The Committee considered an application (22/00040/PIP) for permission in principle for the redevelopment of the former public house for between 7no and up to 9no dwellinghouses (Use Class C3) at The Crown and Thistle, 132 Old Road, Headington.

The Planning Officer gave a presentation and highlighted the following:

·        Following publication of the officer report, an additional representation had been received which had raised objection to the application on the grounds that the proposal did not meet the requirements of the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement. The Planning Officer advised that the application had been advertised in accordance with the Council’s policies and the requirements of the Development Management Procedure Order (2015).  The representation did not change the considerations of planning officers as set out in the report.

·        The building was in an extremely poor state of repair and had not operated as a public house since its closure in 2011. Externally, the garden was in a dilapidated state and overgrown, and the associated buildings were in various states of disrepair.  There was also evidence of anti-social behaviour on the site. However, the dwelling at first and second floor level of the building remained in use.  The building was included on the Oxford Heritage Asset Register (OHAR).

·        The application site did not include the entirety of the curtilage of the pub, but only the pub itself and a small area of land surrounding it.

·        The application was for permission in principle.  Therefore, the Council could only consider matters relating to the location of the development, the proposed land use, and the amount of development being proposed. The application sought the redevelopment of the site for between 7 and 9 dwellings whilst retaining the pub building.  No additional details were required nor had been supplied by the applicant.

·        Officers considered that the amount of development was appropriate.  Retention of the pub building, which had a floor space of 268m², was proposed and officers considered that at least seven flats with a minimum floor space of 37m² could be accommodated. Officers also considered that the proposal was acceptable in terms of design, heritage and neighbourliness, as well as its location.  The site was in a sustainable location in an existing residential area, which would therefore be suitable for the conversion of the public house to dwellings.

·        However, officers did not consider that the proposal was acceptable in terms of the proposed land use, due to the loss of an existing public house which was contrary to Policy V6.  Policy V6 included three criteria where the loss of a public house would be accepted.  These were set out in the Policy and further clarified in the associated Technical Advice Note (TAN).

·        The first criteria related to a requirement for a marketing statement detailing the agents which had been used, the amount of time on the market, and the advertised price. Officers considered that this criteria had not been met as the site had not been marketed on a freehold basis.  This was considered to be a serious omission which limited the usefulness of the marketing exercises which had taken place.

·        The second criteria was viability, specifically in terms of the business model of the pub, and whether measures could be made to improve its operation and allow its continued use.  Officers considered that this had not been demonstrated as the pub had not reopened since its acquisition by the applicant, using either the previous or a revised business model. Officers had also received independent expert advice that a business model based on a traditional co-habitant team could potentially operate successfully from the site.

·        The final criteria related to ensuring that adequate alternative facilities existed which could continue to meet the needs of local patrons were the existing pub use to be lost. The applicant had submitted evidence which suggested that sufficient alternative public houses existed in the wider Headington and Wood Farm area which could meet this requirement. Officers considered that the identified pubs offered a good range of services; however, on balance were of the view that this criteria had also not been met since there were no other pubs on the Wood Farm estate, a sizeable suburb of 6,500 residents, and the alternative identified pubs were not within easy walking distance.

·        In summary, officers considered that the proposal did not meet any of the three tests set out in Policy V6.  However, there were material planning considerations which outweighed this consideration which would justify a departure from the development plan in this instance, as detailed in the officer report. The principal reason was the extent of the dilapidation of the site.  Advice from an independent expert witness indicated that investment to bring the site back into use as a public house would be very high risk, and prospective publicans would be unlikely to want to take it on.  Additionally refusal of the application, leading to the likely continued vacancy of the site and continuing erosion of the value of the locally listed building, was a material consideration.

Simran Gill, the applicant, spoke in favour of the application.

The Committee’s discussions included, but were not limited to, the following:

·       Significant investment would be required to refurbish the property to a level where it could resume trading as a pub.  This was unlikely to prove financially viable for leasehold purchasers, unless the lease were of sufficient length to allow for costs to be recovered and was offered at an acceptable price.  Marketing on a freehold basis should therefore be explored;

·       The trading environment for the hospitality industry remained challenging, and cost of living pressures and fuel inflation had had further impacts recently;

·       The failure to comply with Policy V6 was significant, and the marketing evidence was not sufficient to justify the conflict;

·       There was a danger of setting a precedent which might encourage property owners to purposely allow an asset to degrade in order to be able to secure a change of use.

A proposal to approve the application as set out in the report was moved and seconded.  On being put to the vote the motion fell.

A proposal to refuse the application for the reasons shown below was moved and seconded.  On being put to the vote the Committee resolved to refuse the application.

The proposed change of use of the site from a public house to dwellings would fail to accord with the requirements of Policy V6 of the Oxford Local Plan 2036 as it has not been adequately demonstrated that all reasonable efforts have been made to market the premises for its existing use as a public house. Furthermore it has not been adequately demonstrated that all reasonable efforts have been made to support and improve the operation and management of the business in order to allow the site to continue to operate in its existing lawful use as a public house. There are also not adequate alternative public houses within the vicinity of the application site that would meet the needs of the local community that the existing use of the site as a public house could currently accommodate. The proposal would therefore fail to accord with Policy V6 of the Oxford Local Plan 2036 and paragraph 84 of the NPPF.

The Oxford City Planning Committee resolved to:

1.    Refuse the application for the following reasons:

The proposed change of use of the site from a public house to dwellings would fail to accord with the requirements of Policy V6 of the Oxford Local Plan 2036 as it has not been adequately demonstrated that all reasonable efforts have been made to market the premises for its existing use as a public house. Furthermore it has not been adequately demonstrated that all reasonable efforts have been made to support and improve the operation and management of the business in order to allow the site to continue to operate in its existing lawful use as a public house. There are also not adequate alternative public houses within the vicinity of the application site that would meet the needs of the local community that the existing use of the site as a public house could currently accommodate. The proposal would therefore fail to accord with Policy V6 of the Oxford Local Plan 2036 and paragraph 84 of the NPPF.