|
Cambo Arms Hotel - change of use proposal - background
info Appeal Decision back to Cambo Arms main page more Background Info The appeal was dismissed. The reporter had this to say: " I [the reporter] consider that it is appropriate to be concerned about the potential effect of the loss of the public house on the vitality and character of the Kingsbarns Conservation Area in the context of section 64 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997.......I agree with the many residents who have objected to the proposal that a successful public house adds another dimension to community life and I consider that its permanent loss would damage the character of the conservation area. " I note your submissions that your clients do not consider that this business is viable. They also believe that the restricted nature of the site and the fact that the buildings are listed limits what can be done to extend the accommodation. However, I am not persuaded that a different operator would be of the same opinion. For example, there may be the possibility that the public house facilities could be expanded into the accommodation to the rear, if this were not needed for residential accommodation. The public house is extremely well located at the heart of the village and next to the A917 leading from St Andrews to the villages of the East Neuk of Fife. Tourism is already an important business in both these areas. It is apparent that there has been a number of very recent golfing and tourism related developments in the area which could well increase the number of visitors. Your clients are not members of the local tourist board and have not publicised the business through the board. In these circumstances I do not consider that the unviability of the business has been adequately demonstrated. "I do not believe it would be a simple matter for a public house to be opened elsewhere in the village, either by conversion or new build. In my experience, it is very difficult to obtain planning permission for a new public house, particularly if it is near to houses. Existing residents almost invariably object because of perceived loss of residential amenity. I appreciate that your clients no longer wish to run the public house themselves and that it is no longer open for business. I also accept that whatever decision is reached in this appeal, the public house would remain closed whilst your clients retained ownership. However, I consider that if planning permission was to be granted for the proposed conversion and change of use to residential accommodation, the loss of this facility to the village community would be permanent. On the other hand, if the change of use is not approved, the possibility that the public house could re-open at some future date, under new management, would still exist." Here is the full text of the Scottish Executive Inquiry Reporters Unit letter to the appellant. Drummond Cook and Mackintosh 2 May 2002 Dear Sirs TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997: SECTION 47 AND SCHEDULE 4 PLANNING APPEAL BY MR AND MRS A FRASER: SUBDIVIDE/ALTER BAR/HOTEL AND DWELLINGHOUSE TO FORM 2 DWELLINGHOUSES AT THE CAMBO ARMS, 5 MAIN STREET, KINGSBARNS, FIFE - REF: P/PPA/250/343 1. I refer to your clients’ appeal, which I have been appointed to determine, against the refusal of planning permission by Fife Council for the above development. I have considered the written submissions and made an accompanied inspection of the appeal site and the surrounding area on 28 February 2002. For the reasons given in this letter I have decided to dismiss your clients’ appeal. The appeal site 2. The appeal site is a 1½ and 2 storey stone building with a slate roof and an adjoining single storey wing to the rear with stone walls and a pantiled roof. The two storey building and the adjoining 1½ storey element to the rear were in use as a public bar/lounge on the ground floor with 3 letting bedrooms on the first floor. Your clients ceased trading from the public bar and lounge in November 2000, although they still operate a bed and breakfast business from the bedrooms and the adjoining house. Your clients live in the house, and use the dining room which is located in the part of the house nearest to the public house/hotel as the dining room for bed and breakfast customers. 3. The appeal site is located in the centre of Kingsbarns village to the east of the main A917 road from St Andrews. To the south of the site lies a church, with high stone walls along the southern boundary of the appeal site and a door to allow pedestrian access to the church yard. There is a large garden area to the south of the high stone walls and to the east of the church. Access to this area is taken via a door in the stone wall to the south of the buildings on the appeal site. The main 2 storey building faces south west and the single storey house is located to the north east forming a courtyard between the buildings and the walls of the church yard. There is a very small garden area to the north east of the house. A laurel hedge marks the curved north eastern boundary. There is a hardstanding/parking area to the north of the buildings on the appeal site with vehicular access from the A917 to the north, outwith the site boundary. This vehicular access serves an adjoining domestic property to the north of the site, although the boundary between the 2 ownerships is not marked on the ground. There is a stone wall of just over a metre in height on the boundary of the hardstanding area and the footway alongside the A917. The area to the south west of the 2 storey building is also used as a hardstanding. There is no wall on the roadside boundary of this area. There is an existing vehicular access to the adjoining dwellinghouse at the extreme south of the site, alongside the church yard wall. The building is listed category B and lies within the Kingsbarns Conservation Area. The planning application 4. Your clients applied for planning permission to subdivide and alter the premises to form 2 dwellinghouses. The 2 storey and adjoining 1½ storey parts of the premises would comprise one house, which would have the hardstanding areas to the south west and north as garden ground. The remaining single storey portion would be the second house with the existing vehicular access and the small garden area to the rear attached to it. The subdivision involves the internal blocking off of connecting corridors, the enlargement of a window, the reinstatement of a door and the conversion of a storage room on the first floor into a bathroom and the conversion of the cellar area on the ground floor into a bedroom. Listed building consent has been granted for the alterations. 5. Planning permission was refused for the following reasons: 1. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the premises has been sufficiently marketed for continued use as a public house and that it does not have an economic future and as such, it is considered that there is sufficient evidence to allow the loss of this important social, community and economic facility to the village. 2. The loss of the public house/hotel to Kingsbarns would impact adversely upon the vibrancy and health of the community and be contrary to the concept of sustainability and as such the proposal is contrary to the guidance of NPPG1 “The Planning System” and Policy SP1 (Sustainability) in the Finalised Fife Structure Plan (2001) and there are no material reasons which would lead to the setting aside of this guidance or policy framework. 3. The proposal would lead to a loss of vitality and character to the established character of the “Outstanding” Kings barns Conservation Area and given the lack of evidence that the public house does not have an economic future this proposal is contrary to the guidance contained in NPPG18 “Planning and the Historic Environment” and Policy EV2 of the adopted Largo and East Neuk Local Plan 1995, and there are no material reasons which would lead to the setting aside of this guidance and policy.” Development plan policies 6. The following policy of the Fife Structure Plan 2001 was referred to and is summarised below: Policy SP1: Sustainability All development shall be planned and implemented in accordance with the Council’s Sustainability Policy. 7. The following policy of the adopted Largo and East Neuk Local Plan 1995 was referred to and is summarised below: Policy EV2 The council will use all its planning powers to conserve and enhance the environmental quality of conservation areas. Summary of cases 8. The council acknowledges that the use of the premises as 2 dwellinghouses and the physical alterations to the exterior of the building would be acceptable in themselves, subject to a condition requiring a suitably detailed single glazed timber frame window in place of the proposed double glazed unit. However, in relation to the loss of the public house, this facility has existed in the village since the early 19th century. The council considers there would be undoubted impacts on the social and economic life of the village if it was lost. NPPG15 - Rural Development indicates that the planning authority should be supportive of local facilities which provide a valuable service to the local community. The guideline indicates that it is reasonable to consider the social and economic impacts of the loss of facilities. 9. The concept of sustainability is also relevant as ideally such facilities should remain in local areas to prevent unnecessary car use. NPPG1 - The Planning System and policy SP1 of the structure plan also indicate that strong vibrant healthy communities are important and accessibility to jobs, shops and leisure as well as other facilities is essential. The facility could also benefit the local tourist market. The council points out that your clients were not members of the local tourist board and did not market the premises through the board. Whilst your clients may not consider the operation of the business to be viable there may be the possibility that other owners could manage the premises in a different manner involving more active promotion of the public house. The property was last marketed in 1998 and this marketing appears not have been vigorous. 10. The loss of the public house will detract from the viability of the area and impact adversely upon the established character of the conservation area. The location of the property is prominent and it is very well placed to pick up passing trade. The council has approved golf, hotel and related leisure developments in the area which should increase visitor numbers. The public house/hotel could be a significant tourist service as well as a local facility. There have also been a significant number of objections to the proposed loss of the public house. The council is of the view that the case to allow conversion of the public house into 2 dwellinghouses has not been sufficiently proven. 11. In support of your clients’ case, you explain that the premises were last marketed in 1998 by specialist agents in the sale of hotels and licensed premises and the property was advertised widely. Approximately 30 interested parties visited the property but none could foresee the viability of the business and no offers were received. You are aware of a similar public house near St Andrews which has been on the market for a considerable time and no buyer has been found. The public house closed in November 2000 and your clients do not intend to re-open. The running of licensed premises is extremely precarious and the overheads are financially crippling. Kingsbarns is a small village with very limited local trade which is insufficient to make the business viable over the winter. The small number of letting bedrooms is insufficient to justify the employment of staff and there are constraints on the alterations that could be made to extend the premises or to use it for an associated use such as ‘Make the pub the hub’ as referred to by objectors. 12. You consider the large volume of objections to the proposal unduly influenced the council. Most of the people who sign the petition did not visit the public house. Kingsbarns Hall has just been refurbished at considerable expense and should satisfy all of the community needs. Your clients opened from 11am to 11pm daily except on Sunday afternoons. There was a regular extension of hours until midnight on Fridays and Saturdays and in the afternoons on Sundays. Whilst the Cambo Arms may in theory be an important social and community facility, it would only be so if used in sufficient numbers by the villagers, which it was not. You do not believe that NPPG1 and policy SP1 of the structure plan are pertinent to the appeal as they are couched in very general terms. You do not agree that the proposed development would lead to a loss of vitality and character in the conservation area. Indeed the restoration of the car park to garden ground would be beneficial. 13. The existing Georgian building dates from 1815 and was originally a dwellinghouse. It only became an inn 50 or so years later. With the decline of agriculture Kingsbarns has become a dormitory village and the only retail business left in the village is the post office, which is for sale. There is adequate precedent for the change of use of commercial properties to houses. The building is very costly to run and to maintain. You have a record of your clients accounts for 1995 - 2000 which paint a bleak picture of the profitability of rural businesses. You would like to release this information but do not wish to make it public. 14. The Kingsbarns Community Council objects to the proposed development as a main meeting place for villagers would be lost and a central part of village life would be destroyed. It has the potential to be a thriving business. There would be no possibility that another site would be found for a public house. There is tremendous public opposition to this plan. As the public house has been closed for over a year, its closure has been a loss to the local businesses and to passing visitors. The current licensee has run down the public house business. 15. The Historic Buildings Inspectorate (Historic Scotland) acknowledges that it has no direct locus in the change of use application but supports the refusal of planning permission because the change of use contravenes Government policy in the Memorandum of Guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas in relation to the original use of the building. The appellants case that the building was originally a dwellinghouse is not regarded as conclusive. The loss of amenity of the public house aspect of the hotel would be detrimental to the character of the conservation area. 16. The Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland requires more information regarding the future landscaping to the site frontage of one the most prominent sites in the village. Until this information is available the Society formally objects to the application. It also expresses its disappointment that the inn, which has been a pivotal feature of the village, may become another dwellinghouse. The Scottish Civic Trust points out that the plans submitted do not show the proposed changes to the main building as they indicate that the bar and lounge areas would remain. If the applicant is unwilling to provide such information, the scheme should be refused. The Trust wishes to resist the proposed change of use and encourages the marketing of the building as a going concern before its original use is altered and lost. The Memorandum of Guidance on Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas states that the best use for an historic building is usually the use for which it was designed. The St Andrews Preservation Trust Limited does not object to the application but regrets the loss of amenity to Kingsbarns which would result. 17. The Chief Executive of the Kingdom of Fife Tourist Board explains that the business had not been a member of the board in recent years and it was not thought that the business had promoted itself to visitors in any other way. This would suggest that whilst some tourists certainly visited the premises it has not been trading as a tourism business. Given its location, it would have been thought that the visitor market would have been targeted. It is regrettable that the village would lose the inn, but given its recent history its loss would not be greatly detrimental to the tourism industry. 18. A petition signed by more than 200 people, 65 copies of a standard letter of objection and 48 individual letters of objection were submitted to the council. The concerns expressed can be summarised as follows: • the Cambo Arms is a vital part of the community life
of the village; CONCLUSIONS 19. Section 64(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 requires that special attention be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area. In addition, section 59(1) requires that in considering whether to grant planning permission for a development which affects a listed building or its setting, special regard shall be paid to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 requires the determination of whether, or not, to grant planning permission to be made in accordance with the provisions of the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 20. Accordingly, on the basis of the written submissions and the site inspection, I consider that the determining issues in this appeal are: • whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area; • whether the proposal would have an adverse effect on the building, its features or its setting; • whether the development proposed conforms to the provisions of the development plan, and, if not, • whether an exception to the provisions of the plan is justified by other material considerations. 21. In relation to the first determining issue, NPPG18 — Planning and the Historic Environment indicates that “Historic buildings and townscape are integral parts of the living and working community. Conservation policies should give a high priority to maintaining and enhancing the prosperity and vitality of historic areas“. I consider therefore that it is appropriate to be concerned about the potential effect of the loss of the public house on the vitality and character of the Kingsbarns Conservation Area in the context of section 64 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997. 22. The Cambo Arms was formerly a coaching inn and has been a public house/inn since at least 1876. It is located at the heart of the village to the north of the church and the square and is easily accessible from all parts of the village. It therefore has the potential to be an important part of village life in a social sense. It is apparent that the function of the village has changed in recent years as agriculture has declined and people have become more mobile as a result of higher car ownership. Its residents no longer live and work on the farms which were once part of the physical fabric of the village. Instead it appears that most economically active residents work elsewhere. Nevertheless, the village still appears to retain an active community life. It has a primary school, a post office/shop, a church and a community hail and, until your clients closed the Cambo Arms, it had a public house. I agree with the many residents who have objected to the proposal that a successful public house adds another dimension to community life and I consider that its permanent loss would damage the character of the conservation area. 23. Turning to the second determining issue and the effect on the listed building and its setting, the council has already granted listed building consent for physical alterations to the buildings which would be required for the conversion to dwellinghouses. I concur that, subject to the condition requiring the new window to be single and not double glazed, these alterations are acceptable and would not affect the character of the listed building. However, I note that the plans submitted with the planning application and appeal, which were the same as those submitted to the council for the listed building consent, do not show if any physical alterations to the fabric of the building would result from the conversion of the first floor boiler-room/store to a bathroom. In addition, despite one of the drawings being labelled ‘Proposed ground floor plan of houses’ the ground floor of the public house is shown as it is at present, with the toilets and bar area unchanged, which presumably would not be the intention if planning permission was granted for the change of use to a house. These are significant omissions, particularly since the building is listed as category B. I note that the Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland and the Scottish Civic Trust pointed out these omissions when the planning application was submitted. 24. The absence of the detailed information on the proposed internal changes means that it is not possible for me to assess properly the effect of the proposed changes on the listed building. However, I consider that the works which would be involved to remove the bar and toilets and install the bathroom would be internal and need not necessarily involve external alterations or radical internal rearrangement. For these reasons I accept your submissions that this matter can be dealt with at a later stage, either through the submission of another application for listed building consent or through discussions with the council and a confirmation that listed building consent is not required. I conclude that the proposed change of use would not affect the character of the listed building. 25. The area to the south west of the main building is a hardstanding area, as is the area to the north west. Only the north western area is shielded from the road by a low stone wall and shrubs. The area to the south west is completely open with no wall marking the boundary. If planning permission was to be granted for the conversion of the public house to a house, it is likely that the new residents would want to increase their privacy and amenity and enclose this area and probably separate it from the area to be used for the vehicular access to the house to the rear. The future enclosure of this area as a private garden would be particularly likely since this area will be sunnier than the area to the north west. As this area is very prominent and is in front of the main elevation of the listed building, anything which is done here in the future would have an effect on the listed building and its setting. Your clients have provided no details of any means of enclosure for this area. However, I consider that if I were minded to grant planning permission for the change of use, I could make it clear that the planning permission did not cover any works which future occupants of the house may wish to undertake in this area. These would have to be the subject of a future application to the council. On this basis, I conclude that the proposed change of use would have no effect on the setting of the listed building. 26. I turn now to the third determining issue and the question of conformity to the development plan. The development plan comprises the Fife Structure Plan and the Largo and East Neuk Local Plan. Policy SP1 of the structure plan has been referred to in this appeal. If the conversion and change of use was approved, villagers would no longer be able to walk to a public house in the village. The nearest public house would be in Crail (2½ miles away). However, although some villagers would no doubt take the car to either Crail or St Andrews to visit a public house, I am not convinced that a large number of people would do this because of the strict limits on drinking and driving. I consider it would be more likely that most people would either travel by bus or not bother to visit a public house at all. In any event, I consider that policy SP1 is very general and I am not persuaded of its relevance to the proposed development. 27. In relation to policy EV2 of the adopted local plan, this policy refers to the conservation and enhancement of the environmental quality of conservation areas. I have concluded that the loss of the public house would detrimentally affect the character of the conservation area but I do not consider that the ‘character’ of the conservation area in the sense that I have used it above is the same as its environmental quality. The council has already granted listed building consent for the external changes proposed to the buildings by your clients. Any subsequent changes which may affect the character of the listed building and which are not covered by the existing listed building consent will require a further consent. Similarly, any works undertaken in the area to the south west of the existing building would require planning permission and also possibly listed building consent from the council. I conclude therefore that the proposed change of use of the public house to a house would have no effect on the environmental quality of the conservation area and that there would be no conflict with policy EV2 of the local plan. 28. With regard to other material considerations, I note your submissions that your clients do not consider that this business is viable. They also believe that the restricted nature of the site and the fact that the buildings are listed limits what can be done to extend the accommodation. However, I am not persuaded that a different operator would be of the same opinion. For example, there may be the possibility that the public house facilities could be expanded into the accommodation to the rear, if this were not needed for residential accommodation. The public house is extremely well located at the heart of the village and next to the A917 leading from St Andrews to the villages of the East Neuk of Fife. Tourism is already an important business in both these areas. It is apparent that there has been a number of very recent golfing and tourism related developments in the area which could well increase the number of visitors. Your clients are not members of the local tourist board and have not publicised the business through the board. In these circumstances I do not consider that the unviability of the business has been adequately demonstrated. 29. I do not believe it would be a simple matter for a public house to be opened elsewhere in the village, either by conversion or new build. In my experience, it is very difficult to obtain planning permission for a new public house, particularly if it is near to houses. Existing residents almost invariably object because of perceived loss of residential amenity. I appreciate that your clients no longer wish to run the public house themselves and that it is no longer open for business. I also accept that whatever decision is reached in this appeal, the public house would remain closed whilst your clients retained ownership. However, I consider that if planning permission was to be granted for the proposed conversion and change of use to residential accommodation, the loss of this facility to the village community would be permanent. On the other hand, if the change of use is not approved, the possibility that the public house could re-open at some future date, under new management, would still exist. 30. Drawing these issues together, I have concluded that: • the permanent loss of the public house would detrimentally affect the character of the conservation area; • the proposed development would have no effect on the character or the setting of the listed building; • the provisions of the development plan are either not relevant or not in conflict with the proposed development; • the question of the unviability of the business has not been proven; and • there are no other material considerations which would justify detrimentally affecting the character of the conservation area and upholding the appeal. 31. Accordingly, and in exercise of the powers delegated to me, I hereby dismiss your clients’ appeal and refuse to grant planning permission for the subdivision and alterations to the bar/hotel and dwellinghouse to form 2 dwellinghouses at The Cambo Arms, 5 Main Street, Kingsbarns. I have taken account of all the other matters raised but find none that outweigh the considerations on which my decision is based. 32. This decision is final, subject to the right of any aggrieved person to apply to the Court of Session within 6 weeks of the date of this letter, as conferred by sections 237 and 239 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. On any such application the Court may quash the decision if satisfied that it is not within the powers of the Act or that the applicant’s interests have been substantially prejudiced by a failure to comply with any requirement of the Act or of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 or of any orders, regulations or rules made under these Acts. 33. A copy of this letter has been sent to Fife Council, Kingsbarns Community Council, Historic Scotland and to those who attended the site inspection. All those who made representations have been informed of the decision. Karen Heywood Reporter back to Cambo Arms main page more Background Info up to Top |