Agenda item

TheCommitteeconsidereda reportofthePlanning Officer regardinganapplication for thechangeof usefromcommercial (Public House) to a fivebedroom residential dwelling(C3) at TheChelmsford,FrontStreet,Ebchester,Consett(for copyseefile of Minutes).

L Dalby,PrincipalPlanningOfficer provideda detailedpresentationof the applicationwhich includeda sitelocationplan, sitephotographs,proposed floorplansandproposedelevations.

CouncillorS Robinson,whohad registeredto speakonthe application, informedthe Committeehe wouldyield to CouncillorW Stellingto speakas local Member.TheSenior LawyerRegulatoryandEnforcementsought clarityfromCouncillorStellingas to in whatcapacityhewouldbe addressing theCommittee,as localMemberor as partof thedebate.If Councillor Stellingwishedto speakas partof the Committeeandhadnointerestinthe applicationthentheappropriatetimeto speakwould bewhenthe application wasopenedtodebatebythe Committee.CouncillorStellingaskedthe applicantwhethershe wishedfor himto speakas aMemberof the Committee andtakepart inthevoteor speakas alocal Memberand takeno partin thedecisionprocess.Theapplicantwishedfor himto do theformer.

Anna Philipsaddressedthe Committeeonbehalf ofthe applicantin support ofthe application.

MsPhilipsinformedtheCommitteethat theapplicantwas ahard-working womanwho ranseveralbusinessesthatcontributedsignificantlyto thelocal economyand employeddozensofpeoplein thearea. Oneof these was anotherhospitalitybusiness,TheCrownand CrossedSwords.Thispub and restaurantwasthrivingand demonstratedthat theapplicanthadsound credentialsin this area.TheChelmsfordwasneverviable.Theapplicanthad tried,overa numberof years,to turnit intosomethingbetter, butfailed.It simplywould notmakeenoughmoneyto justifyits’ continuedexistence.

Suggestionshad beenmade aroundhowtoimprovebusiness.Whilethe planningofficerhadexpertisein planningmatters hedidnot in hospitality. The applicant haddecadesofexperiencein hospitality.She hadalreadytried everythingwithinreasonto increasebusinessoverseveralyears,and allof this wasin thepre-covidclimatewhen hospitalitywas in amuchhealthier place.Post-pandemicmanypubs werestruggling,and manyhadclosedtheir doorsforgood.

Therewas noprospectof theapplicantre-openingTheChelmsfordas apub. If theproposalwasnotsupported,this wouldleavethe applicantin an impossibleposition,stuck withan assetthathadnot soldasa commercial prospect,withno offersfrom thelocalcommunityto buythe building,unable toadvertiseit forsaleas anythingelse, andburdeningher financiallyjustto keep it. Allthe whilethishistoricbuildingremainedunused,wasdeteriorating andbecomingan eyesore.

Theapplicant wasbeingpreventedfrommaking efficientchoicesin respect ofdisposingof herownproperty,becauseof aprocesswhereshe hadno sayin thematter.

Theplanning officer’sadviceto refusetheapplicationboileddownto two matters,one of viabilityand oneofthe pubbeing viewedas acommunity asset.Theapplicanthad demonstratedovermanyyears thatit wasnot a viablebusiness.A reportproducedbyMr Cartmell,an expertinhospitality underlinedthis withrepeatedreferencestothe buildingbeinga valuable communityassettakingno accountof thefact thatit hadnot beenopento the publicfor overthreeand ahalfyears.It hadnotbeenanyassetto the communityat all inthistime. Thecommunityfacilitythat wasreferredto did not exist.MsPhilipsasked howa decisionagainstthe applicantcould be considerednecessarytoguardagainsttheunnecessaryloss ofvalued and accessiblefacilitiesandservices.Therewereno accessiblefacilitiesor services.Theresidentshad notaskedfor itto beincludedonthelist of communityassetswhich suggestedtheydid notconsiderit assuch.

MsPhilipsemphasisedthat TheChelmsfordhad nowbeen closedas apub foroverthreeand ahalf years,andfor salefor severalyears beforeit closed. Despiteall thetalkof acommunitybuyout therehadbeennoproposals submittedbythecommunityto doso. Theapplicantwould notbe re-opening thebusiness,and shecould notbeexpectedto runit at aloss,which would bethe reality.

Theoverwhelmingmajorityof the localcommunitywere notagainstthis development.Theletterfrom thechairof EbchesterVillageTruststated residentswouldrathersee thebuildingchangedto adwelling,if the alternativewasfor itto standempty.

TheCAMRAassessment,whichwas notrequired,had notbeenused consistentlyin similarapplications.Theapplicantbelievedthiswas unfairand disputedthe findingsof itin everyrespect.Therewerenumerousother pubs allwithineasycommutabledistancebypublicor privatetransport.Ebchester wason amajorbus route.TheDerwentWalkInn wasonly700metresfrom the village,withineasywalkingdistanceformost people.

If this developmentdidnot goahead,thisbuilding wouldbe condemnedto remain vacant.It woulddegrade,deteriorate,becomederelictin time,and be amagnetfor crimeandanti-socialbehaviour.Thiswouldhavethe opposite effectof conservingit.It wouldcontributeonlynegativelyto the neighbourhood.

MsPhilipsaskedtheCommitteeto approvethe application.

CouncillorJ Atkinsonraised aquestionaboutprocedureregardingCouncillor Stelling’srole ontheCommitteefor thisapplication.CouncillorStellinghad initiallyintendedto speakasa localMemberand followinga discussionwith theapplicanthad decidedto speakas partof thedebateandexercise his right to vote.CouncillorAtkinsonconsideredthis todemonstratepre- determination.TheSenior LawyerRegulatoryandEnforcementrepliedit wasfor eachindividualMemberwhethertheywishedto declarean interestin anyparticularmatterand askedCouncillorStelling toconfirmhewas approachingthis applicationwith anopenmind, wouldlistentothe debate and hadnot madea finaldecision.CouncillorStellingrepliedthat the applicationwas withinhis electoraldivisionbut hehad nointerestat allwith theapplicantor theproperty.CouncillorStellingthoughthe couldspeakas the localMemberandalso remainin themeeting becausehe hadno interest inthe applicationotherwisehewouldhavespokenin supportof the applicant,not votedand leftthe meeting.TheSenior LawyerRegulatoryand Enforcementrepliedthat theproblemwas thatthematterwasgetting intothe realmsofperception.CouncillorStelling,whileconfirminghehad no interestat allinthe applicationand wasapproachingtheapplicationwith an openmind replied that hewouldleavethemeeting.

CouncillorStellingleftthe meetingand tookno partin thedebateor decision.

CouncillorEarleyinformedtheCommitteethat whilehecouldsee the reasons fortheofficerrecommendation,thepub hadneverbeena going concern andhad alwaysstruggled.CouncillorEarleycouldnotsee this changing.

CouncillorJoplingunderstoodthat thehospitalityindustry,particularlypubs, hadsufferedbadlypost-Covid.An amenitywould onlybe takenawayif itwas used,andthepeoplewho ranthe businesswouldknowwhetherit was viable.  CouncillorJoplingdidnot considerthis to bean amenity.

CouncillorSterlingconsideredthatthe pub wasnota goingconcernand was notoperatingas one.Theapplicantcurrentlyran asuccessfulpub elsewhereandif thisbuilding wastobecomea financialburdento the applicantthenthis couldjeopardiseher otherbusinesses.

CouncillorAtkinsondidnot considerthis tobe theloss ofa communityasset and consideredit hadno futureasa pub.

CouncillorBlakeyinformedtheCommitteethat whileit wassadfor another pubto be closed,peoplewerenot goingout asmuchpost-Covidand the hospitalitytradehadchanged.Althougha communitybuyoutwouldhave beenwelcomed,therehad beenno appetitefor this.CouncillorBlakey movedthattheapplicationbeapproved.

CouncillorWatsonsecondedCouncillorBlakey’smotion.It wasnonsense toconsiderthisas acommunityassetandthe pubhadtriedrepeatedlyto operate.Therewasa pubsome600 metresalongthe roadandThe Chelmsfordwas nevergoingto bea successfulbusiness.Thiswasa heritagesite andthebuilding wascurrentlypullingthearea down.

TheSenior LawyerRegulatoryandEnforcementsoughtdelegatedauthority fromthe Committee,shouldtheapplicationbe approved,for asuite of Conditionsandlegalagreementto be delegatedto officersin consultation withthe Chair.

Upon avote beingtakenit was:

Resolved:

Thatthe applicationbe approvedand thatdelegatedauthoritybe givento officers inconsultationwiththeChairfor asuite of Conditionsandlegal agreement.