Viewed by Local Residents As an Important Community Facility That Should Be Retained

Home , Abergarwed, Glynneath, Resolven

Penderfyniad ar yr Apêl Appeal Decision Ymweliad â safle a wnaed ar 16/12/19 Site visit made on 16/12/19 gan Richard Duggan BSc (Hons) by Richard Duggan BSc (Hons) DipTP DipTP MRTPI MRTPI Arolygydd a benodir gan Weinidogion Cymru an Inspector appointed by the Welsh Ministers

Dyddiad: 21.01.2020 Date: 21.01.2020

Appeal Ref: APP/Y6930/A/19/3238694 Site address: Farmers Arms, Glynneath Road, Resolven SA11 4DW The Welsh Ministers have transferred the authority to decide this appeal to me as the appointed Inspector. • 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 Mr S Bailey against the decision of Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council. • The application Ref P2019/5070, dated 3 June 2019, was refused by notice dated 31 July 2019. • The development proposed is described as ‘Change of Use from Public House (Class A3) to a Dwelling (Class C3)’.

Decision

1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for Change of Use from Public House (Class A3) to a Dwelling (Class C3) at Farmers Arms, Glynneath Road, Resolven SA11 4DW, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P2019/5070, dated 3 June 2019, subject to the conditions set out in the annex to this decision.

Application for costs

2. An application for costs was made by Mr S Bailey against Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

Main Issue

3. The main issue is whether the proposed change of use of the public house as an important local community facility would meet the requirements of Policy SC2 of the Adopted Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council Local Development Plan (LDP), 2016 having regard to the criteria set out within the policy.

Reasons

4. Paragraphs 4.3.40 – 4.3.41 of Planning Policy Wales (PPW) Edition 10 recognises that public houses can play an important economic and social role in the local community and their loss can have a detrimental impact, and the economic and social function of public houses should be taken into account when considering applications for a change of use into residential or other uses.

Appeal Decision APP/Y6930/A/19/3238694

5. The approach of PPW is reflected within Policy SC2 (Protection of Existing Community Facilities) of the LDP, which has been cited by the Council in the decision notice. This Policy resists the loss of important community facilities unless it can be demonstrated that the facility is surplus to requirements and the existing use is no longer viable. The supporting text to Policy SC2 states “where a facility performs (or has performed) an important or central function in the life of the local community, any change to a non-community use will be resisted unless it can be demonstrated that the facility is no longer viable or needed by the community and that there is no potential that the building can be used for an alternative or shared community use.” Given its consistency with national planning policy, Policy SC2 of the LDP is relevant in the determination of this appeal.

6. Notwithstanding the fact that the planning officer’s report concluded that the Farmers Arms was not an important community facility, I note that there has been opposition to the loss of this public house, including 20 individual representations from the local community and a petition received by the Council at the application stage, together with concerns raised by the Community Council, Ward Member, adjoining Ward Member from Glynneath and local residents over the loss of the Public House. These representations indicate that the potential loss of this pub is of great concern to many residents in Resolven, Abergarwed and surrounding areas. The representations indicate, for example, that the pub was a hub of the community and that if the current owners intended to continue using the property as a pub they would receive the full support and custom from the local community.

7. Rural pubs are important in terms of the social fabric of a community, a fact recognised by both PPW and the LDP, and they can also provide economic benefits through the attraction of visitors. Taking into account these matters and that the retention of the appeal property as a public house has generated considerable support within the area, I consider that it can be deemed to be a valued and important community facility. However, assessing the ‘Importance’ of a community facility is a difficult task and Policy SC2 does not provide any amplification on how this assessment should be made. Nevertheless, it would appear from the evidence before me, including the level of objections submitted and the comments made in representations, that the Farmers Arms has been viewed by local residents as an important community facility that should be retained. It is within this context that I now deal with the tests set out within Policy SC2.

8. The supporting text to Policy SC2 states that “The type of evidence required will vary….. but may include details of why the building is no longer in use, what alternative provision there is locally, what other community options have been considered for the building and evidence to show reasonable efforts have been made to market the facility for sale or lease for its existing use”.

9. The Appellant has provided a detailed breakdown of the other facilities found within Resolven, including Resolven Community Hall and Scout Hall, various takeaway food outlets, Vaughan Arms (now closed), Resolven Rugby and Football clubs, and a library, doctors surgery and chemist. The Council officer’s report also states that “as a matter of fact it is thus clear that the locality is well served by a range and choice of such facilities. While that in itself does not mean that the facility is surplus to requirements, it should be given weight in such an analysis.”

10. I saw for myself that the village contains a number of other local shops and community facilities and that the appeal property is somewhat detached from the main part of Resolven on the opposite side of the A465. The availability of other

Appeal Decision APP/Y6930/A/19/3238694

facilities allied to the location of the pub are not conducive to attracting additional customers.

11. The evidence demonstrates that Sidney Phillips were initially instructed by the previous owner to market the property for sale as a going concern on 14 March 2017 at an asking price of £230,000, but due to the lack of interest the price was reduced in September 2017 to £210,000. The Property was also marketed on four industry websites, including Daltons Weekly, Morning Advertiser, Businesses for sale and Rightbiz. The business also appeared in the printed version of the Publicans Morning Advertiser, the principal trade paper on three separate occasions, and within Sidney Phillips’ monthly in-house magazine “Business Opportunities”.

12. During the marketing campaign a total of 279 requests for sale particulars were received from individual parties, with four making formal appointments to view. During this period only one offer of purchase at £190,000 was received as a result of the marketing campaign, but this sale did not proceed as the prospective purchaser was unable to secure the required mortgage.

13. In 2018 the property was sold at public action and a deposit was paid, but despite attempts to raise finances between July and September 2018, the potential purchasers withdrew from the sale. A further offer to purchase the property at £175,000 was agreed on 1st October 2018, but again the prospective purchaser failed to raise finances. The price was reduced again in April 2019, and the Appellant purchased the property for £160,000 in June 2019.

14. It is clear from the evidence submitted, that the public house was put up for sale for over two years at realistic prices as a public house and has been reduced in price to increase the chances of a sale, but this has been unsuccessful. I am therefore satisfied that the marketing campaign has been undertaken in a diligent and comprehensive manner in an attempt to sell the public house as a going concern. Whilst there is significant local interest in the continuance of trading, I am of the opinion that the Appellants’ evidence in this regard is compelling and is sufficient to test the current market conditions for the public house.

15. In respect of the alternative uses for the appeal property the Appellant has drawn my attention to the potential uses that the public house could be changed to without planning permission, such as Classes A1 (Shops) and A2 (Financial and Professional Services). However, no interest was shown for these uses and no sale was completed, and there appears to be little appetite within the market both locally and nationally for a business opportunity at the appeal property.

16. Having regard to the above, the evidence satisfactorily demonstrates that all reasonable efforts have been made to market the premises as a commercial use.

17. The Appellant has provided accounts from 2014 – 2017 to demonstrate that the Farmers Arms was not profitable over this period and was no longer viable as a business. The accounts show that despite over a 100% increase in sales since 2013 profitability has fallen every year since 2015. However, concerns have been raised as to whether the previous owner deliberately ran down the business and that better management could have saved it. To that end the Appellant appointed an expert in the industry to examine the accounts and assess whether the business was managed properly and whether it has any potential as a going concern.

Appeal Decision APP/Y6930/A/19/3238694

18. The Appellant’s Viability Study1 provides an assessment of the long-term viability of the Property as a licensed premises and whether there would be sufficient business for an operator to maintain a reasonable standard of living in running the business. The report states that the business in its location would sell drink to local customers but would not generally attract significant trade from outside the immediate area. The surrounding area does not benefit from significant foot fall which would allow the business to benefit from passing trade, and the small customer trading area and limited car parking make it difficult to see how the income could be significantly bolstered, especially with the lack of opportunity to diversify the business. The report goes on to say that facilities available at The Farmers Arms are considerably inferior to those required by a modern discerning customer, and substantial investment of over £100,000 plus working capital would be needed to be invested into the Public House to refurbish the premises. Taking into account the competition in the area and the cost of the works, the report states that such an investment would be extremely risky.

19. The report also highlights other factors that are currently affecting the industry, including changes in society and changes in drinking and eating habits, increases in staff costs, and the low cost of alcohol sold in supermarkets. The report concludes that the Public House is commercially unviable in the medium to long term.

20. The financial accounts figures have not been critically assessed by the Council, indeed, the Council states that it accepts the figures provided. Neither has the Council questioned the validity of the Appellant’s Viability Study or prepared its own critique of the report. Therefore, I have no reason to question the evidence put before me.

21. In terms of diversification, the pub benefits from upstairs accommodation and potentially a limited form of tourist accommodation in the form of a bed and breakfast could be accommodated, although this would require some reconfiguration and also possibly improvements such as soundproofing. I am again mindful that this would require significant investment, as the footprint of the pub is relatively small, and the kitchen facilities and preparation areas are very limited and are in need of significant improvement. As well as this, the toilet facilities would need upgrading and access for the disabled improved, thus increasing the amount of up front expenditure required.

22. Although local residents have submitted that the Farmer Arms is a valued community asset, the published accounts clearly show a downturn in profitability over a sustained period. I am also mindful of the fact that the property is looking run down and this is a significant factor in deterring potential customers and is to be considered when determining the viability of the business and whether it is surplus to requirements. It is clear that re-opening the public house would require a huge amount of repairs and refurbishment to attract customers, and that this would raise significant expenditure costs. Therefore, I have serious concerns over the long term viability of a business operating from the premises as demonstrated by the reduction in profits.

23. Taking into account the foregoing, I consider that the pub has a number of factors that count against it in terms of viability. In a general sense these include its location and its detachment from the main part of the village of Resolven, the lack of an immediate large scale population that would be able to walk to the premises, its current footprint and configuration as well as the amount of money required to improve and modernise the facilities to meet current standards.

1 Viability Study, prepared by Baldwins Holdings Limited, September 2019

Appeal Decision APP/Y6930/A/19/3238694

24. In light of these factors I conclude that it has been shown that the Farmers Arms, run as a public house is completely unviable and that the current use has become surplus to requirements.

Conclusions

25. Overall the evidence before me is sufficiently thorough and wide ranging to constitute a solid case for the proposed development in the balance of harm to the community. As a result of this, I am sufficiently persuaded that it has been clearly demonstrated, in line with the requirements of LDP Policy SC2, that the Farmers Arms has become surplus to requirements and the existing use is longer viable.

26. In reaching my decision, I have taken into account the requirements of sections 3 and 5 of the Well Being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. I consider that this decision is in accordance with the Act’s sustainable development principle through its contribution towards the Welsh Ministers’ well-being objectives of promoting good health and well-being for everyone and building healthier communities and better environments.

27. Having regard to the above and considered all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed, subject to the conditions set out in the annex attached to this decision.

Richard Duggan

INSPECTOR

Appeal Decision APP/Y6930/A/19/3238694

ANNEX TO APPEAL DECISION APP/Y6930/A/19/3236894

1. The development shall begin no later than five years from the date of this decision.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

2. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and documents: D1 - Location Plan. D2 - Block Plan. D3 - Existing Ground and First. D4 - Proposed Ground and First.

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved documents, plans and drawings submitted with the application.

3. Prior to the first beneficial occupation of the dwelling hereby approved, three off- street parking spaces (inclusive of the garage), together with a vehicle turning area so that vehicles can enter and exit in a forward gear, shall be retained within the curtilage of the property and shall thereafter be used solely for the benefit of the occupants of the dwelling of which it forms part and their visitors and for no other purpose, and permanently retained as such, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety and to ensure the development complies with Policy TR2 of the Neath Port Talbot Local Development Plan.

4. Notwithstanding the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended for Wales) (or any order revoking and re-enacting that order with or without modification), no buildings shall be erected other than those expressly authorised by this permission and identified on the approved drawings.

Reason: In order to safeguard the amenities of the area and the character of this Building of Local Importance by enabling the Local Planning Authority to consider whether planning permission should be granted for garages or outbuildings having regard to the particular layout and design of the building, and to accord with Policies BE1, BE2 and SC1 of the Neath Port Talbot Local Development Plan.

5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended for Wales) (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no doors, windows or dormer windows (other than those expressly authorised by this permission) shall be constructed without the prior grant of planning permission in that behalf.

Reason: In order to safeguard the amenities of the area and the character of this Building of Local Importance by enabling the Local Planning Authority to consider whether planning permission should be granted for such additional doors / windows, having regard to the particular layout and design of the development, and to accord with Policies BE1, BE2 and SC1 of the Neath Port Talbot Local Development Plan.

Appeal Decision APP/Y6930/A/19/3238694

6. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended for Wales) (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no decking or raised platforms shall be constructed on site without the prior grant of planning permission in that behalf.

Reason: In order to safeguard the amenities of the area and the character of this Building of Local Importance by enabling the Local Planning Authority to consider whether planning permission should be granted for any raised decking or platforms, and to accord with Policies BE1, BE2 and SC1 of the Neath Port Talbot Local Development Plan.

7. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended for Wales) (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), there shall be no extension or external alteration to any building forming part of the development hereby permitted without the prior grant of planning permission in that behalf.

Reason: In order to safeguard the amenities of the area and the character of this Building of Local Importance by enabling the Local Planning Authority to consider whether planning permission should be granted for extensions, having regard to the particular layout and design of the development and need to protect the amenity of nearby properties, and to accord with Policies BE1, BE2 and SC1 of the Neath Port Talbot Local Development Plan.

8. No surface water and/or land drainage shall be allowed to connect directly or indirectly with the public sewerage network or highway drainage network.

Reason: To prevent hydraulic overloading of the public sewerage system or highway drainage network, to protect the health and safety of existing residents and ensure no pollution of or detriment to the environment, and to and ensure the development complies with Policy SP16 and BE1 of the Neath Port Talbot Local Development Plan.

9. Any gates provided across the access drive(s) shall be of a type which open inward only and can be seen through, and shall be retained as such thereafter, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interest of highway and pedestrian safety and to ensure compliance with Policy TR2 of the Neath Port Talbot Local Development Plan.