Skip to main content

Agenda item

25/03700/FUL - The Twelve Bells, 12 Lewis Lane, Cirencester.

Proposal

Change of Use of a Public House (Sui Generis) to a Residential Dwelling (C3) with ancillary B&B outbuilding.

 

Case Officer

Amy Hill

 

Ward Member

Councillor Joe Harris

 

Officer recommendation: PERMIT

Minutes:

The proposal was the Change of Use of a Public House (Sui Generis) to a Residential Dwelling (C3) with ancillary B&B outbuilding.

 

Case Officer: Amy Hill

Ward Member: Councillor Joe Harris

Recommendation: PERMIT.

 

The Chair invited the Case Officer to introduce the application who confirmed that there were no updates since the publication of the agenda and:

·         Shared the location plan and accommodation layout, map of location of listed buildings and Conservation areas, photographs and floor plan.

·         Shared a map of the location of pubs within 400m of the application

·         Confirmed that the location was outside the defined town centre.

 

Speaker 1 – Objector – Mr James Brown

The speaker stated that the 12 Bells was a valued community asset, evidenced by over 150 objections, including from the Town Council, Civic Society, and the Council’s Conservation Officer. They argued that there were no public benefits arising from the scheme, as the loss of the pub would outweigh any housing considerations, noting it provided a community meeting space and local employment. The speaker questioned the claim of non-viability, citing reported profitability, concerns about marketing and valuation, and a lack of independent evidence, and concluded that approval would result in harm to the community and set a negative precedent for other pubs.

 

Speaker 2 – Applicant – Mr Joe Seymour

The agent stated that a robust marketing exercise over 18 months failed to attract interest in continuing the pub use despite the reduced price. They argued this demonstrated lack of viability in line with policy requirements. The agent explained that planning decisions are guided by evidence and policy, and that the system supports the management of land-use change when current uses are no longer viable.

 

Speaker 3 – Ward Member – Councillor Joe Harris

The Ward Member stated that the application required a planning balance between the loss of a valued community asset in a sensitive historic setting and any public benefits. They felt that no meaningful public benefits had been demonstrated, noting there was no net housing gain or wider regeneration benefit. The Ward Member argued that the policy test regarding community facilities had not been met, as neither need nor viability had been demonstrated, and questioned the evidence supporting the claim of non-viability, including reported profitability and marketing arrangements. They stated that required viability evidence, including independent valuation and trading information had not been provided. The loss of the pub would set an undesirable precedent for the erosion of community infrastructure.

 

Member Questions:

Members of the Committee asked a series of questions and noted that:

·         The property had been marketed as going concern from January 2023 whilst with Christie & Fleurets, and subsequently with Moor Allen (from June 2024) who maintained the pub status despite placing a greater emphasis on residential potential.

·         Historic England were consulted due to the potential impact on nearby scheduled ancient monuments and focused their comments on archaeological considerations rather than the impact on the Listed Building. The Conservation Officer had assessed the impact on the Listed Building and Conservation Area.

·         The requirement for an independent valuation had been deemed not necessary due to the site’s location just outside the town centre and its proximity to other pubs and similar facilities.

·         Initial valuation details had been requested but could not be fully evidenced. During the marketing period there were approximately three expressions of interest and one viewing, with the asking price subsequently reduced. No conditional offers were made and no additional valuation information was requested.

·         It was advised that, if the building remained unused as a pub, there was a risk of it being left vacant. Conversion to residential use would secure its ongoing active use and maintenance, which is generally beneficial for historic buildings.

·         Available marketing information indicated net profits in excess of £100,000, although detailed supporting evidence and specific time periods for this figure were limited.

·         The applicant had not operated the property as a pub. The consideration of officers focused primarily on the lack of demand for a party willing to operate the pub, rather than on financial performance.

·         There would be no net increase in residential units, as the existing arrangement already included ancillary accommodation.

·         The property was understood to have ceased operating as a pub approximately 18 months ago.

·         Should the application be refused, the applicant could continue marketing the property and resubmit a future application, supported by additional viability evidence.

 

Member Comments:

·         Members commented on the loss of the Grade II listed public house, the wider decline in local pubs, and referenced comparable cases. Concerns were raised regarding the robustness of the viability case and the lack of clear public benefit, including in relation to housing. The proposal was considered to result in the unjustified loss of the pub.

·         The loss of the pub could increase travel to other pubs and potentially reduce local sustainability. The pub served as a wider community facility, hosting social and community activities, and concern was raised that alternative uses such as community ownership, mixed use or leasing had not been fully explored. It was further considered that the property had been priced out of continued pub use.

·         A Member commented that viability was considered to be driven by market demand, noting the property had been marketed for a number of years without any offers to continue its use as a pub. It was observed that changing social and economic trends were impacting pub use and that residential use was preferred to avoid vacancy.

 

Reasons for REFUSAL:

Policy INF2: Avoid loss of community assets and need to demonstrate that there was no local demand for the facility or for an appropriate alternative community use. Insufficient information submitted to convince not viable.

 

Councillor David Fowles proposed and Councillor Daryl Corps seconded the proposal to REFUSE the application

 

RESOLVED: to REFUSE the application.

Supporting documents:

 

Related Pages