Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 October 2017 by H Porter BA(Hons) PGDip IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 08 November 2017

Appeal Ref: APP/F1610/W/17/3175535 Red Lion, Ampney St Peter, , GL7 5SL  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mrs Mary Fell against the decision of Council.  The application Ref 16/03807/FUL, dated 12 September 2016, was refused by notice dated 13 April 2017.  The development proposed is change of use of public house (A4) to a single dwelling (C3(a)).

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Application for costs

2. An application for costs was made by Mrs Mary Fell against Cotswold District Council. This application will be the subject of a separate Decision.

Main Issues

3. The main issues in this appeal are:

 Whether the proposed change of use would result in the loss of a valued local facility, whether suitable replacements exist and whether the use is viable; and

 Whether the change of use would preserve the Grade II listed building and any features of special architectural or historic interest it possesses and whether the character or appearance of the Ampney St Peter Conservation Area would be preserved or enhanced.

Reasons

4. The Red Lion public house is located in rural surroundings, just east of the small village of Ampney St Peter, on the A417. Saved Policies 32 and 25 of the Cotswold District Local Plan 2001 – 2011 (the Local Plan) seek to protect community facilities to ensure the vitality of settlements and resist the change of use of public houses. In so doing, Saved Policies 32 and 25 require there to be a recognised need, or where such a need exists, for there to be suitable replacement facilities in an appropriate alternative location. While Saved Policy 25 requires it to be demonstrated that the use is not viable, or that there are satisfactory alternative facilities available in the settlement.

5. Despite pre-dating it, these policies are consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) insofar as it too supports a prosperous rural https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Appeal Decision APP/F1610/W/17/3175535

economy and promotes the retention and development of local services and community facilities in villages, including public houses. Paragraph 28 of the Framework makes clear that, in order to support a prosperous rural economy, local planning authorities should, amongst other things, promote the retention and development of local services and community facilities in villages, including public houses. In addition, Paragraph 70 states that, amongst other things, planning policies and decisions should guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services.

The local facility and alternative facilities

6. The Red Lion has stood empty since 2014, following the death of the landlord and owner. Following a nomination by the Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA), the decision was subsequently taken in April 2017 not to list the Red Lion as an Asset of Community Value (ACV). The conclusion was founded on the location of the building and the physical constraints it presents, specifically by virtue of its status as a listed building. While there has been no offer from the community to take on the Red Lion, this does not preclude its value as a community facility.

7. No other public house exists in Ampney St Peter, the closest alternatives located in neighbouring villages of and Poulton. Representations by local residents who support the appeal still attest to the fact that, until its closure, the Red Lion was a unique, popular and well-loved drinking establishment. The level of public interest in this particular case and the local representations made, even in support of the appeal, indicate The Red Lion was, and therefore could become again, of local value. An alternative facility is not just one where a customer could be served alcohol, but one where the local population of Ampney St Peter could meet and convene, with the option of travelling without a car. The various public houses identified as providing suitable alternatives are in nearby villages or rural areas, or in Cirencester; all require access by car and are away from the nucleus of dwellings that make up the Ampney St Peter community. Since its closure, the Red Lion has not actively formed part of the life of the community. However, in the absence of any suitable alternative in the settlement, the change of use would result in a permanent loss of a valued community facility.

Viability

8. The appellant’s viability study indicates that the business, which was solely trading on wet sales, had made a very small profit in the years prior to its closure, which does not include any salary or mortgage payments. There is no disputing the challenges faced by public houses today, particularly in the context of changing drinking habits and legislation relating to smoking and drink driving. The appellant attests to the fact that the previous landlord ran the Red Lion as a hobby, did not serve food and closed the pub for much of the week. Irrespective of whether the declining customer base and restricted opening times were a reflection of changing drinking habits, it is unclear whether the previous landlord sought to increase the business’s potential.

9. There is no doubt that the interior spaces at the Red Lion are extremely small and the building is in need of modernisation throughout. The existing facilities would also limit the potential for serving food or selling rooms. That said, there are a number of features that could off-set the small drinking rooms. For example, there is a large room located off the kitchen, a number of outbuildings, large beer cellar and fairly substantial accommodation upstairs.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/F1610/W/17/3175535

The pub is also located on a main road within the , in attractive surroundings with generous parking and garden areas. That the toilets are located in an attached block, requiring a short walk outside, is not an unusual circumstance in historic public houses. Being included on the CAMRA’s National Inventory of Historic Pub interiors and the wider public interest attest to the pub’s uniqueness and potential to attract visitors from far afield.

10. The perceived constraints that the statutory listing would have on updating the building to provide accommodation or food are based on conjecture. The fact that the building is listed does not indicate that consent would not be granted for works that could facilitate a more viable operation, especially given the two- storey extension is specifically identified as being ‘not of special interest’1. While recognising that the planning process is not intended to make demands on occupiers or intervene in the market, at this stage I consider it would be imprudent to make assumptions about the future viability of the extant use. In the absence of any demonstrable evidence, such as a refusal to grant listed building consent, it would be premature to judge that The Red Lion would not have the potential to be suitably modernised and to operate as a viable business. While the site-specific circumstances at The Fountain Inn (APP/1850/W/15/3063801) may be different, I similarly conclude that it has not been unequivocally demonstrated that the public house could not be viable in the future.

Marketing

11. The Red Lion has been marketed since September 2016 at a price of £575,000. It has been marketed by one agent, though it has also been added to two property search databases since October 2016 and appeared in local property pages. There is currently no adopted local policy that prescribes a marketing exercise. Nevertheless, to date, the building has been marketed for sale for in excess of 12 months, which I consider is a reasonable period. The appellant’s statement indicates it has been marketed by the residential and commercial departments as a public house. While interested parties cast some doubt over whether the property has been marketed as a public house, there does appear to have been a number of viewings and one offer. Although the offer was subsequently withdrawn and feedback may indicate the existing space is too small to make it viable, to my mind, the number of viewings provides confirmation of a market demand for the extant use.

12. What is unclear is whether the asking price reasonably reflects the condition of the building or its current use class. Without a detailed valuation report from the marketing agent or a range of independent valuations, it is not currently possible to gauge how the asking price has been arrived at. If marketed at too high a price, it is likely that prospective purchasers would be put off by the level of investment required in the building’s fabric and potential challenges of the small rooms. In the absence of any demonstrable evidence of how the property has been valued and therefore marketed, it would be premature to judge the Red Lion not to be of interest and viable as a public house.

13. Based on the information before me at the time of making my decision, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate a lack of need for the Red Lion as a public house, or that suitable replacement facilities exist. It has also not been demonstrated that the use is not viable. In this regard, the proposed change of use would conflict with Saved Policies 25 and 32 of the Local Plan as well as

1 Statutory list description 1176/0/10009 The Red Lion Public House 04-MAR-08 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/F1610/W/17/3175535

paragraphs 28 and 70 of the Framework, which promotes the retention and development of local services and community facilities in villages, including public houses.

Heritage Assets

14. The Red Lion is a detached, two-storey public house located on the eastern periphery of the small village and Conservation Area of Ampney St Peter. The building stands in a prominent location addressing the A417, within a large garden and carpark plot containing various outbuildings. The building’s earlier, main range is constructed of coursed rubble stone with a Cotswold stone roof and timber casement windows. A later, 20th century range extends the building to the east at two storeys, and to the west with a single-storey lavatory block. It has not been suggested by either party that the building is on any at risk register, and while currently vacant and clearly in need of modernisation, the overall building fabric appeared to be sound.

15. The Grade II listed Red Lion public house was added to the statutory list in 2008. The statutory list description goes beyond the usual aid to identification, and sets out the reasons for the designation decision. In accordance with this, I similarly conclude that the significance and special interest of the Red Lion pertains to it being an intact and very rare example of the earliest phase of the public house, which has been in continuous use as a public house since the 18th century. Significance and special interest also derive from the surviving historic plan form, the plainness and simplicity of its little-altered interior and modest, largely domestic, fixtures. Notably, as above, the statutory description identifies the two-storey 20th century extension as being not of special interest; I also with this assessment.

16. The Ampney St Peter Conservation Area encapsulates the Red Lion at its eastern boundary and covers the central area of the small village. Due to its prominent location, marking the start of the designation on approach along the A417 from Fairford, the building makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area as an important part of its historic built development. As such, the building contributes aesthetically and historically to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area as a whole, and thereby to its significance as a designated heritage asset.

17. The fact that the building has been in continuous use as a public house since at least the late 18th century makes a significant contribution to its historic interest. It follows, therefore, that a permanent change of use away from a public house would inevitably result in some harm to its significance and special interest. Moreover, changing the use to a private dwelling would permanently restrict public access to the spaces that justified the building’s architectural and historic interest, which are of national significance. There would therefore be harm in undermining the evidential role the asset currently plays in a wider public understanding of our past.

18. The Framework requires great weight to be given to the conservation of a heritage asset when considering the impact of a proposal. Given the fact that no physical alterations are being proposed, I would qualify that the degree of harm to the special interest and significance of the listed building would be less than substantial. In these circumstances, the less than substantial harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing the optimum viable use of the building.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4 Appeal Decision APP/F1610/W/17/3175535

19. The Red Lion is currently empty and therefore at risk of fabric deterioration. Occupancy of the building would help to ensure it is retained in active use and likely future investment into the building’s fabric. These would be long-term public benefits of the proposed change of use. However, the optimum viable use of a building is the use that the building was originally intended, providing that use is still viable. The optimum viable use may not necessarily be the most profitable one. As above, it has yet to be satisfactorily established that the original use is no longer economically viable. Therefore, it remains possible that the future conservation of the asset could be secured without harming the historic significance of the building through its change of use.

20. While works to upgrade the Red Lion to secure its longer-term viability as a public house may well require physical intervention and alteration to the building, it is equally possible the residential conversion would similarly require physical changes. A domestic use would therefore not inevitably be less harmful in the longer term. Overall, therefore, I do not find the identified public benefits to be sufficient to outweigh the harm to the Grade II listed building, which must be afforded considerable importance and weight. As such, I conclude the change of use would fail to preserve the listed building, contrary to the clear expectations in Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act).

21. While I have identified the proposal would harm the special interest and significance of the listed building, the impact of the proposed change of use would not be obviously visible from the public realm. Overall, the aesthetic and historic contribution that the Red Lion contributes to the Conservation Area as a whole would remain unharmed. The proposal would therefore not impact on the character or appearance of the Conservation Area, which, as a consequence, would be preserved. A lack of harm in this regard, however, does not alter my conclusion in relation to the listed building.

Other matter

22. My attention has been drawn to other public houses that have been granted a residential change of use. In relation to the change of use of the public house in Northleach (APP/F1610/W/15/3039102), the Inspector noted the extremely poor condition of the building, attributing this factor considerable weight. Moreover, in that case there were no bidders when the property was sold. There was also another pub just 40 metres away from the appeal site and another a short walk away, which led to the conclusion that the town was well served by drinking establishments and that there was no evidence of an unmet need. Accordingly, the circumstances are not directly comparable with those that apply in this appeal. I do not know the specific planning considerations that led to these other decisions referred to, including site specific circumstances. In any case, I have reached my own conclusions on the appeal proposal on the basis of the evidence before me. That the decision to refuse the application was taken by the Planning Committee, contrary to officer recommendation, is a matter I come to in the Costs application decision.

Conclusion

23. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. H Porter

INSPECTOR

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5