable for the pub.  She referred to planning permission for residential development on a site across the road at Castle Garage and said that no mention had been made of the potential conflict on the highway due to the blind bend which could have significant implications on highway safety.  She concurred that there were sufficient one bedroom properties in Buckley and queried whether the building was large enough to provide five one bedroom flats.  The social aspect could not be replaced with the garage and shop across the road from the site and Councillor Ellis referred to the interpretation of the policy and that she would vote against the proposal. 

Councillor Neville Phillips drew attention to inconsistencies in the report and referred to a similar development in Broughton which had to be advertised for 12 months for residential development because there were no properties on the same side of the road; he queried where the nearest properties on the same side of the road to this site were.  Councillor Derek Butler referred to the same development in Broughton and indicated that it was still empty.  He queried whether the whole of the additional car parking area was being utilised in the application or whether it would be subject to further development.  Councillor Owen Thomas queried whether a change of use application needed to be submitted prior to this application.  Councillor Mike Peers queried whether the comment in the late observations about the pub being marketed for 18 months had been verified as the policy indicated that it should be adequately marketed at a reasonable price.  He did not accept the argument that the Running Hare in Ewloe had impacted on the Red Lion public house and queried whether criteria A of Policy S11 had been met.  In referring to car parking spaces, he asked if six was sufficient for the number of flats and requested that permitted development rights be removed to prevent any further building on the site. 

            In response to the comments made, the officer confirmed that Policy S11 had been complied with and reiterated that the site was in the settlement boundary of Buckley and that there were other facilities close by and a bus stop outside.  On the issue of marketing, as the first criteria had been met, there was no requirement for the second test so verification of the comment in the late observations was not necessary.  The parking area was all within the application site and the extra area would also be available.  The standards were maximum standards and as there was a bus stop outside the site, this was a sustainable location. 

            The Senior Engineer - Highways Development Control confirmed that there were no objections from Highways subject to conditions and she confirmed that the access to be used already existed.  The maximum standards for parking was 1.5 spaces per unit so it complied with policy and it was a sustainable location due to the provision of the bus stop and the provision in the application for cycling facilities.  The Senior Engineer - Highways Development Control confirmed that there was an extant permission on the opposite side of the road to this site but she did not feel that this would create a conflict. 

            The Development Manager confirmed that there would be opportunity to consider Policy S11 in the context of the LDP but added that the application had been assessed in accordance with how the policy had been written.  The site was part of the larger settlement and therefore complied with policy.  On the issue of suitability, officers were satisfied that the building was suitable to provide the five flats and the applicant was aware of the sensitivity of the building and had proposed minimal changes to the exterior of the building.  A condition could not be imposed to prevent building on the site proposed for additional parking but  any application to build on that area would need to be considered on its own merits.  He added that a separate change of use application was not required. 

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning and subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Obligation/Unilateral Undertaking to provide a commuted sum of £733 per unit to enhance recreation provision in the area in lieu of on-site open space provision. 

If the obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as outlined above) is not completed within six months of the date of the committee resolution, the Head of Planning be given delegated authority to REFUSE the application.