pl190912 – RR/2019/1336/P

APPLICATION ATTRACTING A PETITION

pl190912 – RR/2019/1336/P

Rother District Council

Report to - Planning Committee

Date - 12 September 2019

Report of the - Executive Director

Subject - Application RR/2019/1336/P

Address - The Smuggler Pett Level Road Pett Level

Proposal - Change of use of existing public house (A4) to mixed use comprising Doctor's Surgery (D1) and Cafe (A3). View application/correspondence

RECOMMENDATION: It be RESOLVED: To GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION

Head of Service: Tim Hickling

Applicant: Dr Craig Namvar Agent: Murphy Associates Case Officer: Miss Rebecca Burt

Email: rebecca.burt@rother.gov.uk) Parish: PETT Ward Member(s): Councillor R.K. Bird and A.S. Mier Member referral: Councillor Mier raises concerns in respect of the loss of the community facility and whether the property has been adequately marketed as a public house. Statutory 8 week date: 2 August 2019 Extension of time agreed to: 19 September 2019

This application is included in the Committee site inspection list.

1.0 SUMMMARY

1.1 The Smuggler Pub in Pett was previous brought before the Planning

Committee in respect of the demolition of the Pub and the erection of two dwellings in December 2018. The Officer’s report recommended refusal and the Planning Committee moved the recommendation. This application is from a new applicant who is seeking to occupy the premises as a doctor’s surgery. The Pub has now remained closed for a number of years and the applicant currently occupies a premise in Guestling as a surgery.

pl190912 – RR/2019/1336/P

2.0 SITE 2.1 The Smuggler is a two storey public house with self-contained living

accommodation on the first floor, situated on the south-east side of Pett Level Road to the south-west side of St Nicholas Church and Old Coastguard Cottages. There is a static caravan site adjoining to the south-west and part of the site has access to the sea defences and beach to the south-east. There is a private car parking area on the opposite side of Pett Level Road which is owned by the applicant.

2.2 The public house site is currently set within the Development Boundary for

Pett Level as defined within the 2006 Local Plan; the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and Flood Zone 3. Whilst the public house site falls outside of, it is closely adjoined to the south-east and north-west by the Hastings Cliffs to Pett Beach and Dungeness, Romney Marsh & Rye Bay Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and the Dungeness, Romney Marsh & Rye Bay SPA and Ramsar sites.

2.3 The emerging Development and Site Allocations Document (DaSA)

proposes the removal of the development boundary for Pett Level. This is because of the considerable environmental constraints, particularly the internationally protected Ramsar and Special Protection Area (SPA) and flood risk, which means that Pett Level is not considered as an appropriate or sustainable location to retain a development boundary.

3.0 PROPOSAL 3.1 This application seeks planning permission for the change of use of the

public house to a mixed use, comprising a doctor’s surgery and an on-site café. No external alterations to the building are proposed and the development seeks to retain the existing car park for the pub to be used as parking for the surgery. The car park provides parking for approximately 22 vehicles. Internal works to the ground floor comprises the insertion of partition walls with approximately 60sqm of the internal floor area given over to the A3 use. The remaining approximately 206sqm would accommodate the proposed D1 use including a dispensary/pharmacy, three consultation rooms, shared toilet facilities and a waiting area. The first floor is to remain a self-contained flat which has separate access. The proposal follows from pre-application advice provided to the applicant in respect of the change of use of the public house.

4.0 HISTORY 4.1 RR/2018/2069/P - Demolition of existing public house and erection of two

detached houses and public house with associated car parking – Refused.

5.0 POLICIES 5.1 The following ‘saved’ policies of the adopted Rother District Local Plan 2006

are relevant to the proposal:

pl190912 – RR/2019/1336/P

DS3: Use of development boundaries 5.2 The following policies of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy 2014 are

relevant to the proposal:

OSS4: General development considerations

RA1: Villages

CO1: Community facilities and services

CO2: Provision and improvement of healthcare facilities

CO6: Community safety

EC3: Existing employment sites

EN1: Landscape stewardship

EN3: Design

EN7: Flood risk and development

TR4: Car parking 5.3 The following policies of the emerging Development and Site Allocations

Local Plan (submitted for examination in January 2019) are relevant to the proposal:

DCO1: Retention of sites of social or economic value

DEC3: Existing employment sites and premises

DEN1: Maintaining landscape character

DEN2: The High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)

DIM2: Development boundaries 5.4 The High Weald AONB – Management Plan 2019-2024, together with the

National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) (paragraphs 8, 83, 127 and 155-160) and Planning Policy Guidance are material considerations. All include relevant policies and objectives, particularly with regard to conservation and enhancement of the AONB and restrictions in respect of development in the countryside.

6.0 CONSULTATIONS 6.1 East Sussex County Council – Objection due to insufficient information 6.1.1 ‘It is considered that the proposed development would not result in a

significant increase in trips, and the parking demand is adequately accommodated within the existing car park. Whilst the development is considered acceptable in principle on highways grounds, further detail is required on access for disabled users. As such, I would object to this application on that basis, and I would wish to be re-consulted on this application following the applicant’s response to these comments.’

6.2 Lead Local Flood Authority – No objection 6.2.1 No objection subject to the imposition of conditions. 6.3 Natural England - No Objection

pl190912 – RR/2019/1336/P

6.3.1 ‘Based on the plans submitted, Natural England considers that the proposed development will not have significant adverse impacts on statutorily protected nature conservation sites or landscapes.’

6.4 Environment Agency – No Objection 6.4.1 No objection subject to the imposition of conditions. 6.5 Clinical Commissioning Group – No comments received 6.6 Planning Notice 6.6.1 A petition of objection and 31 letters of objection have been received. The

concerns raised are summarised as follows:

There is no justification to change the use to a doctor’s surgery.

An application in Fairlight contains a doctor’s surgery.

An application for housing may come after the change of use is granted.

Pett is covered by Harold Road Surgery as is Fairlight.

The pub has been unsuccessful because of the former occupiers’ lack of experience and poor food etc.

A realistic price of the pub has not been offered, it has been inflated.

The business can be profitable.

None of the other pubs in the area are close enough for locals.

The new beach club in Pett Level is not a pub, so there is no surplus.

The majority of those who support the application are not in the area.

No financial evidence has been submitted which demonstrates the pub is unviable.

The pub plays an important tourist role.

The pub has been run down deliberately.

There are 2 pubs in Pett of course but we are Pett Level.

The layout of the café is not appropriate and appears to be an attempt to appease the loss of the pub.

Health and safety and hygiene issues.

The problem is a café is only a daytime place.

A doctor’s surgery will be unviable in Pett.

The planners report to the previous planning application submitted has largely been ignored, and all the objections the planners raised are still valid.

There is no bus service to Pett Level so stating that there is a bus stop outside the Smuggler is true but it will not serve those from Pett, Guestling & Icklesham.

Guestling village hall could be used in the same way as Fairlight & Pett Village halls.

The proposal will not improve waiting times.

Residents in Pett Level may not be guaranteed a place at this new surgery.

Pubs promote social cohesion which is vital.

The details on the proposed layouts are very limited but I have noticed that there is no provision for wheelchair access into the surgery or café.

This is not the right location for a surgery.

The road is busy and unsuitable for crossing.

There is huge support for the continuation of the pub.

pl190912 – RR/2019/1336/P

Not enough information has been submitted in respect of the proposed café.

The property appears as under offer, so no other prospective purchasers have the opportunity to bid for it.

6.6.2 A petition of support and 25 letters of support have been received. The

reasons are summarised as follows:

The café will also be an asset to the village throughout the year.

A much needed surgery.

It is a disused building that would have a permanent and successful use year round and still serve food.

Where would 6,000 patients go?

A café would still be a community facility.

Good parking for a doctor’s surgery, is on the main bus route and is on a 30mph road.

The building has become an eyesore as it has been left vacant.

The Smugglers is not a viable business, if it was it would still be open and trading.

There is not enough local business to sustain the new beach club and the pub.

The new beach club is run by locals for the locals and sells its products cheaply.

6.6.3 Three letters with general comments have been received. 6.7 Pett Parish Council – General Comment 6.7.1 ‘Ideally Pett Parish Council wish to see the Smuggler continue as a pub

however the parish council would rather accept the change of use to a doctors surgery as opposed to the Smuggler remaining empty or being converted to residential use.’

6.7.2 Although not a formal consultee; Icklesham Parish Council supports the

application. 6.8 Petitions 6.8.1 A petition of objection containing 57 signatures was submitted to the Local

Planning Authority on 8 July 2019. 6.8.2 A petition of support containing 30 signatures was submitted to the Local

Planning Authority on 15 July 2019. This petition was subsequently updated on 19 July 2019 with a further 90 signatures.

7.0 LOCAL FINANCE CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 The proposal is not liable for the Community Infrastructure Levy.

pl190912 – RR/2019/1336/P

8.0 APPRAISAL 8.1 The main issues for consideration are:

Principle of the change of use.

Location of the development.

Character and appearance of the area.

Highway implications.

Impact upon SSSI.

Flood risk.

Other matters. 8.2 Principle of the change of use 8.2.1 Community facilities, such as public houses play an important social and

economic role within the District, making a positive contribution and developing sustainable communities. The loss of which would usually be resisted.

8.2.2 Firstly, it is noted that the application proposes a change of use from an A4

use to a mixed use comprising both D1 and A3 uses. As there is a permitted change in respect of A4 to A3 contained in the General Permitted Development Use Classes Order, there is no objection to a portion of the site being retained for A3 purposes.

8.2.3 Policy RA1 of the Local Plan Core Strategy states the needs of rural villages

will be addressed by (iii) ensuring thriving and viable rural communities, by retention of, and support for, local shops, services and public houses in villages.

8.2.4 Paragraph 83 (d) of the National Planning Policy Framework states that

planning policies and decisions should enable ‘the retention and development of accessible local services and community facilities, such as local shops, meeting places, sports venues, open space, cultural buildings, public houses and places of worship.’

8.2.5 The Local Planning Authority has no specific policies in relation to the

retention of public houses solely. However, Policy EC3 of the Local Plan Core Strategy sets out measures to secure the effective use of employment land and premises. These include the requirement at (i) that land and premises currently (or last) in employment, including tourism, use will be retained in such use unless it is demonstrated that there is no reasonable prospect of its continued use for employment purposes or it would cause serious harm to local amenities. Policy DEC3 of the DaSA is also relevant and carries weight.

8.2.6 Policy CO1 states that the availability of community facilities to meet local

needs will be achieved by: (iii) ‘Permitting new, improved or replacement community facilities in appropriate locations where they meet identified community needs, having regard to population characteristics, Local Actions Plans and recognised standards of provision.’

8.2.7 Footnote 39 of Policy CO1 states, ‘for the purposes of defining community

facilities and services, the definition of ranges from basic health and social

pl190912 – RR/2019/1336/P

services to education, arts, culture and religious facilities (categorised as C2, D1 and D2 in the use classes order 2005).’ For the purposes of Policy CO1 doctors surgeries falling within a D1 use class would be considered a community facility.

8.2.8 Policy DCO1 of the recently submitted DaSA states that, where the loss of a

site of social or economic value, such as a public house, is proposed, it must be demonstrated that there is no reasonable prospect of continued use, backed by:

(i) evidence of a comprehensive and sustained marketing campaign, which

clearly indicates a lack of demand for the existing use (or as an alternative commercial or community facility, where appropriate), based on marketing, normally at least 18 months, that offers the land or unit/s for sale, or rental, at a realistic valuation of the site/premises for that use; and

(ii) evidence that clearly demonstrates that the unit is not or is not capable of

being financially viable, including alternative commercial or community facilities, where appropriate.

8.2.9 In this case, this approach has not been taken to demonstrate that the public

house has no reasonable prospect of continued use in accordance with Policy DCO1. This is because, while the use proposed may be changing, a doctors’ surgery is still considered a community use. As such, the approach as set out in Policy DCO1 does not need to be applied with full rigor, as the application does not propose the total loss of a community facility and the site would remain a site of social and economic value, albeit with an alternative community use and Policy DCO1 (i) of the DaSA states that alternative community uses should be considered.

8.2.10 A number of objections received in respect of this application suggest that

this scheme may be an attempt to facilitate the future redevelopment of this site for housing. However, should the total net loss of the community facility be proposed in future, whether that be in respect of the existing public house or the proposed doctors’ surgery, then the policy approach as set out in Policy DCO1 would need to be met. A condition is, therefore, recommended which seeks to remove the General Permitted Development Order Use Classes Order permitted changed rights to ensure the Local Planning Authority has control over any future uses of this site.

8.2.11 The CAMRA Public House Viability Test is not considered applicable as the

argument is not one of viability, but policy compliance. 8.2.12 In summary, both the doctors’ surgery and café are considered community

facilities and while the approach as set out in Policy DCO1 in respect of marketing and viability has not been met, the proposal would not result in the total loss of a community facility or a site of social or economic value. As such, the proposal is acceptable in principle.

8.3 Location of the development 8.3.1 The proposal seeks to relocate the existing rural surgery in Guestling to Pett

Level which is approximately 2.6 miles away. The existing surgery serves 2,000 patients, comprises two rooms (one nurse and one clinical) and is

pl190912 – RR/2019/1336/P

facing imminent closure due to an ending lease. Guestling Surgery is part of a larger group of GP practices consisting of Hastings Old Town Surgery, Warrior Square Surgery and Churchwood Medical Centre serving over 26,000 patients. The closure of this surgery means that patients registered would need to travel into Hastings to access their GP or rely on surgeries contained in village halls.

8.3.2 The proposed site is (currently) located within the development boundary for

the village; therefore a doctors’ surgery, in principle, would be considered to be in a suitable location and well related to the existing amenities of the village such as bus stops. It is not considered that the location of the proposed development is unsuitable for a surgery.

8.3.3 A number of objections were raised in respect of the undetermined

application at Land South of Pett Level Road. This application seeks the provision of 150 housing units and a GP surgery (RR/2018/2726/P). However, as this application is undetermined, it carries no weight in determining this planning application as there is no guarantee that this application would be supported and subsequently implemented. As previously stated, the principle of the change of use is one of planning policy and not evidence of need.

8.4 Character and appearance of the area 8.4.1 Policy OSS4 (iii) states development should respect and not detract from the

character and appearance of the locality. 8.4.2 Policy EN3 of the Local Plan Core Strategy states new development will be

required to be of high design quality by contributing positively to the character of the site, and demonstrating robust design solutions tested against a series of Key Design Principles, tailored to a thorough and empathetic understanding of the particular site and context.

8.4.3 The proposal does not include any alterations to the external appearance of

the building; therefore, there is unlikely going to be an impact on the established character and appearance of the area. Any future changes to the external appearance would likely require planning permission. As such, the Local Planning Authority would have control over any proposed changes and would ensure that the development would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. However, it does seem unclear as to the proposed disabled accessibility to the building. Therefore, a condition is attached which requires details of the proposed access such as ramps and appropriate doors to access both the proposed A3 and D1 use.

8.5 Highway impacts 8.5.1 Policy TR4 states that proposed development shall, (i) meet the residual

needs of the development for off-street parking having taken into account localised circumstances and having full regard to the potential for access by means other than the car, and to any safety, congestion or amenity impacts on the reliance on parking off site whether on-street or off-street.

pl190912 – RR/2019/1336/P

8.5.2 Policy CO6 states a safe physical environment will be facilitated by, (ii) ensuring that all development avoids prejudice to road and/or pedestrian safety.

8.5.3 ESCC Highways have been consulted on the proposed scheme and have

made an objection based upon a lack of information. They state, ‘the level and design of disabled parking and how level access to the surgery/ café will be provided is unclear. The County Council’s parking standards require a minimum of 3 spaces for this use. This can be secured by condition; … it is recommended that further details of access between the disabled parking spaces and the development be provided. It is noted that wheelchair access is currently provided from the side of the property; however, as it is proposed that the entrance doors would open outwards, it is unclear how disabled users would reach the entrance via this. The width and gradient of ramps and access paths should also be compliant with guidance outlined within the Department for Transport’s (2005) Inclusive Mobility guidance. The County Council’s parking standards also requires the proposed development to provide 6 cycle parking spaces. These should be safe, secure and convenient to access, and should be secured by condition.

8.5.4 Although objecting, these elements can be secured by condition. Such

conditions relating to the provision of disabled spaces and cycle parking are recommended in this respect.

8.6 Impact on the SSSI, SPA and Ramsar sites 8.6.1 Policy EN5 (ii) seeks that development should protect and enhance the

international, national and locally designated sites, having due regard to their status.

8.6.2 The application site (area to be redeveloped, excluding the car park) is very

close to the Hastings Cliffs to Pett Beach and Dungeness, Romney Marsh & Rye Bay SSSI and the Dungeness, Romney Marsh & Rye Bay SPA and Ramsar sites. A formal consultation with Natural England has taken place in regards to the development’s impact on nearby European protected sites. Based on the plans submitted, Natural England considers that the proposed development will not have significant adverse impacts on statutorily protected nature conservation sites or landscapes and therefore makes no objection. But should the proposal be met with support then it is important that during construction, care is taken to ensure that materials, works etc. will not impact upon the surrounding areas. Notwithstanding this, as a matter of course, a screening opinion has been carried out in support of this application which determines that an appropriate assessment is not required.

8.7 Flood risk 8.7.1 The site is located within Flood Zone 3a, and is shown to be within an area

that could be susceptible to flooding following a breach in the defences immediately adjacent to the site.

8.7.2 Policy EN7 relates to flood risk and states development will be permitted

providing the following criteria are met: (i) where development is proposed in an area identified as at flood risk, the applicant will be required to submit a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment which demonstrates that the

pl190912 – RR/2019/1336/P

development will be safe, will not increase flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flooding; (ii) when development is, exceptionally, acceptable in flood risk areas, consideration is paid to the layout and form of development to minimise flood risk. Policy DEN5 of the DaSA builds upon this Policy EN7 and the applicant’s attention is drawn to this Policy in this respect.

8.7.3 Health institutions are categorised as being ‘more vulnerable to flooding’

(flood risk vulnerability classification) and should, therefore, be located away from Flood Zone 3a areas. However, public houses are also listed within the same flood risk vulnerability classification. Therefore, the Local Planning Authority cannot resist the change of use on flood risk grounds if the present use is similar to the existing. A Flood Risk Assessment has been submitted with this application which concludes that the proposal will be safe, in terms of flood risk, for its design life and will not increase the flood risk elsewhere and the wider community benefit in respect of the provision of a doctors’ surgery would outweigh the flood risk.

8.7.4 The Environment Agency have been formally consulted and raises no

objection, provided that conditions are imposed which seek the application to be carried out in accordance with the Approved Flood Risk Assessment mitigation measures and consideration given to flood proofing measures.

8.7.5 The ESCC Flood Risk Management Officer has also been formally consulted

on the proposal and makes no objection subject to the imposition of conditions in relation to the management of the existing drainage system. They advise that, the development should not be occupied until the condition of the existing drainage system is investigated and improvements should be implemented if required. A maintenance and management plan for the entire drainage system should be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. The plan should clearly state who is responsible for managing all aspects of surface water drainage, including piped drains.

8.7.6 While this is best practicable advice, it is considered unreasonable to impose

this as a planning condition, as the proposal makes no external changes to the building which could affect the current system. Proper maintenance of the system would be the responsibility of the owner/occupier in any event.

8.8 Other Matters 8.9 Assets of Community Value 8.9.1 The Local Planning Authority has been approached by local residents who

are currently in the process of registering the Smuggler Public House as an Asset of Community Value in accordance with the Assets of Community Value (England) Regulations 2012. This scheme is intended to assist communities to preserve buildings or land that they consider important to their social wellbeing. The benefit of listing community assets is that it effectively ‘stops the clock’ on the sale of assets to allow community groups to make a bid to purchase the asset and so preserve its social value. An Asset of Community Value is not a planning designation and whilst it can be a material, the proposed changes of use are consistent with current local plan policies.

pl190912 – RR/2019/1336/P

9.0 PLANNING BALANCE & CONCLUSION 9.1 Both the existing use (public house) and proposed uses (doctors’ surgery

and café) are community facilities. The application does not therefore propose the loss of a community facility or a site of social or economic value. When considered against Policy DCO1, the proposal is acceptable. For this reason and the reasons set out above, the application is recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)

CONDITIONS: 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of

three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In accordance with section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the

following approved drawings and documents: Location and Block Plan, 1453AH SL 001, Dated May 2019 Proposed First Floor Plan, 1453AH E 005, Dated May 2019 Proposed Floor Plan, 1453AH P 004, Dated May 2019 Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning, as advised in Planning Practice Guidance Paragraph: 022 Reference ID: 21a-022-20140306.

3. The premises shall be used for a doctors’ surgery (D1) and a café (A3) only

and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in Class (D1 and A3) of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification). Reason: To ensure the site remains as a community facility in accordance with Policies CO1, CO2 and RA1 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy.

4. The development shall not be brought into use until details of the proposed

disabled accessibility to the building have been first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a high quality public realm taking account of the characteristics of the area and to safeguard the amenities of neighbouring properties, in accordance with Policies OSS4 (ii & iii) and EN3 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy.

5. The development shall not be brought into use until the parking areas and

disabled parking spaces have been provided in accordance with details which have been first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the area[s] shall thereafter be retained for that use and shall not be used other than for the parking and turning of motor vehicles. Reason: To provide on-site parking and turning areas to ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the free flow of traffic or conditions

pl190912 – RR/2019/1336/P

of general safety along the highway in accordance with Policies CO6 and TR4 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy.

6. The development shall not be brought into use until the cycle parking area

have been provided in accordance with details which have been first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the area[s] shall thereafter be retained for that use and shall not be used other than for the parking of cycles. Reason: In order that the development site is accessible by non-car modes and to meet the objectives of sustainable development in accordance with Policies OSS4 (ii) & TR3 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy.

7. The development hereby permitted shall only be carried out in accordance

with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) submitted with this application and the mitigation measures detailed within the FRA. Reason: To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants in accordance with Policy EN7 (ii) of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy.

8. The premises shall not be open to customers, patients or any other persons

and no employee including a proprietor shall carry out any activity, and/or sales or serving of any persons on the premises outside the hours of 07:30 - 18:00 on any day. Reason: To protect the residential amenities of the locality, in accordance with Policy OSS4 (ii) and (iv) of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy.

NOTE: 1. As the site is located within a flood zone, it will be necessary to make sure

that the users and residents are fully aware of the flood risk and flood warning and evacuation during an extreme event. If necessary, during a flood event the first and the proposed second floor will provide a safe haven for the residents.

NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK: In accordance with the requirements of the Framework (paragraph 38) and with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, the Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against all material considerations, including planning policies and any representations that have been received and subsequently determining to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.