Agenda item

Conversion and two storey side extension of public house to form 2 dwellings [Holgate Ward] [Site Visit]

Members considered a full application by Punch Taverns plc for the conversion and two storey side extension of a public house to form two dwellings.

Representations were heard from the landlord of the Swan Pub, Bishopthorpe Road in objection to the application. He explained that he and a business partner had bought the Slip Inn, a pub in a similar position to the Volunteer Arms, a year previously and they had made a success of it, tripling trade and creating three new jobs. He expressed the opinion that the Volunteer Arms had been neglected by the pub company during the past 20 years but that it could be made a success of if taken on by somebody and stated that he would be interested in purchasing it with the hope of running it as a free house. In response to a query from Members he advised that he had approached the pub company to ask for trading figures and had put an offer in writing in respect of purchasing the premises.

Representations were also heard from a local resident, and father of four, in objection to the application. He advised the Committee that he had lived 150 yards away from the premises for 10 years. He stated that the community, although not economically deprived, was socially deprived and although the pub had never served a community purpose, the community needed a community facility. He explained that if permission was granted for housing, residents would lose the opportunity to develop the premises as a community asset which could facilitate the social wealth of the area.

Representations were received from the vicar of St Paul’s Church, in objection to the application. He stated that the community of Holgate needed a community facility and not more flats. He explained that his church was heavily involved in local initiatives, including toddler groups, teenage groups, groups for people with learning disabilities and mental health problems, who all use the church premises and that the Church was also a venue for St Paul’s C of E Primary School events as well as hosting music events but that they were limited by the amount of available space. He advised Members that St Paul’s Church Council had agreed to seek to buy and renovate the Volunteer Arms to provide a community facility but that as the proposed funding was coming from a charitable trust, permission had to be obtained first to use these funds.

Further representations in objection to the application were heard from the Head of St Paul’s C of E Primary School. He stated that the school had close links with the Church and confirmed that they used the Church for some school events but explained that the building was not always available as it was used by other groups as well. He explained that his school has 175 children on roll and was oversubscribed year on year. He stated that when the Locomotive public house was offered for sale they had looked at the possibility of purchasing it to create extra space for the school. He expressed the opinion that further residential development would not benefit the area, which already had an extensive range of housing but that the area would benefit from further community provision.

Representations, in favour of the application, were received from the agent. He stated that they had explored the options for turning the business around and that the pub had been marketed through three different agents resulting in no acceptable offers. He advised the Committee that the Crystal Palace and Fox public houses were both close by with other public houses on the south-west fringe of the city centre within a short walking distance and therefore the application would not conflict with Policy L1b, part a of the Local Plan. He noted the objections raised by St Paul’s Church, St Paul’s C of E Primary School and local residents but urged the Committee to approve the application in front of them.

Councillor Alexander spoke in objection to the application. He spoke firstly on behalf of residents of his ward and explained that he and other ward councillors had carried out a consultation with residents of his ward. He advised that there was no great support for the pub to remain but that he was also opposed to high density housing. He noted the plans expressed by earlier speakers and confirmed that ward councillors would support plans for a community facility.  Secondly he spoke on behalf of CAMRA (Campaign for Real Ale) who had advised that they would prefer the premises to remain open as a public house, but if this was not possible, they would like the beer pumps to remain within the new facility.

Members were reminded that the application in front of them was from the owner of the property for conversion into two dwellings and not from the Church, for a potential new community facility, or from a potential new landlord. Officers confirmed that the applicant would only be required to provide business/marketing evidence to support the argument that the building was no longer viable as a public house if there were not adequate alternative facilities, (ie another public house) within the required distance. They reminded Members that, despite the recent closure of the Locomotive PH, there were other alternative facilities (The Crystal Palace and The Fox) in the locality, therefore the application was in accordance with Policy L1b. They stressed that if Members chose to refuse the application they would need to establish that it did not comply with this policy.

Members acknowledged that St Paul’s Primary School had issues over space and noted the Church’s views and aspirations for creating a community facility on the premises. However, in light of officers’ advice, some members agreed there were not sufficient grounds to refuse the application and Councillor Gillies moved, and Councillor Horton seconded, a motion to approve the application. On being put to the vote, the motion fell.

Members expressed concern that if the pub was to close, this would have a negative impact on what was a unique and self contained community and would result in the loss of a publicly accessible community leisure facility. They also raised concerns that it may have not been easy for interested parties to follow up on offers on the premises and that it would be beneficial to keep options open.

RESOLVED:             That the application be refused.

REASON:                  The proposed development would result in the loss of a publicly accessible community leisure facility in the local area.