Agenda item

Application: 2022/0852/OUT

Location: Royal Oak Inn, Main Road, Hirst Courtney

Proposal: Outline application with all matters reserved for erection of up to 7 dwellings.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the application which had been brought before the Planning Committee at the request of the Ward Councillor, on the following grounds: That the site of the former public house had been disused for a lot of years and was an eyesore for the village, which needed addressing; and, that there was a public house close by and the application would much improve the character and appearance of the village.

Members noted that it was an outline application with all matters reserved for erection of up to 7 dwellings.

The Committee considered the Officer Update Note which included additional relevant historical information, including the previous use of the outbuilding in the car park of the Royal Oak Inn and past planning applications relating to it. The comments from the Planning Inspector were detailed in the Officer Update Note.

The Committee asked questions of the Senior Planning Officer about how the application differed to the previous application for the site, and whether the site could be developed in a way that would overcome the current reasons given for refusal.

The Senior Planning Officer answered that 2022/0852/OUT was for 7 dwellings rather than 9, and the site was approximately 20% smaller and no longer extended past the car park. The Senior Planning Officer stated that the issue regarding the loss of the community facility would need to be dealt with first, but that the plans were indicative. This meant that if the application was altered to stay within the Development Limits using the frontage of the site, then reasons for refusal could be overcome in principle subject to other details. The Senior Planning Officer also confirmed that the Development Limits were detailed in the report and were restricted to the frontage of the site and did not include all previously developed land including the building in the car park. Conversion of the building in the car park had been approved in 2015 but would need to be re-examined to determine whether its development was still within policy.

Members noted that one of the reasons for refusal was the insufficient marketing of the Royal Oak Inn prior to submitting the application and asked if there had been any new evidence submitted.

The Planning Project Officer confirmed that there had been some evidence of marketing submitted but a higher level of detail was expected to justify the application, such as records of the type of marketing used, the level of interest received and justification of the asking price.

The Chairman of Hirst Courtney Parish, Councillor Russell Wagstaff, was in attendance at the meeting and spoke in favour of the application.

Planning Agent Sam Dewar was in attendance and spoke in favour of the application.

Members debated the application further noting the reduction in size of the site from the previous application in line with Members’ previous comments meant the site now sat fully on previously developed land. The Committee acknowledged the support from the community for the application and their concerns about the existing building but also stated that the reasons for refusal stand. Members noted the Senior Planning Officer’s statement that insufficient evidence of marketing had been received, that the application was contrary to policies detailed in Section 6 of the report, the loss of community facility and that the application was outside of the distinct linear Development Limits as described by the Planning Inspector.

The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the application did now sit within the limits of previously developed land, but that the National Planning Policy Framework stated that it should not be assumed that the whole curtilage of previously developed land be developed.

Members suggested that seeing the site in the context of its surroundings would inform Members as to the effect of development outside the Development Limits in more detail than the report allowed, and that a site visit was necessary.

It was proposed and seconded that the application be DEFERRED for a site visit; a vote was taken and was carried.

RESOLVED:

That the application be DEFERRED in order for a site visit to be arranged.