CAMBO ARMS HOTEL ‘CHANGE OF USE’ PROPOSAL - 01/00670/EFULL - THE APPEAL STAGE

Info for Interested Parties - collection of relevant material from sources in the public domain

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 This application was refused [5/6/01], but the applicant has now chosen to appeal that decision [27/11/01]

1.2 The application was supported by the following statement from the applicant [26/4/01]:

“We [Drummond Cook Mackintosh] act on behalf of the above named Mr. & Mrs. Fraser who have consulted us in connection with your letter of 13th April. We would answer your numbered queries as follows:

1. The public house closed on 5th November 2000 and our clients do not intend to re-open.

2. Mrs. Fraser intends to retire from the business and the intention is to reinvest the proceeds of sale in Mr. Fraser’s farming business. As you will appreciate, this is a difficult time for farmers. Furthermore, there is very limited local trade emanating from Kingsbarns and the prospects for the tourism industry out-with St.Andrews are questionable particularly for premises of the size of the Cambo Arms which rely to a great extent on passing trade. Kingsbarns Golf Club opened in 2000 to golfing and non golfing interests and we understand that they have a full licence which should cater for some of the local patrons who may object to the closure of our clients’ premises. The opening of the Kingask development is also unlikely to help trade.

3. The subjects were last marketed in 1998 by Messrs. Christie (specialist agents in the sale of hotels and licensed premises) and the property was advertised widely. Approximately thirty viewers visited the property and whilst the feedback was positive, none of the interested parties could foresee the viability of the business and no offers were received. No sign was erected as this is not good policy for the sale of licensed premises or indeed any business offered as a going concern.

4. The running of rural licensed premises is extremely precarious and the overheads such as rates are financially crippling. Kingsbarns is a small village with very limited local trade which is insufficient to make the business viable over the long winter months. The property has only four letting bedrooms, accommodation which is insufficient to justify the employment of the staff necessary to service same and there are constraints on the alterations that could be made to the premises to extend the accommodation. Whilst the loss of a village pub is to be regretted, it is fair to say that more modest premises with lower capital commitment and overheads would be more suitable in Kingsbarns.

5. Our clients have made considerable efforts to improve the trade but for the above reasons, the amount of new custom that can be attracted is limited.

Our clients fully expect a number of local objections to their proposal and they are quite aware of the loss of amenity to the village that the closure of the premises will cause. We have also had an opportunity to examine the comments upon our clients’ proposals which now appear on the Kingsbarns village web-site and we are concerned that many villagers who have never patronised our clients’ business are being encouraged to object to their proposals.

Lastly, our clients are prepared to allow the application to be taken to the Planning Committee on 5th June but are not agreeable to an extension to the statutory period beyond this.”

1.3 Objections were many, as summarised in the Report to the EADC [5/6/01 Item 9], thus:

"Kingsbarns Community Council Strong objection. Loss of integral part of village life and significant tourist facility. Business has potential to thrive. Loss of jobs. Concern regarding access arrangements.

Representations There have been many objections to this proposal submitted in the form of a petition, individual letters and duplicate standard letters, which are outlined below;

One petition signed by more than 200 people states that the Cambo Arms is a vital part of the community life of Kingsbarns. It is urged that no planning decision which would damage its viability be taken before a proper assessment is made of its commercial potential. A copy of the petition will be available in the Councillors’ lounge and an extract is included in the agenda papers.

65 duplicate copies of a standard letter of objection have been submitted which state that the Hotel has been the hub of village life for approximately 400 years and it is one of the oldest coaching inns in Scotland. It is noted that Kingsbarns is a growing community and that closure of this facility would be another nail in the coffin of rural life. It should be noted that 5 individuals have contacted the Planning and Building Control Service following receipt of our standard acknowledgement letter to note that they had not objected and were unaware of the proposal.

48 individual letters of objection have been submitted on the following grounds;

- Contrary to National Policy - Contrary to Development Plan - Loss of community facility - Irreplaceable - Historic feature of village - Will become soulless dormitory village - Change nature of village - Need to consider benefit to community - Meeting place for 190 years - Short sighted - Will prejudice return to pub use - No pub nearby - Difficult to find another site - Loss of tourist facility - On tourist route - Attracts many visitors - Well situated - Natural stop for tourists - Potential to be thriving business - Additional expensive housing not required - Golf course development has increased demand - Economic/employment implications - Loss of jobs - No justification Social and viability test required - Asset stripping - Adverse impact on conservation area - Appeals in similar situations dismissed in England - Changes to external appearance of a listed building - The best use for a listed building is usually the use for which it was designed - Substandard junction - Location of access unacceptable - Access to graveyard - Insufficient information - Inadequate plans - Plans inaccurate”

1.4 In their letter of objection, Scottish Civic Trust stated:

“.....Finally we are aware of the local concern at the potential loss of such a long standing part of the limited amenities in this small village. Given its history as a Coaching Inn, which is identified in its list description., we wish to resist the proposed change of use. Instead we would encourage that the building be marketed as a going concern before its original use is altered and lost. This would be in accordance with paragraph 2.16 of the Memorandum of Guidance which states ‘The best use for an historic building is usually the use for which it was designed’.......”

1.5 In their letter of objection, The Architectural Heritage Society of Scotland stated:

“.....if this change of use is to take place, considerably more information is required regarding the future landscaping of the entire frontage of one of the most prominent sites in the village. Until all this information is made available the Society formally objects to this application. At the same time it wishes to express its disappointment that this country inn, which dates from the early 19th century and has been a pivotal feature of the village, may yet become another dwelling house.”

1.6 In his Planning Assessment [EADC 5/6/01 Item 9/2.6], Planner Austin Cooke states:

“It is understood that, under the current owners, a small profit was made in operating the premises but that this was insufficient to justify the effort made into running the business. I also understand that the owners were not members of the local tourist board and did not actively market the property through the tourist board. So, while the current owners may consider that the operation of the public house is not viable, that is not to say that other owners, managing the premises in a different manner and more actively promoting the existence of the public house would take the same view.”

1.7 EADC members rejected the application [5/6/01]. These are the stated reasons for refusal:

“Reason 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 insufficient evidence to allow the loss of this important social, community and economic facility to the village.

Reason 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.

Reason 3 The proposal would lead to a loss of vitality and character to the established character of the “Outstanding” Kingsbarns 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.”

2. THE APPEAL

2.1 The applicants appealed the decision [27/11/01]. This is their ‘grounds of appeal’ statement:

“Three reasons were given for the refusal of our clients’ application none of which individually or jointly were sufficient to warrant the refusal.

Reason 1 This was dealt with in paragraph 3 of our letter to Fife Council of 26.4.2001 (copy enclosed). Fife Council make reference to “continued use as a public house” and in doing so reveal the confusion which was clearly in the mind of the Planning Officers concerned as to the identity of the subjects of the application which is a hotel with three letting bedrooms, a dining room, a lounge and a small public bar. The public house is only part of the business which was carried on by our clients.

The Council also refer to “the loss of this important social, community and economic facility to the village. No justification is made to back up this statement and clearly the Planning Officials were unduly influenced by the vociferous campaign within Kingsbarns opposing our clients’ application. A Petition carrying 243 signatures was lodged with the Council and our clients were able to obtain a copy. Of the 243 signatories, 18 were regular customers of the public house, 37 visited approximately 4 to 6 times per annum and the remaining 188 had never visited to our clients’ knowledge. A village public house is no different from a village Post Office or Grocers in that it requires local patronage to survive and neither our clients nor anyone can be forced to run an unprofitable business. Fife Council has permitted innumerable shops and business premises to be converted to domestic use and the adjacent village of Boarhills has lost all of its businesses. Kingsbarns hall has just been refurbished at considerable expense and should satisfy all of the community needs.

Reason 2 Indicates that our clients’ application runs contrary to the guidance of NPPG1 and Policy SP1 in the Finalised Fife Structure Plan. These documents are couched in the most general of terms and in our view are not pertinent to our clients’ application.

Reason 3 We disagree strongly that the proposal would lead to a loss of vitality and character to the Kingsbarns Conservation Area. Indeed the change of use of the building would enhance the Conservation area by returning the existing car park to garden ground and the restoration of the building to something approaching its original appearance. Reference is made to NPPG18 and Policy EV of the 1995 plan which are both concerned with the “historic environment” and as such, we believe that this was an inappropriate reason for refusal. Furthermore, our clients’ application for Listed Building Consent was approved.

Accordingly, we believe that the Planning Authority have refused the application without having any grounds in Planning law so to do and that the grounds quoted in the Fife Structure Plan, NPPG18 and the Local Plan which are not pertinent to our clients’ application.

Other Pertinent Facts

a. History of the site The existing Georgian building dates from around 1815 and in the early title deeds is referred to as a dwellinghouse. In 1876 the property was sold and the description in the title deeds refers to the property for the first time as Cambo Arms Inn - formerly dwellinghouse. Accordingly, the property was originally a dwellinghouse and only became an Inn some 50 or so years later. The property was owned by the Erskines of Cambo House from sometime between 1876 and 1912 until 1989 when it was sold to R. Alexander. Unfortunately, Mr. Alexander’s business failed and he was sequestrated. Our clients purchased from his Trustee in Bankruptcy in 1993.

b. Kingsbarns With the decline of agriculture, Kingsbarns has become a dormitory village serving nearby St. Andrews and the surrounding area and the only retail business left in the village is a small Post Office which we understand is for sale. A letter to the Dundee Courier from a long standing resident is also enclosed indicating the businesses which have closed in the village.

c. The Cambo Arms The business closed in November 2000 and the public house licence was not renewed in June 2001 when it was due for renewal. As such there is no longer a public house licence and as such there has been a de facto change of use although our clients have continued to offer bed and breakfast accommodation. Fife Council have already recognised this by re-assessing the rateable value from £7,100 (with the public house) to £2,400 (without). Copies of the relevant Valuation Notices are enclosed. The significant drop in rateable value is indicative of the financial pressures on the owners of country public houses and the inconsistency between Fife Council’s wish to encourage these businesses and their need to raise finance.

d. Local Developments Fife Council have recently allowed the construction of the St. Andrews Bay development between Kingsbarns and St. Andrews and also Kingsbarns Golf Course on the south side of Kingsbarns which has a licensed Club House and offers bar meals to non golfers.

In addition, it is open to anyone to apply for a change of use and public house licence in Kingsbarns (in perhaps more modest premises) if they feel that there is an economically sustainable and community need for it.”

As such we would urge you to allow our clients’ Appeal on the basis that:

(i) the built environment of the Kingsbarns Conservation Area will be enhanced.

(ii) the proposal is not contrary to any local or national planning policy or law and there is no realistic possibility of retaining the public house use by refusing a change of use.

(iii) Adequate precedent exists to allow the change of use from commercial to domestic. Recent examples include the Mansionhouse Hotel, Auchterhouse, Dundee and Farleyer House, by Aberfeldy.”

2.2 Letter from ‘long standing resident’ [enclosed with appeal, referred to in Other Pertinent Facts b]

Decision should be reversed, Letter to Editor, The Courier, 15 June 2001

“Sir, - I am genuinely saddened at the closure of the Cambo Arms Hotel, Kingsbarns. I grew up with the son of the then mine host and have known with affection “The Cammy” for over 60 years. I was also saddened when Kingsbarns’ other pub, The Auld Hoose, closed. I was saddened when three general shops and the chip shop closed. I was saddened when two blacksmith’s smiddys and the joiner’s workshop closed. I was saddened when the public library and market garden-cum-poultry farm ceased to function. And, of course, nostalgia bit when all three traditional stone and pantiled farm steadings ceased to be the place of work of men with horses, cattle, pigs and storage of grain, potatoes, hay and turnips. All of these premises are still in Kingsbarns.

Every place is now one or more of a whole range of desirable private residences. Presumably in some of these houses now reside some who petitioned against allowing the change of use of the Cambo Arms.

What hypocrites! Had they supported the hotel when its doors were open, this situation would not have arisen. Now that it has, why don’t the same petitioners put their money where their mouths are? A mere £1000 apiece and they could easily have their village pub.

The decision not to allow change of use of this hotel is doubtful in law and is without the support of either precedent or logic. It should be reversed forthwith.” Ian Turnbull, Sandyhill, Kingsbarns

3. RESPONSE

3.1 Fife Council will now defend their decision to reject the application.

3.2 Interested parties [those who have already made representation] can provide additional information.

The reporter will consider the appeal against the ‘planning’ issues referred to in the ‘reasons for refusal’ - but in order to fully understand the case, he must also consider the ‘other pertinent facts’.

Should you wish to respond, write to the Scottish Executive as soon as possible. Letters should be sent within 14 days of receipt of notice, but Fife Council and the Scottish Office have suggested that allowances will be made for ‘festive season’ delays.

Write to: Secretary, SEIRU, 2 Greenside Lane, Edinburgh EH1 3AG - quoting reference P/PPA/250/343

Copies of planning documents available on request include: The Planning Report, letters of representation, relevant planning policy guidelines [NPPG1, NPPG15, NPPG18, SP1, EV2 etc] and the ‘code of practice for planning appeals determined by written submission’ [this is such an appeal].

The Reporter will make a site visit - “some time after the end of January”, according to Fife Council. All interested parties are entitled to ‘attend’ the site visit.

All source material is in the public domain.