Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to Members.

Members received a presentation in support of the application, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from David Johnson, the applicant.

Mr Johnson stated that having read through the Planning Officer’s information pack, he is conscious that no mention is made of the historic use of the land in relation to Supporting Letter 1 and Supporting Letter 2.  He stated that he feels that the recent historic use of the land is particularly important in this case and added that both letters are eyewitness statements describing previous use of the land in the late 70’s and early 80’s.

Mr Johnson explained that one was the contractor who hard cored the rear land for parking, and latterly in addition at the far end constructed a pub garden complete with ornamental pond and seating areas and the other witness, himself a past owner of the attached Elm Manor and long-term Elm resident, details the previous use of parking and beer gardens on the land too.  He stated that it should be noted that that the land was not maintained when Elm Manor was purchased in 2007.

Mr Johnson stated that in his supporting statement he mentions a photograph of the pub hanging in the front dining area and that previously he had stated that the land appeared to be used for growing vegetables, but in fact it was the land behind Elm Manor which resembled an allotment.  He added that since then he has studied the photograph with a fine-tooth comb and taken it out of its frame for a proper look and the photo was taken circa 1981 as dated by John Munro, the owner of the red Morris Marina parked nearest the front door.

Mr Johnson added that the picture depicts a well-worn vehicular access to the rear land and even shows a vehicle parked on the rear car park beyond the electricity substation. He stated that the pub is open, there are five cars parked on the front and one at the rear, and that he has visited the pub for 37 years since the age of 8 when he went every Sunday before lunch and Alan and Val Williams, the then owners, were close to his family and when they left to move to Wales, their guard dog Tia came to live with him at Friday Bridge.

Mr Johnson explained that for the last few years Alan and Val were in residence, they had a field gate installed to section off the rear land to enable Tia to have full run of it during the day, before putting her in the downstairs of the pub to guard overnight.  He advised that it was only the subsequent owners Pam and Ray Clements that allowed the rear land to become derelict, having failed to make work their huge wooden beer terrace they had installed on the land and both himself and co-owner Peter Golding removed the redundant terrace.

Mr Johnson informed members that Pam and Ray Clements owned the pub directly before him and added that none of the residents surrounding the pub have lived there quite long enough to experience all the historic use described.  He added that the supporting letters, the photograph, the physical evidence of the pond, BBQ and the remaining hard core, prove beyond doubt that the land has a long and rich history of serving the pub and, in his opinion, he feels that this is important, because any purchaser back when the housing estate was newly built, had the opportunity to discover more about the land adjoining the property they were seeking to buy and its rich association with the pub: that is; pub land used for pub purposes.

Mr Johnson explained that he would now like to focus on current times and stated that he is sure members are aware, the pub trade is beyond difficult at the moment. He added that he restored the building and opened as a wet pub and the trade has evolved continually to the point that it is now a food-based pub, with solely wet pubs in villages being almost extinct and this shift seems irreversible as the casual drinking trade may never return to the level required to make a wet village pub viable. 

Mr Johnson expressed the view that during Covid, trade has been incredibly challenging and whilst he is allowed to open on the 12^th April to service customers outside, he has taken the difficult decision to wait until customers are allowed inside as he simply cannot trade viably until more restrictions are lifted. He stated that the shift to being a food pub has put enormous pressure on his current parking provision and the extra staff required and the travel habits of dining customers mean that there is the need for much more parking space if he is to be able to provide a quality and safe experience as  customers aren’t car sharing and this might not improve. 

Mr Johnson stated  that to illustrate the point, it has been the case when he had 8 customers dining mid-week, each bringing their own car in addition to 6 staff cars which totals 14 cars to serve two tables of 4 for lunch!  He explained that, other potential customers have driven past because the pub looked too busy to cater for them and it looks too tricky to get parked safely (so customers told us) and he simply cannot operate profitably under these circumstances and the pub needs to be able to use its assets to adapt to the times and survive as it has done in its rich history.

Mr Johnson stated that he needs to use its pub land for pub business as it has done in the past and he is desperate for more parking if the pub is to survive.

He advised that all staff will be instructed to park on the new car park and staff cars will then account for roughly a third of all parked cars at the rear, if it is fully utilised which will itself be a huge mitigating factor for reducing any potential antisocial behaviour in the car park. 

Mr Johnson expressed the view that his customers tend to be middle aged and older and his youngest customers tend to be in their 30’s, with the pub providing a premium offer, and this tends to keep trouble away. He stated that his staff are managed well, and the staff manage his property and customers well and he has no doubt that they will manage his car park equally well too.

Members asked Mr Johnson the following questions:

·         Councillor Marks asked Mr Johnson to clarify whether his business partner Mr Golding, is involved in anyway with Goldings Horse Feeds and Mr Johnson confirmed that it is not the same person.

·         Councillor Cornwell asked Mr Johnson to clarify that there are 16 car parking spaces marked on the plan and Mr Johnson confirmed this to be correct. Councillor Cornwell asked Mr Johnson to confirm that he had also stated that there will be 7 staff who will also require parking and, therefore, there is the intention to provide 9 car parking spaces for customers. Mr Johnson stated that he is just looking to increase car parking and that staff will be instructed to use the new car park, near the houses, which will free up the front car parking and the area by Atkinsons Lane, enabling customers to have the closest parking provision.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis asked Mr Johnson to clarify that, when customers exit the pub, is there the requirement to walk down Atkinsons Lane to reach the car park or does the pub have a rear access point? Mr Johnson stated that there is no rear access, but the pub has its own footpath down the side of the pub. 

·         Councillor Miscandlon stated that officer’s had referred to a previous application which had included an acoustic fence, however, the application before members today does not include a fence and he asked Mr Johnson whether it would be advantageous to include a fence to protect the wellbeing of the neighbouring properties?  Mr Johnson stated that a debate took place regarding the fence and any benefits of the fence or any detriment to the tree roots as a result of the installation of an acoustic fence and he was aware that the professionals involved had concluded that a no dig solution was preferable. Councillor Miscandlon expressed the opinion that the benefit of such a fence to neighbouring properties is quite dramatic and, in his opinion, it should be considered. Mr Johnson stated that it is something that he would consider.

·         Councillor Marks asked for confirmation that it will be road planings, that are used as a surface and not a gravel surface to the car parking area. Mr Johnson confirmed that it will be road planings that are used.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis asked whether there was a reason that the parking spaces were planned for the side where more private residences are than on the opposite site where Elm Lode is. Mr Johnson stated that is the way the architect has drawn the plan and he added that if there was the requirement for it to be altered the other way then he would be amenable to that.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Cornwell asked officers to confirm the name of the road outside of the pub and whether it was Main Road or Atkinsons Lane. David Rowen stated that it is his understanding that the road at the side of the pub where access to the car park would be gained is Atkinsons Lane. Councillor Cornwell stated that regardless of the name of the road, the condition of it is poor and it is more like a country lane.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis asked for clarity over the update report, where  the comments of the archaeology officer has stated that if an acoustic fence is added then an archaeological survey would have to take place, but if no fence is included then a dig would not have to take place. David Rowen stated that the comments received from the archaeological team state no dig, however, if a fence was proposed it would be something that would require further advice being obtained.

Members asked questions, made comments, and received responses as follows:

·         Councillor Purser stated that he is in favour of the application and added that the car park will enhance the business, and this is something that should be encouraged in the current climate. He added that the addition of the acoustic fence is a good idea and added that the neighbouring properties would possibly be patrons of the public house. Councillor Purser added that the proposal would also alleviate parking from the war memorial area, and he welcomes the application.

·         Councillor Cornwell stated that he agrees with the comments made by Councillor Purser. He added that there is obviously a need for the pub to have a car park which appears to draw in people not just from the immediate locality, but there is the need to protect the interests of those people who would be affected by it and to assist with the ongoing success of the pub. Councillor Cornwell added that if Mr Johnson is happy to consider all forms of noise mitigation, which will include instructing staff where to park to minimise their impact and if the site provision can be arranged in such a way to mitigate against some of the noise which is likely to occur, he will support the application, but only if the owners try their upmost to mitigate the noise.

·         Councillor Sutton stated that he would like to thank Mr Johnson, on behalf of the village for bringing the pub back to life, as it has been a success. He agrees with Councillor Cornwell, there has to be consideration given to the adjacent properties but also to the consideration of the ongoing success of the business. Councillor Sutton added that it is a concern for the residents and they may be appeased if an acoustic fence was included, especially for the proximity some of them are to the pub. He expressed the opinion that the application should be deferred so that the acoustic fence can be considered further and some professional input to ascertain how well the acoustic fencing would work.

·         Councillor Lynn stated that it is normal for a pub to have a car park, but it is not normal to have a pub which is not fenced off from the neighbours and the neighbours in the vicinity deserve to have some protection. He expressed the view that he would not welcome a deferment, as the business owner wants to operate, having been closed for many months due to the pandemic. Councillor Lynn added that he will support the application as long as it is fenced off from the neighbours and added that it is not just noise, it is also car headlights that need to be considered.

·         Councillor Miscandlon stated that the lighting in the car park must also be considered and should be downlights and not be intrusive on the neighbouring properties. He added that he would support the application with the condition of an acoustic fence being included, which the applicant has stated he would be amenable with. Councillor Miscandlon expressed the view that he does not see that there would be much ground disturbance with the installation of an acoustic fence and he agrees with the comments made by Councillor Mrs Davis with regard to moving the parking spaces over to the other side, with the addition of an acoustic fence and something to mitigate light pollution, which is highlighted in the officer’s report by the Environmental Health Team.

·         Stephen Turnbull, the Legal Officer, advised members that they can only grant planning permission based on what is in front of them and the application does not incorporate an acoustic fence. The introduction of an acoustic fence may need planning permission itself and, therefore, if members wanted to approve the application to include an acoustic fence, it would need to be deferred or refused and then the applicant would have to consider a further proposal in the future.

·         Councillor Sutton expressed the view that if the car parking spaces were moved to the other side it would be detrimental as the closest dwelling is the Old Manor, which is 4 to 5 metres away, and he feels the spaces are located on the right side as the properties on Laurel Drive are up to 19 metres away. He added that following on from the legal advice, there is an alternative submitted plan which includes the addition of an acoustic fence and he asked for clarity that if members were minded to approve the application with an acoustic fence could the approval be on the condition that it goes with the alternative submitted plan.

·         Councillor Meekins expressed the opinion that he does not see what difference it will make with regard to what side of the car park the parking spaces are on. He added that he agrees with Councillor Sutton’s suggestion that the application could be deferred and then be brought back with the acoustic fence.

·         David Rowen stated that members appear to support the proposal subject to the issue of the acoustic fence being adequately resolved. He added that he would caution members against granting the application today, with a condition regarding a fence being provided as they need to be mindful that following the comments received from the Environmental Health Team, there has been no technical information provided to demonstrate that an acoustic fence would be an adequate solution. David Rowen referred to the point raised by Councillor Sutton regarding the previous iteration of the plan indicating an acoustic fence which was 2.4 metres high, however, there is no technical information to state that a 2.4 metre fence would be adequate. He added that there is a further issue in terms of the provision of an acoustic fence of whatever height in terms of consultation with the neighbours and he is unsure as to whether any of the plans which have gone out to public consultation have had an acoustic fence indicated and, therefore, this needs to be taken into consideration. David Rowen suggested that a deferment to allow an acoustic fence to be explored and for an appropriate acoustic fence to be achieved and consulted on maybe a prudent course of action.

It was proposed by Councillor Mrs Davis, seconded by Councillor Sutton, and agreed that the application be DEFERRED, to allow for further consideration to be given for the inclusion of an acoustic fence.