Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils
Democratic Services

Mobile menu icon

Agenda item

Minutes:

 

74.1 Item 7d

 

Application               DC/20/05595

Proposal                  Planning Application, Change of Use of mixed C3/Sue Generis drinking establishment use to mixed C3/Class E and replacement of C20 rear extension

Site Location           DEBENHAM – The Angel Inn, 5 High Street, Debenham, Stowmarket Suffolk IP14 6QL

Applicant                 Mrs Stacey Paine

 

74.2 The Case Officer presented the application to the Committee, outlining the application before Members, the location of the site and the Officer recommendation of refusal.

 

74.3 The Case Officer advised Members that an appeal had been lodged by the applicant and is now being decided by the Planning Inspector. The Officer recommendation included putative reasons for refusal.

 

74.4 The Case Officer responded to questions from Members regarding the sequence of events surrounding the appeal and application, whether the   Public House was an Asset of Community Value, and relevant  appeals.

 

74.5 Members considered the representation from Jane Baldwin who spoke on behalf of Debenham Parish Council.

 

74.6 The Parish Council representative responded to questions from members including whether there were any other public houses in the village.

 

74.7 Members considered the representation from Alan Cushion who spoke as an objector.

 

74.8 Members considered the representation from Councillor Kathie Guthrie who spoke as the Ward Member.

 

74.9 Members debated the application on issues including: the value of the public house to the local community, the historical value of the building, the business viability of the public house and the viability of the proposed business use.

 

74.10 Councillor Meyer proposed that the application be refused as detailed in the officer recommendation.

 

74.11 Councillor Stringer seconded the motion.

 

74.12 By a unanimous vote

 

It was RESOLVED:

 

That Members resolve to: REFUSE planning permission, or in the event that the appeal has begun agree putative reasons for refusal, for the following reasons:-

 

1) It is not considered that the applicant has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that there is a sufficient supply of alternative and suitable sites available, or that no suitable and viable alternative employment uses for the entire site can be found or are likely to be found in the foreseeable future. Furthermore, it is not considered that the environmental and sustainability benefits of the proposal would outweigh the loss of the current employment use, and the mix of uses proposed by the applicant would not assist in the urban regeneration of the village or offer greater benefits to the community in meeting local business and employment needs. The proposal is, therefore, considered contrary to Neighbourhood Plan policy DEB 11 in these regards. Furthermore NPPF Paragraph 83 states that planning policies and decisions should enable the retention and development of accessible local services and community facilities, such as public houses. NPPF Paragraph 84 also recognises the need for such sites in rural areas, in locations that are not well served by public transport. Furthermore, Paragraph 92 states that planning policies and decisions should guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services, particularly where this would reduce the community’s ability to meet its day-to-day needs. The proposal is also, therefore, contrary to the provisions of the NPPF, in this regard.

 

2) It is considered that the proposed two-storey extension would appear assertive and incongruous and the proposed glazed lean-to extension would be detrimental to appreciation of the 16 th Century Gallery to the rear of the building and would not, therefore, better reveal its significance. The proposed extensions would, therefore, result in less than substantial harm to the building’s special architectural and historic significance. It is also not considered that statements accompanying the application offer sufficient justification for the harm identified. Furthermore, there are no public benefits associated with the proposed development which would outweigh the harm identified. The proposal is, therefore, considered contrary to development plan policies FC1.1, CS5, HB1, HB3, HB4 and DEB 18, and to NPPF paragraphs 194 and 196 in these regards.

 

 

Supporting documents: