Agenda item

Change of use of existing public house (Sui Generis) to provide a three-bed dwelling and a four-bed dwelling (Use C3), erection of two four-bed dwellings and a five-bed dwelling (Use C3) on land adjacent to the public house accessed from Main Street, with associated parking and landscaping, along with the demolition of existing outbuilding. (Amended site plan and highways technical note received 15 September 2023 to amend car parking and access and amended red line plan received 10 November 2023 and as amended by plans received 20 November 2023).

The committee considered planning application P23/S2135/FUL for the change of use of existing public house (Sui Generis) to provide a three-bed dwelling and a four-bed dwelling (Use C3), erection of two four-bed dwellings and a five-bed dwelling (Use C3) on land adjacent to the public house accessed from Main Street, with associated parking and landscaping, along with the demolition of existing outbuilding (amended site plan and highways technical note received 15 September 2023 to amend car parking and access and amended red line plan received 10 November 2023 and as amended by plans received 20 November 2023), on land at Horse & Harrow, Main Street, West Hagbourne.

Consultations, representations, policy and guidance, and the site’s planning history were detailed in the officer’s report, which formed part of the agenda pack for the meeting. 

The planning officer introduced the report and highlighted that application was brought to the committee due to the objection of West Hagbourne Parish Council. The parish raised concerns that the pub was not marketed, was intentionally rundown, and that the application would have an adverse impact on the conservation area.

The planning officer informed the committee that a previous application on the site was refused by the council as it was determined that the public house was viable, and that this decision was currently under an appeal with the planning inspectorate. He noted that the only difference between the current and previously refused application was an additional bedroom being added to plots four and five, along with a slight increase in floor space and an additional viability assessment and tenants’ letter of support.

The planning officer noted the concerns of the parish council, and that the pub was the last community facility in West Hagbourne. However, the new viability assessment indicated that the village was too small to sustain a pub, and that there were numerous other pubs within a short distance that could be used by the residents – although noting the closure of a nearby pub the George and Dragon in Upton. On the other factors involved in the pubs non-viability, the planning officer noted the non-use by residents, no food offering due to the kitchen’s limited size, not being on a major road, and that the historic investment of £195,000 had failed to turn around the business.

On the parish’s concern that the pub had not been marketed, the planning officer highlighted that, although not a policy, the supporting text in the Local Plan was clear that the property should be marketed. However, he brought members’ attention to the viability assessment which claimed that, even if the property was marketed, it would likely receive minimal interest due to the £150,000 of investment needed.

The planning officer concluded by acknowledging the council’s past decision to refuse the previous application but indicated that he thought the new viability assessment provided new material grounds to support the application. For this reason, he recommended that the application be approved.

Sheila Taylor spoke objecting to the application. 

Jake Russell, the agent representing the applicant, spoke in support of the application. 

Councillors Anne-Marie Simpson and Ben Manning, local ward councillors, spoke objecting to the application. 

The committee had conducted a site visit prior to the discussion of the application.

Members enquired with the planning officer why they were asked to determine the application before the outcome of the appeal on the previously refused application was known. In response, the development manager highlighted that the applicant was entitled to make the application and for it to be determined, and that any non-determination could be raised at the appeal.

The committee also enquired into the possibility of the pub being registered as an asset of community value but accepted the point by the planning officer that the opportunity for this had likely passed, although the applicant appeared open to accepting bids from the local community.

The committee discussed the viability assessment and its background, noting it was not produced by a pub landlord but by a national firm which the council had previous experience with. In addition, members indicated that residents from West Hagbourne could walk to nearby pubs but that residents from other villages around those pubs could also walk to the Horse and Harrow if it was an attractive destination. The committee acknowledged that there were several reasons for the pub’s failure but that the owners had not tried all possible avenues to promote and invest in the premises, such as the use of food trucks to avoid needing a large kitchen, greater involvement with the local community, and additional road signage. 

In response to a question about what impact the closure of the George and Dragon had on the Horse and Harrow’s viability, the planning officer responded that it had little weight. Also, on a question about if the viability referred to lack of car parking, the planning officer confirmed that was the case and that the previous pub company sold the car park land which had since been developed into additional housing. However, he emphasised that the committee needed to examine the pub at its current point.

The planning officer read out the reasons for the refusal for the previous application and the committee agreed that the situation had not materially changed between that point and the current committee meeting. 

Specifically, the committee noted that there were 11 pubs in the area that were successful, and with the right investment, they believed the Horse and Harrow could be too. From the site visit, members noted that the pub was in a state of physical disrepair and agreed that the previous investment that had been put into the property was not done appropriately. In addition, it was highlighted that the pub was near to several rambling paths and a busy road, the main link road from Didcot to Harwell, and could be a focus point of passing trade.

The committee also took issue that the pub was not marketed and if it was turned into housing, that West Hagbourne would lose its only community facility.

As members were not convinced that the updated viability assessment addressed the issues that the council had raised in their previous refusal, they agreed that the application should be refused.

A motion, moved and seconded, to refuse the application was unanimously carried on being put to the vote. 

RESOLVED: to refuse planning application P23/S2135/FUL for the following reasons:

The Horse and Harrow public house is considered to be essential to the village, being the only community facility in West Hagbourne and one which fosters the engagement and involvement of the local community, as well as providing jobs for local people and local suppliers. The applicant has failed to explore other alternative uses which could run alongside the pub such as a village shop, nor has there been an attempt to market the premises. The Horse and Harrow has suffered from an historic lack of investment which, in turn, has deterred people from visiting the premises. With investment the public house could be economically viable in the future.

As such the proposed change of use of the public house would be contrary to policy CF1 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2035 which seeks to safeguard existing community facilities and paragraphs 88 (d) and 93 (c) and (d) of the NPPF.