Erection of six houses and one 3-storey apartment block consisting of nine apartments; formation of vehicular access; demolition of existing public house.

The Area Planning and Building Control Manager introduced the application and confirmed that Members had undertaken a site visit that morning to view the site and had assessed the impact of the proposal on the surrounding area.  With reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location, proposed floor plans and elevations.  He drew Members’ attention to the additional information as set out in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting.

The Area Planning and Building Control Manager explained that the application site fell within the current urban development boundary of Shrewsbury and the proposal would involve the demolition and loss of a public house.  Objections with regard to the loss of a local community facility had been received.  He advised Members that the fundamental issue would be for them to determine whether the public house would be viable over the long term and its loss acceptable.

By virtue of the amendment made to Shropshire Council’s Constitution, as agreed at the meeting of Full Council held on 27 February 2014, Councillor Vernon Bushell, as the local Ward Councillor, made a statement against the proposal, took no part in the debate and did not vote.  He commented that he avidly supported affordable housing but acknowledged that community facilities were essential.  The Anchor Inn was a popular location right in the heart of the estate, within walking distance of many and used by active darts, pool, dominoes and football teams.  The demolition of such a facility would have an adverse impact on the quality of life of the surrounding area and as such would be contrary to Shropshire Core Strategies CS6 and CS8. 

(At this juncture, the Vice Chairman took the Chair.)

In accordance with his declaration at Minute No. 6, Councillor Tim Barker made a statement against the proposal and then left the room and did not vote.  He drew Members’ attention to further objections from the Chairman of Shrewsbury and West Shropshire CAMRA to the viability report submitted by the applicant and commented that he could see no reason why the Anchor Inn would not be a viable concern.

Mr G Brown, a local resident, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council's scheme for public speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

·         The Anchor Inn was a suitable long-term viable public house;

·         It had a strong customer base and was used by many teams, ie darts, football;

·         Was within walking distance of approximately 500 people;

·         The infrastructure, schools, dentists etc could not accommodate more housing; and

·         A covenant stated that the land must be used for community use; and

·         A thriving community had provision for people of all ages to come together.

Cllr I Jones, representing Shrewsbury Town Council, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council's scheme for public speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

·         The Town Council objected to the building of nine apartments which would be out of keeping with the historic area;

·         Considered that two-storey family homes would be more suitable;

·         The area already suffered with anti-social behaviour and this would exacerbate the problem; and

·         He expressed concerns regarding the loss of this facility.

Mr R Henderson, the agent, spoke for the proposal in accordance with the Council's scheme for public speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

·         The proposal would deliver homes which would meet a specific need;

·         Had worked with Planning Officers to ensure the proposal met constraints;

·         There were other three-storey homes in the area;

·         Appropriate accredited security would be implemented;

·         Performance and sales had fallen over the last few years; and

·         A CAMRA assessment had been undertaken.

In the ensuing debate, Members noted the comments of all speakers and commented that the Anchor Inn was in a good, clean condition and well used by the local community.  With reference to policy, they commented that there was a general presumption against the loss of public houses and also referred to paragraph 37 of the NPPF which stated that planning policies should aim for a balance of land uses and should encourage minimal journey lengths for employment, shopping, leisure, education and other activities. 

RESOLVED:

That, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation, planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

·         The Anchor Inn is an important local asset which plays an important role in facilitating social interaction and creating a healthy and inclusive community; and

·         It has not been adequately demonstrated that the existing facility would not be viable over the long term;

accordingly, the proposal would result in the unjustified loss of an important community facility for the local area contrary to the aims and requirements of Shropshire Core Strategy Policies CS6 and CS8 and contrary to relevant paragraphs of the NPPF (including paragraph 37).

(The Chairman returned to the meeting and resumed the Chair.)