Agenda item

Conversion of former public house to form 6no. apartments with associated access, parking and bike stores and external alterations including dormer and the insertion of rooflights following demolition of outbuildings, canopy and external staircase. [Holgate Ward]

Members considered a full application for the conversion of a former public house to form 6no. apartments with associated access, parking and bike stores and external alterations including dormer and the insertion of rooflights following demolition of outbuildings, canopy and external staircase.

The Head of Planning and Development gave a presentation on the plans for the development and the Senior Planning Officer presented the update to the report which detailed additional plans, two additional representations (from Highways and York Civic Trust), and an amendment to paragraph 3.4 of the report.  The additional information had been assessed and the planning balance and officer recommendation remained the same as the published report.

There were no questions from Members on the plans.

Public Speakers

Nick Love, spoke on behalf of York CAMRA in objection to the application, noting that the building had originally been listed as an asset of community value (ACV) in 2016.  He raised concerns around the building being allowed to fall into disrepair, flawed marketing for the sale of the pub and the loss of community facility.

In response to questions, he stated that he was aware of a builder who had approached the agent for a viewing and been told that proof of funds was required for this.  He also stated that following a planning appeal, the burden was on the building owners to make good the building before first occupancy.  He explained the pub protection policy, contained in the draft local plan, related to the marketing and viability of the pub.  The described the ACV status as having substantial weight in the planning balance.

Paul Crossman, a local publican, also spoke in objection to the application. He described successful pubs in York which had previously been considered unviable where the buildings had been put up for redevelopment.  He questioned the developer’s intent and asked the committee to reject the application on the grounds of loss of amenity, heritage asset and failure to follow previous conditions imposed by the planning inspector.

In response to questions, he explained that he had made an offer, but the conditions placed on them by the agent which meant it was not possible to progress further, he believed that there was no genuine attempt to market the pub as a viable venture.  He stated it was not usual to be prevented from seeing the property prior to evidencing funds.  He noted that Compulsory Purchase orders were rare but he viewed this site a good prospect for a CPO.

Cllr Lucy Steels-Walshaw, ward councillor, spoke in objection to the application.  She described the pub as having previously made a positive contribution to the community in Holgate.  She noted that residents were in support of the community facility being retained and restored. She also raised concerns about the marketing as noted in the comments of York Civic Trust and urged the committee to refuse the application.

In response to questions, she noted the difference between city centre pubs and a local one.  She highlighted the distance into the city centre of at least a mile. She confirmed that suggestions had been made by residents for the building to act as a hub to provide additional services to residents.

Andrew Windress, agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application, highlighting the need for new homes and noting that the development was situated on a brownfield site in a sustainable location. He stated that there had been no credible interest in the property following extensive marketing.  He explained the plans in relation to the existing building and reiterated the findings of the officer report.

In response to questions, he referred to the marketing expert reports who found that the marketing had been appropriate and shown the pub to be unviable.  He confirmed that internal work had been started on the flats with planning permission.

Dominic Woodward, the applicant, spoke to support the application.  He described the history of the site, and the process that had been followed to arrive at the current application.

In response to questions, he explained that the advice on the rental rate and lease agreement had been provided by Christies.  He confirmed the amount of work that had been undertaken to date on the upper floor flats. He also explained how he had tried to work with the Friends of Jubilee group in 2021 and he confirmed that Christie and Co, as the specialist agent, had vetted prospective buyers.

In response to questions to officers, it was reported that:

·       The work conditioned in the inspector’s report did not need to be completed until the first occupation of the flats, this would be monitored by the local planning authority.

·       Policy HW1 had limited weight, due to outstanding objections to the wording of the policy and given that the local plan was not yet adopted.

·       Barry Crux had visited the site prior to writing his report.

·       The fact that the building was an asset of community value was material to the planning balance.

·       Three agents had been contacted to carry out an independent assessment of the marketing.  There was a limited pool to choose from and the other two had a conflict of interest and were unable to provide an independent assessment.

·       Two parking spaces were provided for each flat.

·       The developer was not in breach of any planning permission as the conditions would come into effect on first occupation of the flats which had not yet happened.

·       It was the Council that assessed assets of community value.

[The meeting adjourned from 8:18 pm to 8:28 pm].

Following debate, Cllr Cullwick moved the officer recommendation, and this was seconded by Cllr Whitcroft. Members voted none in favour and six against the motion, with two abstentions, and it was therefore:

Resolved:  That the officer recommendation to approve the application be rejected.

Reason:     There was insufficient evidence that a pub operation from the building would be unviable and that a community use could no longer be sustained from the building.

Cllr Vassie moved a motion that the application be refused due to an unnecessary loss of an asset of amenity value, that insufficient robust marketing that had been undertaken, and the loss also undermined the significance of the building as a non-designated heritage asset with the final wording to be delegated to the Head of Planning and Development in agreement with the Chair and Vice-Chair.   This was seconded by Cllr Melly.  On being put to a vote, Members voted unanimously in favour of the motion, and it was therefore:

Resolved:  That the application be refused.

Reason:     The change of use would result in an unnecessary loss of an asset of amenity value, that insufficient robust marketing that had been undertaken, and the loss also undermined the significance of the building as a non-designated heritage asset.