Agenda item

Change of use of public house (Use Class Sui Generis) to retail (Use Class E), including demolition of existing lean-to canopy and rear patio, installation of a new compound, facade treatment alterations car park alterations, access alterations and landscaping works

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer that was for a change of use of a public house (Use Class Sui Generis) to retail (Use Class E), including demolition of existing lean-to canopy and rear patio, installation of a new compound, facade treatment alterations car park alterations, access alterations and landscaping works at The Beehive, Salters Lane, Fishburn, TS21 4AS (for copy see file of minutes). 

 

M Sandford, Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation that included site location photographs, aerial photographs, site photographs, floor plans and proposed elevations.  A site visit had taken place prior to the Committee meeting to enable Members to assess the impact of the proposed development and the relationship with their surroundings.  He explained that that application was to change the use of an empty former pub into a retail unit with the proposed opening hours of 6am 11pm, Monday to Sunday that would provide a variety of grocery products, frozen and fresh foods. The proposal would bring an empty property back into use and bring employment to the area.  There was a condition to add double yellow lines to the front of the property to prevent parking on the front street.   During the consultation process there had been 31 letters of objection including Fishburn Parish Council and Sedgefield Town Council.  There has also been a 250 named petition submitted.  The officer recommendation was to approve the application subject to conditions highlighted in the report. 

 

Councillor M Barker, Fishburn Parish Councillor addressed the committee in objection to the planning application on the grounds of road safety stating that main road through Fishburn where the premises was located was a notoriously busy road.  There was a school nearby where pick up and drop offs were horrific.  There were major concerns for pedestrians crossing the road at the zebra crossing in the area due to the speed in which cars came along the main road.  There had been several accidents in this area but not all had been reported to the police or the council.  Paul Howell MP had undertaken a site visit for residents to show how accidents happened and potentially make improvements.  She believed that the shop would increase the traffic making it more dangerous for people walking to school. School Governors had objected to the planning application due to safeguarding issues as the safety of the children was of the upmost priority.  She asked that if a child or pedestrian died who would be held responsible.  The applicant was not aware of the issues as they did not live in the village.  If the application was granted further double yellow lines would be implemented at the front of the premises but these had not stopped motorists parking at the zebra crossing as they were not policed.  Residents did not want another shop but would rather have the pub reopened under the right owners.

 

Councillor M Barker referenced policy 6 that related to highway safety and informed the committee that the road was regularly blocked with traffic in each direction as people parked in the bus stop opposite. The Parish Council supported local shops but this would be more of the same where there would be issues with the sale of vapes and alcohol even if they were subject to licensing. She stated that the area was prone to sink holes having had one in the school yard.  There would be further risk of sink holes when heavy goods vehicles made deliveries.  She asked that members refused the application.

 

Ms C Leonard, member of the public spoke in objection to the planning application.  She was a parent and grandparent of children who had attended Fishburn Primary school.  She told the committee that she had nearly lost her son when he was 7 whilst crossing the road via the zebra crossing due to a speeding vehicle.  It was the lollipop lady at the time that saved him by pulling him back by the hood of school coat.  Her child never forgot that incident.  It only took one bad driver to have an accident that would change peoples lives forever. 

 

Mr M Parkin, member of the public also addressed the committee in objection to the application.  He advised that he had submitted a 3-page letter that listed his objections and hoped that members had read it.  Councillor Barker had hit the nail of the head regarding road safety in that area.  He stated that there had been several accidents around the zebra crossing and crossroads as double yellow lines were not enforced with cars parked on them.  The shop was close to a school that would increase traffic making the journey to school more dangerous and the issues highlighted made worse.  He noted that 280 people had signed a petition objecting to the shop so in reality it was not wanted in the village.  There was no support for the application. He asked who would take responsibility for any further accidents if the members were minded to approve the application.  There should be a proposal to retain the building and bring it back into use as a pub as it needed investment due to it falling into disrepair.  He hoped members would refuse the application.

 

D Battensby,Principal DM Engineerappreciated the comments made about accidents that occurred in the area however these were predominantly at the crossroads.  He stressed that the existing highway problems were not related to the application or the previous use of the premises.  The existing school gate parking issues and operation of the crossroads were not material to the determination of the premises turning into a shop.  He advised that in considering this application officers were mindful of the policies relating to highways.  Consideration was given to the probability of vehicles parking on the main road to the front which could obscure pedestrians at the zebra crossing and mitigation was proposed to introduce “No waiting/No loading” double yellow lines in this location. 

 

The applicant had been receptive to and engaged with the Council in progressing this request. The number of proposed parking bays had been extended beyond what was required by the DCC Parking Standards SPD and that this may benefit the school gate issues of pick up and drop offs. He stated that it was not possible for the applicant to rectify the road safety issues as this was beyond the scope of planning. 

 

The Legal Officer (Planning and Highways)clarified that the committee should consider the planning application in front of them for this site.

Mr S Moulten, agent for the applicant addressed the committee in support of the application.  The applicant had worked with Durham County Council to provide a positive planning application.  The applicant had met with the local school via teams to discuss and address any concerns they had.  He stated that the premises had not been financially viable as a pub and had since closed leaving the building exposed to vandalism.  The proposed development would contribute to the village by creating 4 full time jobs and 8 part time jobs.  The application had a condition included to add no waiting and no loading restrictions to the front of the property to prevent parking.  There would be an increase in the number of parking spaces in the car park with EV charging points and disabled bays, cycling parks to give access to all users.  There would be no loss of privacy to nearby houses as raised by officers.  The development would create significant investment and boost the economy.  It would bring back into use a non-designated asset and make use of a brownfield site.  He asked members to determine the application for approval.

 

J Jennings, Principal Planning Officer stated that the community would use the facilities and it would provide a contribution to the settlement.  People may not feel there was a need for the retail unit but they had not taken into account that after assessment it was appropriate and acceptable.

 

The Chair opened the meeting for debate.

 

Councillor D Brown advised that the application was in his ward and he frequently attended the Parish Council meetings.  He knew the area and there was a correct assumption about the large volume of traffic on the road.  He appreciated the residents in their willingness to resurrect the Beehive as a public house.  As a convenience store he was adamant that the traffic would increase.  He added that there had been 40 letters of objection and a petition and no support in favour of the development.  It was a rural area where there would be no way there would be a reduction in traffic especially with the drop off and collections at the nearby school. 

 

Traffic was chaotic which would be made worse with the delivery of goods by heavy goods vehicles which would need to pull across the entire road to reverse into the car park.  He did see the advantages of investment of the convenience store but it would be in competition with the two stores already in situ.  There was no support for the Nexus store and would support the refusal of the planning application. 

Councillor E Adam appreciated the public attending the committee as there had been many objections submitted that needed to be focused on.  He referred to the number of accidents and incidents on the road that indicated that there was an issue.  He asked the Highways Officer if the analysis of road accidents/incidents had covered the period when the pub was open.  He queried if data and statistics suggested that there had been no accidents or issues when it was open.

 

Councillor M Barker commented that traffic came through the 30mph village at speeds of approximately 60mph when approaching the zebra crossing and crossroads which caused the accidents.  The double yellow lines and no waiting restrictions at the crossroads were not effective as cars parked there obstructing the visibility.  She noted that if further double yellow lines were painted outside the development it would push the parking issue further towards the school area.

 

Mr M Parkin added visibility was obscured at the crossroads due to parked cars on the double yellow lines and speeding vehicles had no time to react.  At one point there were 6 accidents in a 4 week period.

 

The Principal DM Engineerresponded to Councillor E Adams that the Highways Authority had originally looked at all accidents over the last 3 years then extended the search for 10 years.  He commented that as the pub had closed a year ago the data would have included the period when the pub was open.  The main cause of accidents was driver error where there was a failure to give way at the crossroads. One incident occurred at the zebra crossing however the driver of the vehicle was not one which would typically be associated with excessive speed.  He stressed that these accidents were not associated to the premises whether it was in use or not.  The issues at the crossroads were beyond the scope of the application and if members were inclined to refuse the application on this basis this would not stand up if it went to appeal.

 

Councillor G Richardson made a comment to the agent that less was more and the presentation was garbled and hard to understand.

Councillor M Stead asked if there was any data on the premises being a convenience store with the number of deliveries being made and whether this would be more than if it were a pub.  He felt that the deliveries could potentially reduce traffic along the road.

 

The Principal DM Engineerconfirmed there was no data in relation to deliveries.  He stressed that all businesses differed to one another and deliveries would be dependant upon their needs.  He noted that delivery vehicles may be larger than a car but there was no history of any complaints or issues with deliveries when the property was a pub as the cellar was within the curtilage of the pub’s car park.

 

Councillor D Brown commented that the accuracy of the photographs contained in the officer’s presentation did not reflect the amount of traffic whilst on the site visit.

 

Councillor E Adam asked highways if the speed restrictions could be reduced along that road from 60 mph to 40 mph to eventually 30 mph that could possibly alleviate the speed of traffic into the area.  He queried if this could be an additional condition if members were minded to approve the application.

 

The Principal DM Engineerstated that the 30mph speed limit terminal point was approximately 250metres north of the property at the commencement of the built up area.  He added that speed restrictions should reflect the driving environment to encourage compliance with the posted limit.  In situations where this was not the case, the speed limit lacks credibility and results in a lack of compliance by motorists.  The road from the north was a rural area and the national de-restricted speed limit of 60mph would be the most appropriate one based upon the speed limit criteria used in assessing the speed.  There were dragon’s teeth to highlight the area and other traffic calming measures in place that were appropriate for the area.

 

Councillor E Adam asked legal if this could be added as a condition.

 

Councillor N Jones was torn with the application as it was an old building that had fallen into ruins but was aspirate with the pedestrian issue.  He felt that there should be controlled lights in the area. He added that members needed to be mindful that residents had signed a petition and there had been several objections meaning residents did not want this in their village.

 

Councillor J Cairns asked the agent when the building was purchased.

 

Mr S Moulten responded that the sale was closed in May 2023 and the final arrangements for the sale concluded in August/September 2023.

 

Councillor J Cairns asked when the planning application had been submitted for the development of 6 dwellings in the building and if it was a different applicant.

 

The Planning Officer did not have that date to hand but it was a different applicant.

 

The Legal Officer (Planning and Highways)responded to the query from Councillor E Adams that the highways issues were already in place and could not be resolved by the applicant as this was outside the scope of planning.  The Legal Officer (Planning and Highways)reiterated that there had been highway objections to this application and there would be a requirement for a highways management plan when the development commenced.

 

The Principal Planning Officer advised that there was a condition in place for the applicant to add double yellow lines to prevent parking in the front street to help ensure people parked in the car park.  She added that the access to the premises was at the side and not at the front.

 

The Planning Officer responded to Councillor J Cairns query that the planning application to build 6 dwellings was submitted in November 2022 but it was never made valid.

 

The Chair opened up the meeting for debate.

 

Councillor M Stead was mindful that to push for reasons to go against officer recommendation to approve the application would not stand up on appeal.  He was aware that there were several objections and a signed petition but he felt that delivery vehicles would reduce the speed of traffic in the area.

 

Councillor E Adam agreed with Councillor M Stead that if the application was refused the applicant would win at appeal.  The traffic issues and parking on double yellow lines did not relate to the planning application and the policies were required to be adhered to and Councillors should not go against them.  He understood the concerns with traffic, parking, bad driving and the close proximity of the school but these were not caused by the new development.  People parking on double yellow lines and outside schools required a vigilant approach to report to the local authority as a way forward and was not a material planning issue.  He was not convinced that the shop would increase traffic as there had been no issues when the pub was open.  He supported the officer’s recommendation to approve the application as this would bring the building back into use to create employment and boost the economy of the village.  He did not think the applicant would have submitted a planning application if he did not think the business would be viable.

 

Councillor A Savory sympathised with the public regarding the issues with collections and drop offs around the school.  She supported the application as the pub had been closed for some time and the building had fallen into disrepair.  She felt if it was left it would attract vandalism and anti-social behaviour.  She thought the shop would be a valuable amenity to the local area and bring an old building back into use.

 

Councillor G Richardson stated that although it would bring the building back into use and improve the area, he had heard the powerful presentation from residents.  He was of the same mind as Councillor D Brown to refuse the application.

 

Councillor J Quinn stated that Councillor D Brown had moved a motion to refuse the application.

 

Councillor G Richardson seconded the motion to refuse the application.

 

The Legal Officer (Planning and Highways)requested that before the vote took place that relevant reasons were given as to why the planning application should be refused. 

 

Councillor G Richardson stated that the application should be refused on highway safety issues based on the number of accidents in the area even if it was going against highway advise.

 

The Legal Officer (Planning and Highways)stressed that highways safety would not be a sustainable reason if this went to appeal as there would be no support from the Highways Authority as they had no objections. The Legal Officer (Planning and Highways)advised that the decision was up to members but there would be risks of costs to the council if the application was refused.

 

Councillor G Richardson was aware of the risk but had to stand up for the residents.

 

Councillor M Stead moved to approve the application.  He did sympathise with residents regarding the issues of traffic and parking but they were not material planning considerations.  Highways had addressed the issue of parked cars by introducing double yellow lines outside the premises which may reduce the amount of parents parking near the school.

 

Councillor E Adam seconded the application to be approved.

 

The Chair noted the motion for refusal put forward by Councillor D Brown, seconded by Councillor G Richardson and upon a vote being taken, the motion was LOST.

 

Upon a vote being taken, it was:

 

RESOLVED

 

That the application be APPROVED, subject to the conditions as set out within the report.