Agenda item

This report is in response to the motion passed by Council on 11^th December 2014 in relation to protecting public houses. The purpose of the report is to provide Members with background information in relation to the options available to the council to potentially afford greater protection to public houses including Article 4 Directions and the assets of community value register. It asks Members to consider four options.

Members considered a report which provided a response to the motion passed by Full Council on 11^th December 2014 in relation to protecting public houses. The purpose of the report was to provide Members with background information in relation to the options available to the council to potentially afford greater protection to public houses including Article 4 Directions and the Assets of Community Value register.

Officers presented the report and advised that it outlined the technical approaches for affording greater protection to public houses against the resource implications. Members’ attention was drawn to the recommendation which suggested that Members chose Option 3 and no further work be undertaken. Officers had made this recommendation because based on the information available to them, it was considered that there was not an immediate threat to the loss of public houses from change of use. A case by case approach through either the Assets of Community Value register or immediate Article 4 Directions was felt to be the best approach.

Members queried whether there had been any change of use applications from pub to residential refused. Officers advised that to their knowledge none had been refused, but confirmed that officers are able to protect pubs in these cases through national and local policy. It was questioned when planning permission is required for change of use, Officers advised that only for change of use from pub to residential, and that changes of use to restaurant/cafe, a shop or supermarket and officers for financial and professional services such as estate agents and building society permission was not required as this falls under permitted development rights.

Members queried whether last minute Article 4 Directions are less robust than having a city wide Article 4 Direction. Officers confirmed that a city wide direction had been explored fully and could not be limited to traditional, community pubs as a result of the way public houses are classified by the use class order. As such, a city wide direction would have to cover all drinking establishments, including modern bars. Officers advised that the evidence suggested the removal of permitted development rights for all drinking establishments at a city wide level this wouldn’t be practical or necessary in York.

It was queried whether being nominated as an asset of community value gave pubs protection from demolition as well as change of use. Officers confirmed that pubs are protected from demolition when recognised as an asset of community value.

Members made the following comments:

·        In respect of The Fossway Public House in Table One, whilst change of use from residential had been granted through planning permission this has not been implemented. The building is in use as a charity food bank so remains a community asset.

·        Whilst the report was very detailed, the point of view of communities is an issue and the recommendation to not progress any work is not the right approach.

·        The Council should be at the very least, undertaking initiatives to publicise the process for how to list pubs as assets of community value. This was considered to be a relatively small cost as set out in the report and option 1 would allow the funding required to be looked at through the budgetary process.

·        Some Members supported the making of a city wide Article 4 Direction and asked officers what level of evidence would be required to support this. Officers reiterated that a city wide direction had been explored to its fullest but was not considered practical or necessary.

·        Members felt that by not proceeding with any further work on the issue, the motion passed at Council in December 2014 was not being progressed as required by Members at that time and despite a change in administration, Members still wished to see further exploration.

Councillor Steward spoke to advise that the Executive would be willing to look at the matter further, exploring further options and would be having talks with interested stakeholders prior to the Executive Meeting on the 29^th October. This would include a financial commitment for further work.

Following further discussion, it was agreed:

Resolved:           That Local Plan Working Group Members advised the Executive that:

                             The Working Group does not support Option 3 but supports Options 1 and 2 as a minimum and is happy to refer the matter to Executive for further exploration, subject to the comments made above.

Reason:              To enable Executive to further consider the options open to the Council in relation to affording greater protection to public houses.