Issue - meetings

Public Speakers

 

Alistair Cook, Public Affairs Officer, Cambridge & District Branch, CAMRA addressed the committee and made the following points:

• The Council’s recognition of the value of Public Houses is welcomed.
• Article 4 should be pursued as a city-wide approach.
• The proposed policy would not have prevented recent closures.
• The report contains inaccuracies and should include any premises shown to have been a Public House in the relevant period.
• The proposal does not offer anything to existing communities will low provision.

 

In response to the speaker, the Planning Policy Manager acknowledged that he guidance has its limitations. However, Article 4 was a separate issue, which could be considered along with the revised Local Plan. Article 4 powers rest with the Secretary of State and not the City Council.

 

Councillor Ward reminded the committee that preservation of building and preservations of Public houses were different issues covered by different regulation.

 

The Head of Planning confirmed that this document was ground breaking as no other authority had taken this approach. Therefore, there was no evidence of the likely impact. She also stated that while new applications for existing communities would be welcomed, the council was unable to actively make this happen.

 

Nigel Bell, Cambridge Past Present and Future addressed the committee and made the following points:

• Many Public Houses had already been lost.
• Additional provision is already needed.
• Planning policy needs to balance the needs of businesses and communities.
• Small breweries and independent operators would be willing to take on existing Public Houses.
• The document does not address permitted development rights.
• Could additional safeguard be added to ensure that any if any Public Houses was lost, a replacement was required.
• Cambridge Past, Present and Future had asked for further Public Houses to be included in the protection because they had been omitted.

 

The Planning Policy Manager responded. Demolition of a Public house does not give an automatic change of use consent. The survey is a snapshot and care would be needed regarding retrospective inclusion.

 

Matter for Decision:  

The Council, in response to local concern regarding the loss of public houses in Cambridge, commissioned consultants to produce the Cambridge Public House Study and Interim Planning Policy Guidance (IPPG) on The Protection of Public Houses in the City of Cambridge.

 

The decision relates to the adoption of the IPPG on The Protection of Public Houses in the City of Cambridge.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change:

              i.      Agreed the draft responses to the representations received to the draft IPPG (Appendix A of the Officer’s report) and the consequential amendments to the IPPG;

            ii.      Agreed to adopt the IPPG (Appendix B of the Officer’s report) with immediate effect;

          iii.      Agreed the contents of Cambridge Public House Study (Appendix C of the Officer’s report) and to endorse it as an evidence base document with immediate effect.

 

Reason for the Decision:

The Cambridge Public House Study explains how public houses are an important part of the Cambridge economy, not just for the direct and indirect jobs they provide in the pub, supplier, food and brewing industries, but in supporting the city’s main industries by attracting and providing a meeting place for students, academics, scientists and entrepreneurs, and in attracting office workers, shoppers and tourists.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

The Committee received a report from the Senior Planning Policy Officer regarding the Protection of Public Houses in the City of Cambridge.

 

Members made the following comments;

              i.      There was an urgent need to do something now and this could be improved on in the Local Plan.

            ii.      The broader issues regarding the demolition of building needed to be considered.

          iii.      Members would welcome further investigation of Article 4.

 

The Director of Environment stated that the IPPG was at the cutting edge of Planning Policy. Article 4 would create legal and resource implications for the authority and would need careful consideration. The IPPG and the Local Plan offered a good solution.

 

Councillor Marchant-Daisley proposed an additional recommendation to instruct officers to take forward research to investigate the use of Article 4 in relation to protection of Public Houses in Cambridge. It was agreed that officers would carry out some research and therefore a formal amendment was unnessary.

 

The Committee resolved by unanimously to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted)

Not applicable.