Agenda item

The John Dory, 2 Rutland Square, Barkestone-Le Vale

Applicant:     Mr Mike Timson

 

Location:      The John Dory, 2 Rutland Square, Barkestone Le Vale

 

Proposal:      Conversion of former public house/restaurant/living accommodation into two dwellings

 

 (a)      The Planning Officer (JL) stated that:

 

Late Items

Committee members have been provided a copy of a time line produced by the BHG group and an email from the Applicant, both stating the current situation (as they see it) in relation to the offer on the property.

The applicant has stated the following:

Offer was received on 8^th Jan, included 160k purchase price and an agreement of an overage clause of up to 100k.

Offer was accepted (and still acceptable) but insufficient proof of funding was provided.

After this the applicant requested a 10k non-refundable deposit, payable to solicitor to give confidence that funds were available.

Upon payment of deposit, applicant was happy to issue heads of terms and issue a 6 month exclusive option to buy and completed purchase. Also agreed to withdraw planning application on receipt of deposit.

This has now been withdrawn from BHG and replaced with a new offer, void of overage agreement, with no offer of non-refundable 10k deposit and no proof of funding. In addition to this, a lease option has also been on offer to the BHG.

Since the previous meeting, there has not been any further progress in relation to the sale or lease of the property. Whilst a sale price has been agreed, there is still an outstanding issue in relation to the proposed overage agreement. This is proposed to be of a monetary value of 100k, to be paid 6 months after the grant of permission for the change of use of the property (other than to use classes A1, A2, A3 and A4).

An ACV was placed on the property on 22^nd January, and this can be considered as a material consideration, however it is for the Committee to determine the weight that they give this.

The property has been closed as a public house since October 2016 and for sale in March 2017.

(b)       Cllr Steve Jackson, on behalf of Barkestone, Plungar & Redmile Parish Council, was invited to speak and stated that:

• Residents want to build abetter future and it is a strong community.
• The local hub group are trying to raise funds to buy it and residents are putting their own money in.
• On the market at an inflated price.
• Not a genuine attempt to sell as a pub.
• Any efforts to find an agreement have been batted away.
• The vacant building could fall in to disrepair.
• The houses are not needed.

 

A Member asked if they had had a full survey.

Cllr Jackson confirmed he didn’t know the answer.

 

(c)        Mr Steve Exwood (Barkestone Hub Group), on behalf of the objectors, was invited to speak and stated that:

• The group was formed 2 years ago.
• Want to create a sustainable hub using a well tested model.
• Community to buy the building. In a strong position and they can complete.
• Marketed at an inflated rate.
• We have offered to pay substantial deposit. Villagers will financially support.
• Community asset buildings.
• It is an isolated community.
•  

Members asked if there would be a profit from this and also if there was going to be a village hall built as well. They understood that there was money towards a village hall in a trust fund.

 

Mr Exwood responded that they are not seeking to make a profit from this and that the hub would be different to a village hall as it would also be a shop and a pub. The trust has offered to lend us £95,000 toward this venture.

 

A Member noted that the  trust fund was a charity and would be subject to charity law and asked if they had had a survey of the building.

 

Mr Exwood responded that there are three funding streams and they had offers in writing and that they only needed two of these to go ahead. Offers of investment from the people of the village, the Plunket fund and the trust fund. We’ve had a valuation of the property and two people have looked at the building for us.

 

A Member asked for groups expectations on completion.

 

Mr Exwood replied 4 months.

 

The Chair advised Members that Meetings are allocated 3 hours and they were approaching 9pm and that a vote would need to be taken to continue beyond this time. The Members present voted unanimously to continue to 9.30pm and then review again at this time.

 

(d)       Matt Timpson, the applicant, was invited to speak and stated that:

 

• Trying to re-establish the use of a building that has no future.
• Need to deliver more housing.
• Loss of a community is valid but they need to save the building.
• £¼ million being held for a building for the community.
• Withdrawn due to concerns regarding long term viability.
• Offered to lease the building. No proof of funding.
• Change of use permissions.
• Remove exposure to disrepair.
• 12 month marketing. Viability test document. Not viable as a pub.
• Limited foot print and parking.

 

There was a discussion regarding the marketing price.

 

(e)       Cllr Rhodes, Ward Councillor for Long Clawson & Stathern, was invited to speak and stated that:

 

• There is a dispute over the value of the property and its suitability.
• There is a clear wish to have a community facility and this building is the only one available.
• 2 dwellings is over intensification.
• Treat this as a planning application and refuse it.

 

The Planning Officer (JL) noted that when marketed, lease hold offers were invited. The appeal was dismissed by the inspector as there was insufficient marketing and due to viability . With regards to car parking there is no highway objection. With the application for a conversion it would not significantly increase parking or vehicular movement.

 

A Member asked for the number of bedroom per dwelling and how many parking spaces.

 

Mr Timpson responded that one would be a 3 bedroomed cottage and the other a 2 bedroomed flat. There would be one parking space per dwelling.

 

A Member asked if the hub group would need to put in a change of use application.

 

The Planning Officer (JL) noted that the drawings show two 2 bed properties. It would become an asset of community value which removes permitted development rights so they would need a change of use application if it were to change from a pub.

 

Some Members raised concerns regarding parking for residents or visitors to a community hub.

 

Some Members felt that parking wouldn’t be an issue if it were a community hub as local people would walk there.

 

A Member noted that due to the time the meeting shouldn’t continue.

 

Cllr Posnett proposed to refuse the application due to over intensification and an unsustainable location.

 

Cllr Glancy seconded the proposal.

 

A vote was taken. 7 Members voted in favour of refusal and 1 Member voted against refusal. There were 2 abstentions. Cllr Cumbers asked for her vote against refusal to be recorded.

 

Cllr Holmes left the meeting at 9.22pm.

 

Cllr Baguley returned to the meeting at 9.22pm.

           

Determination: REFUSE for the following reasons:

1.         In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the proposed development is considered to represent the over development of the site. It is considered that the proposed development would be harmful to the character of the village. The proposal is considered contrary to Section 7 of the NPPF 'Requiring Good Design', Policies OS1 and BE1 of the Adopted Melton Local Plan 1999.

 2.        The proposed development would result in the loss of a valuable community facility for residents of Barkestone Le Vale, to the detriment of the life of the community, contrary to saved Policy CF4 of the Adopted Melton Local Plan 1999, Policy C7 of the draft Melton Local Plan (Submission version) and Paragraphs 28 and 70 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 3.        In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposal would, if approved, result in residential development in an unsustainable location. The development in an unsustainable village location where there are limited local amenities, facilities and jobs and where future residents are likely to depend on the use of the car, contrary to the advice contained in NPPF in promoting sustainable development. It is considered that there is insufficient reason to depart from the guidance given in the NPPF on sustainable development in this location and would therefore be contrary to the "core planning principles contained" within Para 17 of the NPPF.

 

Cllr Holmes returned to the meeting at 9.24pm