Agenda item

Conversion of pub annex to residential dwelling, including associated internal and external works

The Committee considered a report of the Principal Planning Officer regarding an application for the conversion of a pub annex to residential dwelling, including associated internal and external works, at Fernavilles Rest, Whorlton, Barnard Castle (for copy see file of minutes).

The Principal Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation which included a site location plan, aerial photographs and photographs of the site. 

Mr J Dickinson, representing Whorlton and Westwick Parish Council objected to the application and the Chair confirmed that four documents had been circulated to Members of the Committee prior to the meeting (for copy see file of minutes). 

Known formerly as The Bridge Inn, the application for the Fernavilles Rest was based on the projected viability of a reduced floor space, however this pub had been operating at full capacity on evenings and weekends prior to its closure.  There were a number of inaccuracies in the report, one of which related to business rates, which Mr Dickinson believed had already been achieved in 2013.  Mr A Miller, a Chartered Surveyor and Member of ‘the pub is the hub’, had concluded by email that no cogent argument had been produced to suggest the pub was no longer viable in its present format and thought the proposal would kill the pub.

Mr Dickinson confirmed that the outgoing tenant had ran a successful business, which had 25 employees and was operating at maximum capacity in 2016 when they had approached the Parish Council with regards to the erection of luxury camping pods.  He referred to an article published by the Teesdale Mercury in September 2019, which hardly painted the picture of a pub that wasn’t viable.  The former tenant had confirmed that due to the closure of Whorlton Bridge in August 2019,  trade had dropped from 35-40 evening meals to 4 and from 60 covers to 20 on Sundays.  The table covers would be reduced by 60% and he did not accept that the loss of income could be an improvement to the business.

There would be a loss of assets, loss of employment, loss of tourist accommodation and loss of a historic, community and heritage asset.

Councillor Rowlandson, Local Member, believed that the actions of the Council following the closure of the bridge at Whorlton played a part in the closure of the business.  The signs which went up referred only to the road closure and gave the impression that businesses were closed and he had emailed the Highways Strategic Manager, to ask for this to be rectified.

In his opinion, Councillor Rowlandson said the decision came down to the viability of the pub when the annex was removed.  The annex was the biggest part of the pub and although it was ultimately for a new tenant to make the pub viable, removing the annex would leave the pub with very little room and although the applicant had suggested 30 covers would be available, this was questionable.  He had noticed that the pub did not trade on weekday lunchtimes, which he assumed due to lack of business, yet the viability report had listed half of its profitability from lunchtime trade.

Councillor Rowlandson described Whorlton as a lovely Village which should have its own pub, and he considered taking away the annex would ruin the viability.  As stated in the Teesdale District Local Plan, proposals for change of use of public houses should not be permitted where it is no longer viable or required by the local community, therefore this should be kept as a community asset. With regards to the Whorlton Village neighbourhood Plan, existing amenities should be protected and proposals which resulted in their loss should be resisted.

Mr G Stastny had been a resident of Whorlton for 46 years and was a Parish Councillor and a Member of Whorlton Village Community Association.  Having been involved in the development of the Whorlton Village Neighbourhood Plan and confirmed that the pub was central to village life, due to a lack of alternative meeting places.  He believed the viability report was misleading and had been produced in the knowledge that this proposal would lead to the demise of the pub. 

Mr Stastny confirmed that the applicant proposed to seek a lifestyle term using the capital from the residential development to bring the building back into a reputable state.  He referred to the report of Mr Millar who had 30 years experience in the pub trade, was of the firm opinion that if the area was reduce the pub would become less viable.  He also confirmed The tenancy terms were , unrealistic proposal which would leave little chance of any tenant taking it on.  The investment required could not be justified for the short length being offered. 

Whilst he would prefer the application be refused, he asked the Committee to consider attaching a condition to ensure that if the pub failed to attract a tenant, the owner sell the property at a value reflecting the existing use.  This was the only way to ensure that the lifestyle could be found and the continuation of a pub for the long term benefit of the community rather than a short term financial gain for the Applicant.  The Solicitor advised Members that it was unreasonable to impose a condition to sell at a particular price.

Mr I Carter-Becker, the Applicant, addressed the Committee and confirmed that there was nothing to suggest that this application was aimed at taking away the viability of the pub, the clear point of it was to turn the pub around.  It had been a serial failure for the previous ten years, having seen out four tenants, none of which had made a success.  The entire point of the application was to remove the failing aspect, reduce cost, allow inward investment and bring something to the market which would be tenantable in the long term. 

Mr Carter-Becker confirmed that his family ran a number of pubs in the Teesdale area and this one had been owned by the family for 70 years, it was both emotionally important and from a business stand point, that the pub worked.  He did not agree with the idea that Members should ignore the experts, he had worked in the pub industry for 10 years and his Mother had for 30 years – she also supported the proposal.  They were trying to bring a viable pub to Whorlton and he confirmed that at the time of the meeting the pub was closed and therefore anything that could bring it back into use would be a positive for the people who lived there.

The Principal Planning Officer responded to the comments made by speakers and advised Members of the policy test which was to consider whether there was a loss of the public house.  The Applicant had been asked to submit a viability appraisal to establish whether the reduced footprint would still be viable and it was accepted.  This proposal was for the public house to remain, albeit a scaled down version.  It would be incorrect to compare the viability of previous businesses to the potential for moving forward – the key focus was that the pub with a reduced footprint would still be viable and would struggle to resist the change of use.

With regards to the listed building, heritage and tourism elements, no objection from Design and Conservation, no adverse impact on the conservation area or listed building status, and the revised footprint would still allow bed and breakfast accommodation to be offered, but would ultimately be down to any future operator.

Councillor Richardson confirmed that the pub was in his ward and he referred to a considerable number of similar applications for failing pubs, however he considered that this proposal would be the first step to letting this pub die.  He agreed with Councillor Rowlandson’s comments with regards to the influence played by the closure of Whorlton Bridge and disagreed with the Applicants comments that it had been failing for ten years – he remembered a time when you were lucky if you could get in for a meal, due to it having such a good reputation.  The Villagers were very protective over the pub and restricting the footprint would not leave enough tables in the dining room to remain viable and he could not support the application.

Councillor Jewell recognised that the pub was not viable when it was closed and therefore he considered the application to be an attempt to make it viable.  He advised that if Members refused the application, the pub may not reopen.

Although Councillor Tinsley had some reservations and felt the reduction in floor space and lack of reconstruction could make the public house less viable, it would still be viable.

Councillor Clare confirmed that this was clearly a valued community asset which villagers felt was being downgraded and would result in its loss, but the Committee could only refuse the application if they considered it would result in a complete loss of viability.  He sympathised with the objectors but he reiterated the comments by made by Councillor Tinsley and commented on the intention to protect community assets in the Neighbourhood Plan, but the only decision for Members was whether it was viable or not.  It was apparent the footprint would reduce, but Members had to question whether that was sufficient to warrant a loss.

Resolved

That the applications be APPROVED, subject to the conditions outlined in the report.