Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members and drew members attention to the update report that had been circulated.

The committee had regard to its inspection of the site (as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

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

·       Councillor Sutton provided members with some background information on the history of the Dun Cow Public House due to his local knowledge and that new occupiers have moved into the area. He explained that at a recent meeting of the Parish Council, it had stated that the occupation of the upper floor for living was ancillary to the living accommodation, and although he is aware that it is disputed by officers, Councillor Sutton stated that he was asked for his opinion at that meeting and he had stated that he thought that planning permission would not be needed as it would be classed as ancillary. He stated that he agrees that the caravans will and do have a temporary look, but, in his opinion, a new business should be given as much help as possible and he will be voting against the officer’s recommendation, however, he would like to see the permission being for a temporary period of three years which will give the business enough time to be operational and for the tenants to be able to work with the brewery to consider an extension to be built on the back of the Public House for those persons with disabilities.

·       Councillor Cornwell made the point that there are many rural public houses which are no longer trading and a public house in a rural location has to succeed and make money in order to survive, with new tenants in the premises trying to add value to the business. He referred to the officer’s report where it states at 10.14 that there is existing living accommodation within the Dun Cow and, therefore, it is not considered that the caravans proposed could be considered ancillary to the use of the Dun Cow given the existing presence of living accommodation on site and that the report also states that the extra accommodation is not essential to the success of the business but, in his opinion, that is a judgement, and the new landlords should be given assistance in order for them to move forward. Councillor Cornwell questioned whether it would be possible to include a condition for the caravans to see how successful the business is and then let the tenants prove that part of the success, or otherwise, of the business because they have or they have not got a caravan to bring some more people into the business. He made the point that it is a very difficult time for the pub trade at the moment and even the pubs in town locations are suffering and, in his opinion, the applicants should be given the opportunity even if it means imposing a time limit.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis made the point that if you are a business which is still in its infancy, she is not sure why you would need accommodation for five members of staff unless those members of staff are also family members but that has not been made clear in the report.

·       Councillor Cornwell stated that he understands that view and maybe further questions can be asked to obtain some proper answers and support for the applicant.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that in the officer’s report at 3.4 it states that that the residential accommodation is for 2 members of disabled staff who struggle to use the stairs. She added that temporary approval has been given for caravans in the past although it has not happened for some time.

·       Councillor Mrs French asked how long the caravans have been on site and Councillor Mrs Davis stated that there is only one on site currently and in the officer’s update report it suggests that the caravan is for the applicant’s wife, but it does not mention a second disabled person. Councillor Mrs French expressed the opinion that if there are five members of staff, she would anticipate that is probably a family who want to live there. She added that the last few years have proved to be challenging for many businesses and Christchurch is not a very big village and if the applicant is prepared to rejuvenate the Dun Cow, then the Council should be here to give people the opportunity to try to prove themselves. She stated that she would support a three-year temporary permission.

·       Councillor Marks referred to the Golden Lion in Stonea where the same situation occurred and there was temporary accommodation in place for the staff. He added that during Covid that business failed, and he made the point that the applicant should be given a chance to grow their business.

·       Councillor Skoulding stated that he agrees that a temporary permission should be granted, and, in his opinion, the temporary permission should be for five years to give the business a good chance.

·       Nick Harding stated that when considering a temporary consent for three years, towards the end of that three-year period, there would be nothing to stop the applicant from reapplying to retain one or both static caravans on the site and as 50% of the development is already on site there is a fairly substantial financial commitment in place as it stands.

·       Councillor Purser stated that is his understanding that the second caravan is for personal possessions. Councillor Mrs Davis stated that it maybe that the second caravan is going to be used for storage if the first one will not accommodate all of the personal belongings.

·       Councillor Sutton stated that to the best of his knowledge the persons have moved into the pub and as far as he is aware it is their first venture into the hospitality trade and the second caravan will be used to store equipment for the work that they undertake with young people.

·       Councillor Topgood stated that over the years accommodation has been allowed where it is tied to a business where it is necessary and the fact that the staff could be made up of family members is irrelevant. He stated that he has recently taken over the running of a public house and the current financial climate is very difficult and if the applicant is employing members of their family that is the way to keep the costs down. Councillor Topgood stated that he will support the proposal for the caravans to enable them to build their trade and business up.

·       Councillor Murphy expressed the opinion that members were “having the wool pulled over their eyes”.

·       Councillor Mrs French made the point that members can only make a determination on an application with the information that has been provided to them and she added that Councillor Sutton has explained that there is a disabled person to be considered as part of the proposal and, therefore, that does need to be taken into account. She added that the last few years have proved to be exceptionally difficult and the Council should be seen to be helping and assisting people to move forward and progress in a new business.

·       Councillor Purser stated that the applicants are being incredibly brave in taking on a new venture in difficult times and hopefully will be supported in their new business.

·       Councillor Sutton stated that at the white goods recycling centre they also had a temporary permission for an onsite caravan that was there for a number of years and was renewed three or four times and that is now a permanent structure for which permission has been granted.

·       Councillor Cornwell stated that if the pub business proves to be unviable our planning regulations will try to keep the pub going. He added that the applicant is making every effort to start up a public house business which is part of the community, and he made the point that there is a large redundant public house in March which is now is a bad state of disrepair and due to the state of the economy, there does not appear to be anybody who wishes to take the business on. Councillor Cornwell stated that, in his opinion, there are lessons to be learnt from that and if there is an opportunity for the Council to help people to re-establish businesses then every effort should be made to help them and this is an ideal way for officers and the committee to help the applicant find a way of at least giving the applicants a temporary permission to have that accommodation and if the business does not work then at the Council has attempted to help the applicant. He expressed the opinion that the Council owe it to the community.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis expressed the view that having listened to the debate her view on the application has somewhat changed and she stated that if a temporary time limit can be added to the permission, she could support the proposal.

·       Councillor Sutton stated that the permission should be given on a temporary basis for three years or until the current tenants leave whichever is the sooner. He expressed the opinion that the tenant can reapply after the three years, and made the point that he feels that this is the right decision to make.

·       Nick Harding stated that he would ask the committee to give delegated authority to officers in order that the relevant and appropriate conditions can be considered and applied to the permission. He added that there are a number of points to be considered such as the time period of three years and when tying it to the business, if the business should fail within the three years what would be the course of action, with consideration also needing to be given with regards to the two caravans and a condition being added to dictate that one caravan can be used for accommodation and one for storage. Nick Harding explained that when considering who occupies the caravan that is going to be used for residential occupation, in his view, the condition could state that the caravan can be occupied whilst the business is a going concern by an employee, landlord or immediate family, however, in the event that the business ceases to trade it can then only be occupied by immediate family.

·       Councillor Sutton made the point that if the business ceases trading then the persons would leave anyway.

·       Nick Harding stated that he believes that the pub is a tenancy rather than a freehold.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis questioned that the applicants should be aware then that if the business failed, they would have to move on and that if the business failed just inside of the three years, they would have to find a new place to live. Nick Harding stated that in the current times of economic uncertainty, it is not known whether the brewery would take a different view and say to the tenant that they can stay and pay a rent as a residential property until a new landlord is found.

·       Councillor Cornwell stated that he would like Councillor Mrs Davis and officers to agree the conditions.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Skoulding and agreed that the application be APPROVED against the officer’s recommendation, with authority delegated to officers to agree the conditions in conjunction with the Vice-Chairman. 

Members do not support the officer’s recommendation of refusal as they feel that the proposal is not contrary to Policy LP3 of the Local Plan as it is in a small village location, where they feel the proposal is justified, under LP12 of the Local Plan, the proposal does not harm the local distinctiveness, visual impact and character of the surrounding area and under LP2 of the Local Plan, the proposal will assist with health and wellbeing of local residents as the applicant is disabled.