Agenda item

Application Type:     Full Planning Permission

Proposal:                   Application for change of use from public house to 6 apartments plus external works

Site:                            Witham Tavern, 3 Witham Bank East, Boston, Lincolnshire, PE21 9JU

Applicant:                  Mrs C Guille

Proposal:                  Application for change of use from public house to 6 apartments plus external works

Site:                            Witham Tavern, 3 Witham Bank East, Boston, Lincolnshire, PE21 9JU

Applicant:                 Mrs C Guille

(Councillor Yvonne Stevens left the room for the entire consideration of this application.)

The Development Control Manager presented this application. 

The Committee received representation from three people in objection to the application: Councillor P Gleeson, Mr M Limbert and County Councillor T Keywood-Wainwright.

Councillor Gleeson spoke in support of the officers’ recommendation to refuse planning permission.  The pub was a significant and could be important in the development of the area’s visitor economy due to its riverfront location.  It was for the applicant to provide robust evidence that the pub was redundant, including a specialised valuer’s report, a marketing report proving that the property had been marketed at that valuation and details of the efforts made to improve the pub’s trade and its trading accounts.  This had not been provided.  Appeal inspectors had upheld decisions made by planning authorities to refuse planning permission on the grounds of such lack of evidence. 

Mr Limbert, representing the South Witham Community Group, described the pub’s historic importance and its significant location on the pathway to the Witham Way Country Park within a major leisure and tourism area in the town.  It formed a link with the Water Rail Trail and the Sustrans national route number 1.  Other businesses in the area worked together to attract tourism and saw the potential of the business if it was run as part of the community with their help.  Other river users in the area, the motor yacht, sailing and rowing clubs, also believed that taking away the pub would have an adverse effect on tourism.  This was the only waterside recreation area within the town.  Mr Limbert said the pub had failed over the years for various reasons, mainly due to the applicant’s actions and decisions, in particular, refusing the custom generated by neighbouring businesses.

County Councillor Keywood-Wainwright advised the Committee she was speaking on behalf of the residents of the Boston North division, who were very concerned about the development.  They considered that the type of small flat proposed were not needed in the area; a pub was needed more.  The rowing club and the marina asked Members to consider what there was to offer to people on the marina and in town if the pub was to go. 

The applicant’s agent, Mr Lilley, expressed concern that the application was being recommended for refusal when the previous application based on exactly the same principles had been recommended for approval.  It had been said that the need for tourism was negligible, but now there was “great need”.  There was concern that the Ward Member was not present nor had been notified that the application was to be considered by the Committee and also that objections had not appeared on the Council’s website.  The proposal met the criteria of the National Planning Policy Framework and the Local Plan as did the submitted marketing assessment.  The market price had been recommended by a certified valuer and the marketing details were provided in the economic feasibility report as well as the design access statement.  It was no longer a requirement to provide details of attempts to increase trade at the pub. 

Mr Lilley asserted that the objections raised did not relate to planning issues.  The ownership of the access road had been queried, but he had the deeds with him.  The pub had been valued and marketed from 2012-14 locally and nationally by the largest public house agent and had been put up for auction in 2011 with no interest shown.  Before that, the pub had been closed for 9 months after the failure of 7 owners including the applicant.  The applicant would accept offers with proof of funding or a mortgage, but this had not been provided.  The applicant was a successful pub manager, but even after using personal monies had not made the pub successful.  It was not viable; it was in a small area of tourism with a low number of tourists already served by neighbouring licensed premises.   It was a relatively unknown pub due to its location and there were more accessible pubs nearby.  The economic viability report stated that Boston had a higher than average number of pubs and those that remained open were more accessible. 

The Development Control Manager confirmed that the Council did not post objections on its website; it was current Council policy that third party letters only be available for inspection in person and this was consistent with the practice of many other local authorities. 

It was proposed by Councillor Brian Rush and seconded by Councillor Mike Cooper that planning permission be refused as recommended in the Planning Officers’ report.

Vote: Unanimous

RESOLVED That application number B/16/0010 be refused planning permission for the following reasons:

1.   Insufficient evidence has been submitted which proves that there is no longer a long term need for this community facility within this area with particular regard to the marketing of the property, the length of time the property has been placed on the market, how the public house has been operated in the past and the reasons for the lack of commercial success. The proposed development will therefore result in the loss of a valued community facility which would still appear to have a realistic prospect of a viable commercial use.  The development is therefore contrary to the objectives of Local Plan Policy CF2 and para 70 of the NPPF.

2   This development will undermine this Council’s long term objective of promoting tourism and the regeneration of the waterways which would be contrary to the objectives in the NPPF which seeks to encourage tourism and Local Plan Policy C7 because the scheme does not promote the recreational potential of the site and would not meet the social, environmental and economic dimensions of the NPPF which is one of the core principles of sustainable development (para 17).

In determining this application the authority has taken account of the guidance in paras 186 – 187 of the NPPF (2012) in order to seek to secure sustainable development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the Borough.