149/07 (7) CASE NUMBER: 07/04844/FUL GRID REF: EAST 433917 NORTH 471224 APPLICATION NO.: 6.33.13.G.FUL LOCATION: Oak Tree Inn Copt Hewick Ripon North Yorkshire HG4 5BY PROPOSAL: Conversion of public house to form 2 dwellings with first floor rear extension (Site Area 0.06ha) (Revised Scheme). APPLICANT: Mr Paul Watson REFUSED. Reason(s) for refusal:- 1 The application proposal would result in the loss of the public house that constitutes an important community facility in the village. The Local Planning Authority consider that the applicant has not shown that all reasonable options to demonstrate that the business could not be sold as a viable concern have been explored and therefore it has not been conclusively demonstrated that there is no longer any interest in operating the premises as a public house, as required by saved Policy CFX of the adopted Harrogate District Local Plan (as altered, 2004). It is held that a long-term view needs to be taken and accordingly it would be premature to sanction its use for conversion to two dwellings and as such the application proposal is contrary to the aims and provisions of Local Plan Policy CFX, which seeks to retain such a community facility. 2 The proposed addition of the pitched roof to the existing rear two-storey extension would be detrimental to the amenities of the occupants of the neighbouring property, by reason of the increased height and proximity to the common boundary, and the overshadowing and loss of outlook that would be caused. The development would therefore be contrary to saved Policies A1, H6 and HD20 of the adopted Harrogate District Local Plan (as altered, 2004). (Councillor Parnaby declared a personal interest in this item on the basis that the applicant was known to him but, on the basis that the interest was not prejudicial, he remained in the meeting and took part in the debate and voted thereon). (Councillor Willis declared a personal interest in this item on the basis that he had written about the public house as a freelance journalist but, on the basis that the interest was not prejudicial, he remained in the meeting and took part in the debate and voted thereon). (Mrs Venner (on behalf of the Parish Council) attended the meeting and spoke to the item under the Council’s Opportunity to Speak Scheme). (Mrs Venner (Objector) attended the meeting and spoke to the item under the Council’s Opportunity to Speak Scheme). (Mr Watson (applicant) and Mr Van Pagh (Agent) attended the meeting and spoke to the item under the Council’s Opportunity to Speak Scheme). (Nine Members voted for the motion, two voted against and there were three abstentions) .