Agenda item

Peacock Inn, Main St, Redmile

	Applicant:	Mr M Mitchell
	Location:	The Peacock Inn 22 Main Street Redmile NG13 0GA
	Proposal:	Change of use and alterations (including demolition of rear extensions) of public house/restaurant to form 4 dwellings and erection of 2 dwellings.

 

(a)  The Conservation Officer (TE) stated that: The application is presented following submission of a development appraisal by the applicant which demonstrates the need to provide 2 dwellings on the site. The scheme was previously deferred because the committee wished to see a revision in the design of the new build houses and a revised highway arrangement. The design of the new dwellings was revised to a more traditional scheme and the highways arrangements were unaltered.

 

Additionally, the suitability of the building as an asset of local community value was presented and it was agreed by the development control team that the building did not have life as a pub in the future, this was proved by the fact that the property was on the market for three years without any purchaser. It was later sold as a pub but with the potential for residential conversion.

 

(b)  Roger Smith, on behalf of the Parish Council, was invited to speak and stated that:

 

·         Deferred previously to allow for a redesign of the site – Fewer number, a single building adjacent to the canal and more parking provision. Also consider if the dwelling can be relocated further from the canal and the traditional approach to the design. They have only changed the appearance of the design. The footprint of the application is the same.

·         Revision – 1 new dwelling at the rear of the building resulting in 5 new dwellings overall.

·         4 dwellings created through the change of use reflects just 1.6% return on the applicant’s investment.

·         6 new dwellings – 4 created through the change of use and 2 new dwellings reflecting a larger profit of 7.18% which is still considered low in commercial development terms.

·         Building will remain empty if not approved and at risk for the foreseeable future. Sounds like blackmail to the parish that the planning committee must accept this application.

·         Parish has no objection to 1 new dwelling being built along the canal as a compromise.

·         2 new dwellings would not be in keeping with the conservation area of the village.

·         Problems with car parking on the main street and this would add further.

·         Do not want over intensity of the site.

 

The Chair noted that Members don’t feel blackmailed.

 

(c)  Ian Lowther, on behalf of the objectors, was invited to speak and stated that:

 

·         Owns 3 properties adjacent to the site. 2 of them (1 of which is listed) share a boundary with the Peacock car park. 1 overlooks the old building.

·         Unhappy wasn’t made aware of the new application or committee meeting.

·         Under the impression that the proposal had been moved closer to my properties which I would have objected to, but this is not the case.

·         Only change is the design. Contemporary would have made a stunning contrast and been a statement building. Would have enhanced the area.

·         Now going to be traditional. Should contrast not copy.

·         Redmile already has a couple of contemporary builds.

·         Needs to be commercially viable.

·         Actually now speaking in support.

 

(d)  Mike Sibthorp, agent on behalf of the applicant, was invited to speak and stated that:

 

·         Responded to and addressed the committees concerns.

·         Presented detailed financial costings which has demonstrated that it is necessary to include 2 dwellings.

·         Costings approved. 1 dwelling would not be viable.

·         Revised design of the two dwellings to be traditional. Reflects local vernacular.

·         Revised overall layout to add additional car parking. Total number now 15.

·         Heritage benefits and enhance conservation character.

·         Public house has been out of use for many years and no prospect of it reopening. Not an asset of community value as there is another pub already open in the village. No community loss.

 

Cllr Rhodes asked if they had narrowed the car parking spaces to enable them to make more.

 

Mr Sibthorp responded that they had previously worked on the basis of 2 spaces per unit with the larger units having more. A concern was raised so we have revised it. There was already space within the site that was not utilised so used that.

 

Cllr Higgins asked for clarification regarding the year declared as non community asset.

 

Mr Sibthorp responded that it was in May last year, shortly before the application was submitted.

 

Cllr Higgins asked if the property was marketed and sold as a pub or building development opportunity.

 

Mr Sibthorp stated it was purchased as seen, which was as a pub.

 

Cllr Higgins asked if  the opportunity was ever explored.

 

Mr Sibthorp stated that it was marketed as a public house but never sold.

 

Cllr Baguley proposed approval of the application and commented that the  applicant had done their best to address all concerns. It is not ideal but neither is the state of the listed building. It needs to be returned to its former glory. It’s a shame about the 5 parking spaces at the front and losing a little bit of garden.

 

Cllr Cumbers seconded the proposal and commented that it is sad to lose a pub but at least there is another one in the village. Glad the zinc roofs have gone. There has to be a compromise and this is better than what we have seen before.

 

Cllr Rhodes commented that he was previously in favour of refusing the application. Aware the Parish Council still has concerns. However  he was taken back by Mr Lowther’s presentation as he had also thought he was an objector. Believe it would be better with only 1 house but the other side of the argument is that the developer may walk away and it would fall into further disrepair.

 

A Member raised concerns regarding red bricks being built on red soil. Felt it should be built in stone so it would mellow in to the area. 1 dwelling would also have been better.

 

The conservation officer responded that there is brick in the village as well as ironstone. Strict conditions regarding material specifications.

 

A Member commented that there are already brick buildings at the back and the stone building will be in front so they won’t be seen. As long as they look good and no concrete pantiles on the roof.

 

A Member commented that the Council should assist public houses in trouble. Should be more positive about assets of community value and find a way to help them. Applicant purchased as a pub but not tried to see if it is viable. Land banking in terms of public houses. However in terms of this application the asset and heritage asset is essential. Thank the applicant for taking it on and taking the risk of minimal profit which may even become a loss if there are difficulties in the development.

 

A Member commented that it is appropriate to have brick there.

 

A vote was taken. The Members voted unanimously to permit.

DETERMINATION: PERMIT: Planning permission and Listed Building Consent granted subject to the  conditions as set out in the report, for the following reasons:

It is considered that the issue of new residential development in a sensitive location within the Redmile Conservation Area requires good quality contemporary design, to ensure there is limited impact and harm to the character of the Conservation Area and the legibility of the listed building. It is considered that, on the balance of the issues, the benefits in the restoration of a heritage asset at risk outweighs the harm to the loss of historic fabric and the creation of new dwellings in a rural location. Applying the ‘test’ required by the NPPF that permission should be granted unless the impacts would “significantly and demonstrably” outweigh the benefits; it is considered that on the balance of the issues, permission should be permitted.