Agenda item

Part-retrospective: Change of use from Public House with staff accommodation to mixed use including public house, bed and breakfast and podiatry. Internal and external works including various windows, french doors, shed and decking.

Crown Inn, Catton, Hexham, Northumberland, NE47 9QS

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application with the aid of a powerpoint presentation and advised that there were no updates following publication of the report.

Mr. J. Gray, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He highlighted the following:-

·        The Crown public house had been bought in October 2020 in a poor condition, requiring modernisation which had driven some of the external alterations.  Part of the roof was near collapse which had forced them to make urgent decisions regarding installation of the velux window and moving dormer windows, for which he apologised.

·        There was no change to the footprint of the property although previous applications which had proposed changes to the footprint had been approved.

·        The business had been closed as much as it had been open throughout the last 25 years with 5 previous owners being unable to make the bar and food service financially viable.  In order to make the business successful, it was proposed that a bed and breakfast accommodation be offered which was common at many other public houses.

·        His partner was a podiatrist which was the reason for including a podiatry room and would only form a small part of the business.  They had not expected it to be controversial.

·        The application had received 65 objections.  A community meeting had been held which the owners had not been invited to.  A leaflet which had been circulated locally had contained inaccurate information.  They believed the objections had been made under false assumptions.  No-one had asked for clarification or checked facts with the owners.

·        The following statements within the leaflet were not true:

-       Conditions had been attached to the purchase.

-       A resident’s group had stepped aside to allow them to purchase.  (Funds had not been raised or an offer made).

-       Undertaking had been given when the property had been purchased.

-       The Crown was viable.

-       It was to be changed back to a house and the car park built on.

-       Planning did not take into account speculation about future intentions.

-       The owners were designing it to fail.  (They hoped to succeed, previous owners had failed.)

-       The bar was too small.

·        They had spoken extensively with the last owner regarding use of the bar and number of visitors previously.  They believed the proposed bar would be the right size with additional income predominantly coming from the B and B, which would make it a viable community asset.

·        He stressed that the premises would predominantly remain a public house and to that end had obtained a personal licence through Northumberland County Council, an expensive new bar had been built which had been featured in the photos, his premises licence had been approved and a new sign would be installed shortly.

Councillor Cessford relayed a message to any observers watching on the internet that he had checked with planning officers who had confirmed that the correct procedures and timescales had been followed to enable public speaking registration.  The deadline for public speakers to register had been 12 noon on the previous working day.  He had made the decision that it would be unfair to register anyone after the deadline.  A summary of responses was included within the report and comments were also publicly available on the planning portal.  The committee comprised many experienced councilors who would make a fair and thorough decision despite no objectors being present at the meeting.

In response to questions from Members of the Committee the following information was provided:-

·        There was a 12% overall reduction in the floor area of the public house due to the creation of the podiatry and bed and breakfast rooms.  The size of the bar area had decreased by 31%.

·        Private staff accommodation was located on the first floor and remained unchanged.

·        It was believed the previous closures of the premises had been due to it being not economically viable.  There may also have been personal reasons which were unknown.

·        Planning legislation did not set a minimum size for a public house.

·        The entire building could not be occupied as a dwelling without an application for change of use from a public house to a residential dwelling.  There were no conditions which could be applied to ensure that the building remained open as a public house.

·        A retrospective planning application was not dealt with differently to other planning applications.  The fact that it was retrospective was not a matter of material significance.

·        Relevant policies included CS1 of existing plans which mirrored policies INF2 and INF3 on the retention of public houses and services.  Officers were restricted how the policies could be applied as the application was for the retention of the pub and therefore the facility was not being lost.  Other economic and tourism policies encouraged diversification and the provision of additional facilities.

·        A public inquiry had previously been held regarding a change of use application from public house to a dwelling; that application had been dismissed.

·        Public protection had not objected to the proposals regarding the toilet facilities and were satisfied that the proposals were acceptable for the scale of the premises.

·        There were no restrictions regarding the provision of food with the existing use of the premises as a public house.  During a site visit by the case officer, the applicant had confirmed that appliances were being installed in the kitchen which could be used for commercial catering.  However, it was not an issue which was relevant to consideration of the application.

Councillor Dale proposed acceptance of the recommendation to approve the application.  This was seconded by Councillor Stewart.

Upon being put to the vote, the motion was unanimously agreed.

Several of the members expressed their familiarity with the premises and its difficult history.  The application supported policies for the development of tourism, and it was hoped that the diversification would assist the sustainability and viability of the premises in the future to enable retention of a valuable community facility.

RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED permission for the reasons and with the conditions as outlined in the report.