|
Cambo Arms Hotel - change of use proposal - background
info Planning report to East Area Development Committee - meeting 5th June 2001, 2pm, Cupar back to Cambo Arms main page more Background Info ITEM NO: 9 APPLICATION FOR FULL PLANNING PERMISSION REF: O1/00670/EFULL SITE ADDRESS: CAMBO ARMS 5 MAIN STREET KINGSBARNS PROPOSAL: SUBDIVIDE/ALTER BAR/HOTEL AND DWELLINGHOUSE TO FORM TWO DWELLINGHOUSES (INCLUDING REPLACEMENT WINDOW/REINSTATEMENT OF DOOR) APPLICANT: MRS AND MR A FRASER CAMBO ARMS 5 MAIN STREET KINGSBARNS CONSULTATIONS Transportation Service - No objections East of Scotland Water - Water supply available. No drainage objection. Kingdom of Fife Tourist Board - Establishment not member of Tourist Board and appears not to have promoted itself to tourists. Loss of use regrettable for village but given recent history, not a loss to tourism industry. 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 The applicant has submitted a letter in support of the proposal which raises the following points: - Public House closed on 5 November 2000 STATUTORY POLICIES AND APPROVED GUIDANCE National Planning Policy Fife Structure Plan, 1994 Finalised Fife Structure Plan, 2001 Largo and East Neuk Local Plan, 1995 Other Guidance PLANNING SUMMARY 1.0 Background 1.1 This application seeks full planning permission for the sub-division of the existing bar/hotel and dwellinghouse to form two dwellinghouses at 5 Main Street, Kingsbarns. The proposals involve the separation of the back wing of the main building to become a dwellinghouse in its own right and the conversion of the existing hotel/bar area into another dwellinghouse. This involves the internal blocking off of corridors, the enlargement of one window and the reinstatement of one door. Other physical alterations involve the conversion of a storage area into a bathroom. 1.2 The application property is an early 19th century coaching inn, consisting of a two storey stone and slate Georgian building, housing the bar area and letting bedrooms, and the former stables areas which now accommodate a house associated with the use of the premises as a hotel. The application site also takes in the existing parking area to the north of the property. 1.3 There are no previous applications relevant to the determination of the current proposals. The related listed building application (01/00672/ELBC) is included elsewhere on this Agenda. 2.0 Planning Assessment 2.1 There are three issues which the Committee will have to address in considering this application. Firstly, would the use of the premises as two dwellinghouses be acceptable by itself. Secondly, are the physical alterations caused by the proposed change of use acceptable in this Outstanding Conservation Area. Thirdly, would the loss of the public house be detrimental to the social and economic life of the village. 2.2 As regards the first issue, the proposed change of use to two dwellinghouses would by itself, not cause any detrimental impact to the village in general, or the surrounding land uses in the immediate vicinity. Adequate parking and amenity ground can be provided for any dwellinghouses in this location in the conservation area and there are no policy grounds to consider the proposed use of the property for two dwellinghouses as unacceptable. 2.3 In terms of the physical alterations carried out to the exterior of the building, again these are by themselves acceptable as they do not impact adversely upon the appearance of the building. Nor do they have any adverse impact upon the appearance of the conservation area. This is subject to the amendment of the proposed double glazed, 12-pane sash and case window to a single glazed construction. If the application was to be approved this could be added as a condition. Indeed for any proposed conversion the external alterations are minimal. 2.4 The third issue, the loss of the public house, is much more difficult to assess. Clearly there would be the loss of a facility which has existed, in the village, since at least the early 19th century. There will be undoubted impacts upon the social and economic life of the village if it is lost. 2.5 Normally the reason for a change of use, in a case like this, is because of economic reasons and it would not be normally appropriate to determine the need, or otherwise for such a facility within the village, under the planning process. Nevertheless National Planning Policy Guidelines 15 - Rural Development, indicates that the Planning Authority should be supportive of local facilities which provide a valuable service to the local community and that it is reasonable to consider the social and economic impacts of the loss of facilities such as village shops. The concept of sustainability is also relevant as ideally such facilities should remain in local areas to prevent unnecessary car use for example. National Planning Policy Guideline 1 “The Planning System” and Policy SP1 (Sustainability) in the Finalised Fife Structure Plan (2001) also indicate that strong vibrant healthy communities are important and accessibility to jobs, shops and leisure as well as other facilities is essential. As the facility is also one that could be of benefit to the local tourist market, this is also something which needs to be considered in detail. It is also worth considering whether the loss of the public house use would actually adversely impact upon the character and vitality of the conservation area. 2.6 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. However, the owners indicated that they last marketed the property in 1998 and that while a significant number of interest was evident no firm offers were forthcoming. They have also indicated that facilities at Kingsbarns Golf Course and at Kingask will also have an impact on trade by introducing more competition into the area. Also they consider that the operation of the premises as a hotel is not viable. The fact that the owners wish to concentrate on their farming business is irrelevant to the consideration of this application. It is the viability of the public house/hotel that is important. The loss of the public house will detract from the vitality of the area and impact adversely upon the established character of the conservation area. While the proposed uses would be acceptable in themselves it is felt that the permanent or long term loss of the public house/hotel would be undesirable without sound reason. 2.7 The location of the property is prominent in the village and it is very well placed to pick up on passing trade, particularly those who may be visiting the area to use the nearby facilities, for example Kingsbarns Golf Course, as it does not necessarily follow that users of that facility will want to utilise its bar etc all the time. Such facilities are competition, but they are also an opportunity given the different nature of such establishments. There are more potential customers in the area. While marketing has taken place, in recent years it appears not to have been vigorous and little information has been passed to the Service to indicate otherwise. I am not convinced that adequate steps have been taken to prove that the public house does not have a future. It therefore remains to be considered whether this is sufficient justification to seek refusal of the application. 2.8 It is accepted that this premises is not a major feature of tourism in the area and this could possibly be construed as a reason why this application should be approved. However, there is every likelihood that this facility could provide not only an addition to tourism if promoted, in the area but also provide a useful local facility for what is quite a large village. In terms of sustainability it would make sense to try and keep such a facility within the village as an important community asset and as a way of stopping local residents having to go farther afield to find a public house. For these reasons it is felt on balance, that the case to allow the conversion of the public house into two dwellinghouses has not been sufficiently proven on this occasion. 2.9 Concerns have been raised that the possible change of use may impact upon access to the Churchyard through the gate to the front of the Cambo Arms. In this instance it is not proposed to erect any physical structures which would impinge upon access and in any event this would be a civil legal matter rather than a planning issue. However, it was noted on a site visit that the title deeds to the property show rights of access to the fields immediately to the south of the Cambo Arms. Also if Committee were to approve the application conditions could be used to ensure that the front of the Cambo Arms is not cluttered up with fences or other domestic paraphernalia that might impact upon the setting of this important part of the village. In any event, such enclosures would require planning consent. 2.10 There have been a significant number of objections to the proposal. While many are standard letters this in itself is a material consideration. It is reasonable, given public feeling to ensure that the public house is not lost without full consideration. 3.0 Conclusion 3.1 While the physical alterations to the building and the use of the premises for two dwellinghouses would itself not be onerous on the conservation area or surrounding land uses and occupiers it is felt that insufficient evidence has been submitted which would allow the loss of this important social and economic facility to the village. On balance, the recommendation is for refusal of the application. RECOMMENDATION Refuse for the following:- Reason(s):- 1. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the premises has been sufficiently marketed for continued use on 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. 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 NPPG 1 “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” 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 NPPG 18 “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. BACKGROUND PAPERS The documents, guidance notes and policies referred to in “Statutory Policies and Approved Guidance”. See also application reference number 01/00672/ELBC Report prepared by Austin Cooke, Principal Planner (St Andrews & E Neuk) back to Cambo Arms main page more Background Info up to Top |