Agenda item

Retrospective change of use from agricultural and extension of commercial curtilage (Class E(b)) with retention of car parking, toilet facilities, covered canopy and decking area + associated works.

Public Participation

Peter Gallagher spoke on behalf of the local ramblers in objection to the application.

Jason Bayliffe spoke in support of the application.

Stuart Hinson spoke on behalf of Adrian Smith in support of the application.

John Bell spoke in support of the application.

Rupert Pearce spoke on behalf of Broad Town Parish Council.

The Senior Planning Officer, Raymond Cole presented a report which outlined the proposal from Broadtown Brewery Ltd for a retrospective change of use from agricultural and extension of commercial curtilage (Class E(b)) with retention of car parking, toilet facilities, covered canopy and decking area, plus associated works. The Senior Planning Officer noted that as this application was the subject of an ongoing non-determination appeal being overseen by a Planning Inspector, the Committee were being asked to vote on what they would have decided had the application come to them within the time.

Details were provided of the site and issues raised by the proposals, including the urbanisation of the open countryside and the visual intrusion of the locality, as well as the potential harm to the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties. Additionally, details were provided about the previously undertaken noise assessment and the inclusion of an acoustic fence in the application. Reference was also made to the proposed business hours and to the suitability of the proposed car parking arrangements.

Members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask technical questions regarding the application. Details were sought on the acoustic fence, with public protection supporting the application because of it and the landscape officer objecting because of it. Councillors also sought further detail on the history of applications from the applicant and the nature of their unauthorised works. Councillors queried the difficult balancing act of the harm caused by the bund and acoustic fence and the merit of providing Broad Town with potentially its only community hub. The Senior Planning Officer explained for Councillors that the site is outside the AONB and that they received no comment from the board. The road adjacent to the site was the subject of several questions on account of it being a national speed limit road with little room for pedestrians. As such, Councillors asked about the viability of a potential speed reduction as a condition or whether such a matter would need to be resolved at Area Board level. Questions were asked of the nature of the site during the off-season, as well as the fairness of the Council being taken to appeal. Lastly, Councillors sought clarification on how busy the site might be considering its recent growth compared to several local pubs closing, whether any limits on crowds were in place, and whether licencing issues were foreseeable in the future.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the Committee as detailed above.

The Senior Planning Officer referred to Core Policy 52 as a possible further reason for refusal considering the impact on green infrastructure. Alternatively, he recommended the use of an informative to secure a diversion of the public right of way should they be minded to approve the application.

The Local Unitary Member, Councillor David Bowler, then spoke regarding the application. Councillor Bowler raised the point that the applicant had sought to eradicate the concerns raised after their initial application was refused. On the possibility of urbanisation in the area, Councillor Bowler stated that this application was different to the first as there were no live music events forecast to reduce noise concerns. The Councillor noted the complexity of having the two applications for the ‘hop gardens’ and the ‘hop chapel’ with individual licencing applications and capacity limits for both. He spoke to the concerns raised by the Highways team and stated that there were undeniably issues surrounding access and increased traffic flow from Broad Town and the surrounding towns and villages, and concluded by advising the Committee that simply because no objectors had come forward did not mean they did not exist. 

At the start of the debate a motion to refuse the officer’s recommendation was moved by Councillor Steve Bucknell and seconded by Councillor Nic Puntis, with authority delegated to the Head of Development Management to grant planning permission subject to appropriate conditions to be prepared by officers.

Legal Officer Stephen James clarified that the appeal was likely to fall away should approval be granted by the Committee.

Councillor Bucknell stated that the applicant had developed a commercially successful community space without waiting for authorisation, had subsequently built on that success, and in doing so had created an important community facility. He put it to the Committee that the Council should support local businesses and community hubs and posited that the highways concerns, while valid, would not necessarily manifest into real issues. He stated that these highways concerns were seemingly acceptable in many pub cases, and so should be in this case as well. Indeed, the Councillor suggested that its situation besides a well-travelled road could stand it in good stead financially. He concluded by stating that there were inadequate grounds to refuse permission.

Councillor Puntis concurred with Councillor Bucknell and referred to an onus on a planning committee to consider the balancing act between community benefit and harm. He referred to the ambivalent view given by the Officer on highways concerns and suggested that the issue was not necessarily a significant one.

Several Councillors voiced opposition to the nature of the applicant’s retrospective application and non-determination appeal, and although Councillor Lay agreed, she also pointed out that it meant the applicants could clearly evidence the viability of their proposal.

Councillors agreed that further urbanisation was inevitable and advised that a neighbourhood plan could help Broad Town as a community dictate how it wants itself to develop. Councillor Grant referred to a reality check in action regarding a changing landscape in rural communities and a renewed importance in new businesses. Councillor Grant was complimentary of the applicant’s obvious business acumen and suggested it was important to recognise the requirement for diversification to maintain a vibrant atmosphere in rural communities with employment and social opportunity. He also noted the undeniable issues with the footpath and the road, echoing Councillor Lay’s earlier point. Councillor Berry shared Councillor Grant’s praise for the applicant but reiterated his disapproval towards the applicant’s approach and towards the Parish Councillor’s criticism of the Council, but also voiced a willingness to support the motion and a forgiveness of the applicant’s perceived transgressions. Councillor Threlfall voiced her optimism(?) towards the application and Councillor Greenman voiced his support of the motion as well as the importance of an informative to ensure the diversion of the public footpath. Councillors Bucknell and Puntis accepted Councillor Greenman’s friendly amendment regarding the inclusion of a condition for diverting the footpath, and Councillor Grant requested that the Committee’s concerns surrounding the speed of the road be duly noted. The Senior Planning Officer suggested a series of conditions and informatives for the resolution, and Councillor Threlfall further noted her concerns on light pollution on account of the nearby AONB. Councillor Berry noted that an appeal was unlikely to have succeeded, and Councillor Puntis was insistent that the applicant followed the listed planning conditions to the letter and avoid any possible enforcement action. 

Resolved:

That Planning Permission be GRANTED, with authority delegated to the Head of Development Management to grant planning permission subject to appropriate conditions to be prepared by officers.