Agenda item

Change of Use and conversion of east wing to form separate dwelling and alterations to porch to side for Mr J. Vass.

The main observations raised by June Fawcett were as follows:-

• Ms Fawcett advised Members of the dismay and concern expressed at a recent Parish Council meeting with regard to the change of use of Melling Hall.
• She had lived in Melling for almost 40 years, the first 16 of which she had lived opposite the hotel and was well aware of it as a focus for social life.
• She stressed the impact of closure on the community and regarded the hotel as a neutral and welcoming environment, a place for social interaction.
• With the closure of the hotel/licensed premises there was no public place to provide refreshment and nowhere to provide hospitality to newcomers and visitors.
• Young people find the village dead and everyone misses the opportunity to walk to the local pub.
• Something very important had gone.

The main objections raised by Marie Hewitt were as follows:-

• Ms Hewitt was a newcomer to the village and on viewing her house had been given the impression that Melling Hall was a pivotal part of village life.
• She had lived there for 2 years now and it was apparent that village life had diminished.
• The Hall had been used by many groups for various occasions and was spoken off with great affection.

The main objections raised by Jean Ann Naylor were as follows:-

• When Ms Naylor was formerly clerk to the Parish Council, the Council had voted against the change of use of this site in 2003.
• In her opinion the then applicant had submitted ‘lies.’
• The appeal had granted permission for two dwellings and 1 had been implemented.  In her opinion the owners had blocked off a third property without permission.
• Planning Officers had not carried out an archaeological survey.
• The proposed amendments were radically different and gave cause for alarm.
• In her opinion the full picture had never been presented.
• Ms Naylor urged Members not to vote for the interests of one family but to stick with policy and principles as expected of a democratically elected Planning Committee.

The main points expressed by Mr JAC Beeson were as follows:-

• Less than 2 years ago the planning application was rejected but the Planning Inspector had overturned the decision.
• The building was now divided into 3 parts and the Officers report had been altered.
• If the Central unit was self-contained the east and west units should be also but permission had only been given for 2 dwellings.
• In his opinion, the application was an acknowledgment that neither the Officers nor the applicant believed approval was needed for the east wing.
• He had been advised that if there was a ‘void’ it would have to revert back to previous use.
• The application should have been a change of use from food establishment.
• The speakers today and those who have attended Parish meetings etc. have shown the demand for a food and drink establishment.  The vital importance of food and drink establishments to village communities was recognised.

The main observations raised by Councillor Airey were as follows:-

• It was the most important application he had dealt with on his ward.
• It was the last attempt to save Melling’s only major public asset and the last chance of having a public bar facility for people to meet.
• Residents had warned the Committee that the application would spiral and it had with the application for a third house in a ‘void’ created by the applicants.
• There was a chance that this ‘void’ could become a public house again.
• Public houses survive in other small villages with the support of the local community.
• The applicants bought the site as a going concern, a pub and in his opinion regarded it as a way of making a quick buck at the expense of the local community.
• Councillor Airey asked the Committee to back the residents and Parish Council.

It was proposed by Councillor Ravetz and seconded by Councillor Quinton:

“That planning permission be granted.”

Upon being put to the vote, 13 Members voted in favour of the proposal, 6 voted against and 1 Member abstained, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.