Demolition of The Suffolk Punch Public House and clearing of the site including the car park and associated works. Parish: Bradwell Parish Council

Transcription

1 APP 01 Application Number: 15/01914/FUL Demolition of The Suffolk Punch Public House and clearing of the site including the car park and associated works. AT The Suffolk Punch, 1 Langcliffe Drive, Heelands FOR Mr Bob Goss Target: 29 th September 2015 Ward: Bradwell Parish: Bradwell Parish Council Report Author/Case Officer: Adam Smith Contact Details: adam.smith@milton-keynes.gov.uk Team Leader: Nicola Wheatcroft Joint Team Leader Strategic Applications Team Contact Details: nicola.wheatcroft@milton-keynes.gov.uk 1.0 INTRODUCTION (A brief explanation of what the application is about) 1.1 The main section of the report set out below draws together the core issues in relation to the application including policy and other key material considerations. This is supplemented by an appendix which brings together, planning history, additional matters and summaries of consultees responses and public representations. Full details of the application, including plans, supplementary documents, consultee responses and public representations are available on the Council s Public Access system All matters have been taken into account in writing this report and recommendation. 1.2 The Site The application site is located to the eastern side of Heelands and is bound by Saxon Street (V7) to the northeast, East Dales (the access road to the V7 to the northwest) and Langcliffe drive to the southwest. St Augustine s Church lies to the southeast of the site. 1.3 The public house building consists of a two storey building with a hipped roof and is located in the south east part of the site adjacent to the V7 Saxon Street. The remainder of the southern part of the site is landscaped. The northern half of the site contains two car parking areas with mature landscaping to the periphery and between the two parking areas. Details of the location of the site and its relationship to surrounding properties can be seen in the plans attached to this report. Councillor Bradburn has requested that this application should be determined by a Development Control Panel.

2 1.4 The Proposal This application proposes the demolition of a public house and the clearing of the site including the car park and associated works. No restoration or making good plans have been included as part of this application. Details of the proposed building to be demolished and works to be cleared as described above can be seen in the plans appended to this report. 2.0 RELEVANT POLICIES (The most important policy considerations relating to this application) 2.1 National Policy National Planning Policy Framework (2012) Para 14 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Para 39 Parking Paras 56, 57, 60, 61,63,64 Design Paras 7, 109 and 118 Biodiversity Enhancements Para 69 Crime Para 98 Sustainability Para 103 Flood Risk Para 111 Reuse of Brownfield Land Para 121 Ground Conditions Para 123 Noise 2.2 Local Policy Core Strategy (2013) CS17 Improving access to local services and communities CS19 The Historic and Natural Environment 2.3 Milton Keynes Local Plan C2 Loss of community facility D1 Impact of development proposals on locality NE2 Protected species T10 and T15 Traffic and parking provision 2.4 Supplementary Planning Guidance Parking Standards For Milton Keynes (2005) Addendum to Parking Standards For Milton Keynes (2005) 2.5 Supplementary Planning Document New Residential Development Design Guide 2012

3 3.0 MAIN ISSUES (The issues which have the greatest bearing on the decision) 3.1 The loss of a community facility The proposal is unacceptable in principle and contrary to saved policy C2 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan , policy CS17 of the Core Strategy and advice in the National Planning Policy Framework. 3.2 The implications of the proposal on protected species The applicant has recently submitted a Preliminary Ecology Appraisal and this is currently being assessed by the Countryside Officer. Comments on this Preliminary Ecology Appraisal will be provided in an update paper to the Panel. 4.0 RECOMMENDATION (The decision that officers recommend to the Committee) 4.1 It is recommended that planning permission be refused for the reasons set out at section 6 of this report. 5.0 CONSIDERATIONS (An explanation of the main issues that have led to the officer Recommendation) 5.1 Loss of a community facility The site is occupied by the Suffolk Punch Public House and is designated on the saved Milton Keynes Local Plan Proposals Map as Commercial Facilities, Local, District and Town Centres and Other Shopping. Whilst noting the Proposals Map designation, the relevant policies to this designation are not deemed to be applicable to the current application. 5.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (2012), Paragraph 70, states that: To deliver the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services the Community needs, planning policies and decision should: - Plan positively for the provision and use of shared space, community facilities (such as local shops, meeting places, sports venues, cultural buildings, public houses and places of worship) and other local facilities to enhance the sustainability of communities and residential environments. - Guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services, particularly where this would reduce the community s ability to meet its dayto-day needs. The National Planning Policy Framework details that a public house is a community facility that should be protected against unnecessary loss, so as to enhance local communities. 5.3 Saved policy C2 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan accords with the National Planning Policy Framework as it seeks to protect against the unjustified loss of existing community facilities. Policy C2 states:

4 Planning permission will be refused for proposals that involve the loss of an existing community facility or the loss of a site allocated for such a purpose, unless: (i) There is no longer a need for the facility for any type of community use, or (ii) An acceptable alternative facility can be provided elsewhere. 5.4 Saved policy CS17 of the Core Strategy reinforces saved policy CS2, stating that the Council will increase access local services and facilities by: Seeking alternative community uses for community facilities that are no longer required for their current use. 5.5 This application is for the demolition of the public house and no alternative community facility is being proposed. The development would results in the loss of a community facility and the onus is on the applicant to provide a justification that there is no longer a need for a facility of any type of community use. The most robust approach for an applicant to demonstrate that a site is no longer required for an existing or other community use is through a sustained and comprehensive marketing exercise. The current application has not been accompanied by any supporting information. 5.6 Whilst no information has been submitted by the applicant in support of the proposal, some 32 letters have been received from third parties objecting to the demolition of the public house. In addition, a local ward Councillor and a Parish Councillor have also objected to the loss of the community facility and the site has been registered as an Asset of Community Value. These representations and the inclusion of the site on the Council s List of Assets of Community Value therefore provide a clear indication that this site is a valued community facility. 5.7 In terms of the inclusion of the site on the Council s List of Asset of Community Value, this runs for a period of 5 years, which in this instance expires in February 2018, and prevents the public house on the site being demolished under permitted development rights via the prior approval procedure (Class B, Part 11, Schedule 2 of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015). In addition, it provides an opportunity for community groups to develop a proposal and raise the required capital to bid for the property with a six week moratorium period that can be extended to six months during which the asset cannot be sold or let other than to a community group (there are some exceptions in the Localism Act 2011). The third party representations refer to a community bid and, although it is unclear whether this was submitted in accordance with guidance set out in the Localism Act, 2011 the existence of proposals for the site from a community group provides evidence that there is potential for other community uses on the site. Further, it should be noted that the expiration of the moratorium on the sale of the site to non-community groups due to its inclusion within the list of Assets of Community Value does not override the planning policy requirements to justify the loss of a community facility.

5 5.8 To conclude on community facilities, the proposed demolition would result in the unjustified loss of a community facility. The proposal is objectionable in principle and contrary to saved policy C2 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan , policy CS17 of the Core Strategy and advice in the National Planning Policy Framework. 5.9 Protected Species The National Planning Policy Framework (2012) details in paragraph 113 that Local Planning Authorities should set criteria based policies for development affecting protected wildlife and sets out in paragraph 118 that planning decisions should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity. Local Plan Policy NE2 is in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and details that: Planning permission will be refused for development if it would be likely to adversely affect animal or plant species, or their habitat, specifically protected by law. Where necessary, planning conditions will be attached to permissions to require the developer to take steps to secure the protection of the species or habitat affected by development The Countryside Officer indicates that, given the habitats on the site, there is reasonable likelihood of protected species being present and affected by development including bats, grass snakes and grass snakes and has requested an Extended Phase One Survey. Without adequate survey information it is not possible for the Local Planning Authority to ascertain the presence or otherwise of protected species and the extent that they may be affected by the proposal The applicant has recently submitted a Preliminary Ecology Appraisal and this is currently being assessed by the Council s Countryside Officer. Comments on this Preliminary Ecology Appraisal will be provided in an update paper to the Panel It is recommended that planning permission be refused for the reasons set out at section 6 of this report. 6.0 REASONS (The reasons that officers recommend that the application should be refused. The reasons must be ones that the Council can demonstrate with evidence, should the applicant appeal against the refusal.) The proposed demolition would result in the loss of a public house which is a community facility. No alternative community facility is provided as part of the proposal and it has not been demonstrated that that there is no longer a need for the facility for any type of community use. The proposal would result in the unjustified loss of a community facility. The proposed demolition would be contrary to saved policy C2 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan , Policy CS17 of the Milton Keynes Core Strategy (2013) and the guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

6

7

8 Appendix to 15/01914/FUL A1.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY (A brief outline of previous planning decisions affecting the site this may not include every planning application relating to this site, only those that have a bearing on this particular case) A1.1 None. A2.0 ADDITIONAL MATTERS (Matters which were also considered in producing the Recommendation) A2.1 Character and appearance of the area The proposed works do not include any restoration or making good plans following demolition. The site contains a considerable number of trees and the Arboricultural Officer details that these trees are worthy of consideration for retention and should not be cleared as part of the demolition process. Therefore, it is considered that should planning permission be forthcoming, tree protection and landscaping conditions should be imposed on any permission to ensure that the proposal does not result in a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area. A2.2 Residential amenity The Environmental Health Officer raises no objection to the proposed demolition and clearance works and it is considered that the proposal would not have an adverse impact with regard to residential amenities. A2.3 Highway Safety and Parking The comments of residents of Heelands regarding the loss of parking are noted. However, the Highway Engineer raises no objection to the proposal. Further, the use of the car park is directly associated with the public house and not the church and the car park been closed following the closure of the public house. As such its loss as part of this application is not considered to be unacceptable. As such no objections are raised on parking and highway safety grounds.

9 A3.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS (Who has been consulted on the application and the responses received. The following are a brief description of the comments made. The full comments can be read via the Council s web site) Comments A3.1 Parish Bradwell Objects to the above application on the following grounds: 1. The Parish Council is disappointed by this application making no reference to the Suffolk Punch being listed as an asset of community value under the Localism Act. It believes there is a need for a public community asset on this site. 2. The applicant has not advised what is to become of the site if the demolition application is approved; the Council and the community need to know what is planned. 3. The applicant must prove that there is no need for such a community asset on this site, and has failed to do so. 4. Should this application be granted, please can Milton Keynes Council add a rider that the site is of community value and must be preserved as such. 5. There are serious car parking issues at this corner of Langcliffe Drive, Heelands, which is a busy road and a bus route, especially when services take place at the nearby St Augustine's church. Any development which does not include community parking will only exacerbate a difficult situation Officer Response See , A2.1 and A2.3

10 Ward - Bradwell - Cllr Bradburn I have concerns about this application and particularly the loss of the Community Asset with no information in the application as to what will replace it. See , A2.1 Also there is an incorrect date in the application form regarding the last date that the property was used as a public house. It states 18 July 2014 when in fact the public house was trading until December 2014 Countryside Officer The building currently on site is in the early stages of becoming derelict with many damaged and missing roof tiles, these provide along with other access points opportunities for bats to access the building. There is a reasonable likelihood of protected bat species being present in the building and therefore being affected by the proposals. See The site has trees and shrub habitats that will provide nesting habitat for birds. Rough grassland on the site along with broken and dislodged paving slabs and areas of trees and shrubs provide suitable amphibian and reptile habitat. The applicant will need to commission a suitably qualified ecologist to carry out an Extended Phase One Survey, so to establish the presence or absence of protected species and if present, an assessment of the proposed developments

11 impact upon them and whether a European protected species licence is required. The applicant will need to provide Development Control with a mitigation plan, outlining how the works can proceed, without negatively impacting upon them. In conclusion, the application needs additional information to inform on the presence of protected species and to comply with the requirements of the Local Plan Policy NE2, National Planning Policy Framework, ODPM 05/2006, The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Landscape Services Manager Trees There are a considerable number of trees on site and adjacent to the site which are worthy of consideration for retention and inclusion in future site use and layout. These trees must not be cleared as part of the demolition process. They must be protected and retained in accordance with BS 5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction Recommendations, so that in the design and layout for future site use and during the planning process, account can be taken of the trees retaining them where possible, to be an asset and benefit to the new development. See A2.1 In particular removal of foundations, services and hard surfacing within the rooting areas of adjacent trees will be carried out with sufficient care to avoid serious damage to the root protection areas.

12 Environmental Health Manager No objection. Highways Development Control No objection. See A2.2 See A2.3 Development Plans Manager None received at time of drafting report. Anglian Water None received at time of drafting report. MK Parks Trust None received at time of drafting report. Beds, Bucks And Oxon Wildlife Trust None received at time of drafting report. Local Residents The occupiers of the following properties were notified of the application: 225 Langcliffe Drive Heelands Milton Keynes 224 Langcliffe Drive Heelands Milton Keynes 223 Langcliffe Drive Heelands Milton Keynes 222 Langcliffe Drive Heelands Milton Keynes 6 Langcliffe Drive Heelands Milton Keynes

13 7 Langcliffe Drive Heelands Milton Keynes 8 Langcliffe Drive Heelands Milton Keynes 9 Langcliffe Drive Heelands Milton Keynes 10 Langcliffe Drive Heelands Milton Keynes 11 Langcliffe Drive Heelands Milton Keynes 12 Langcliffe Drive Heelands Milton Keynes 13 Langcliffe Drive Heelands Milton Keynes 14 Langcliffe Drive Heelands Milton Keynes 1 East Dales Heelands Milton Keynes 2 East Dales Heelands Milton Keynes 3 East Dales Heelands Milton Keynes 4 East Dales Heelands Milton Keynes 13 East Dales Heelands Milton Keynes 227 Langcliffe Drive Heelands Milton Keynes 226 Langcliffe Drive Heelands Milton Keynes Ground Floor Beech House Breckland First Floor Beech House Breckland Beech House Breckland Linford Wood Avalon House Breckland Linford Wood St Augustines Rc Church Langcliffe Drive Heelands St Augustines Presbytery St Augustines Rc Church Langcliffe Drive A site notice was also posted at the site. 32 letters have been received (from occupiers of 29 different properties) all of which object to the application. The issues raised include the following: - This is a vital community asset and the only public house in the Heelands City Square and as such needs to be retained and supported. - There is no other public house in the locality within a See and A2.3

14 reasonable walking distance and the opportunity for older residents for example to socialise has been lost since its closure. - The Suffolk Punch was the heart of the community and it has been ripped out since its closure. - The Suffolk Punch is more than just a public house, it is a community meeting place and plays an integral part in the lives of family s in Heelands.. - The Public House has been wilfully allowed to fall into disrepair in order to allow it to be demolished and the site redeveloped for housing. It has been run as a successful business in the past and the recent slump in trade is down to poor management. - The land should be used for community purposes. - The building was provided as part of the social fabric of the area. - Whilst it is appreciated that the Parks Trust is a charity and must make the most of its resources, this should not be at the expense of the needs and concerns of local residents. The withdrawal of a community asset is contrary to the Parks Trust own aims and ethos. - St Augustine's Church s car park is far too small for the congregation and Church goers used to use the public house car park as an overflow. There are huge parking problems at the moment caused since the Suffolk Punch closed. - This site has been registered as an Asset of Community Value and a bid had been put in to the Parks Trust by Sievemk Gateway, a local community based company, for a community hall including a headquarters for the charity and licenced residents club, affordable housing and a car park to share with the church. This bid has

15 however been rejected by the Parks Trust with a residential development chosen. - A new housing development on the site would exacerbate the existing parking issues in the area and put too much strain on infrastructure.