That Application DC/20/05586 be refused for the following reasons: 1. The sub-division and loss of part of the beer garden, that is an asset of community value, would likely impact the financial viability and function of the public house by reducing the outdoor dining/drinking area and thereby limiting the number of customers that the public house could serve. This would be detrimental to its valued contribution to the community and local employment. In addition, the development would further enclose the public house leading to potential increased concerns of concentrated noise and disturbance in a decreased beer garden area acting as an unnecessary form of significant restraint on the current business operation and viability. It is considered that the benefits of a single dwelling would not outweigh these material issues. On this basis the proposal is contrary to Policies E6, H17 and the aims of Paragraphs 8, 80 and 92 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019.2. The development:
Ad-Hoc status:Carried
Voting
Vote
Councillors
Count
For
Rachel Eburne, John Field, Matthew Hicks, Sarah Mansel, John Matthissen, Richard Meyer, Dave Muller and Timothy Passmore