Use of Article 4 directions re conversions of pubs to supermarkets - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

See Lewisham: http://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/documents/s7323/Baring%20Hall%20Hotel%20Confirmation%20of%20Article%204%201%20Direction.pdf http://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=4008 I understand that the proposed demolition etc of the Lord Clyde in Greenwich also in Lewisham DC/11/77308/FT has been refused on appeal, though it's not clear if an Article 4 direction had been made: 1) In line with policy HE8 of PPS5 - Planning for the Historic Environment, The Lord Clyde public house building has been identified by the local planning authority as an undesignated heritage asset, which has both historical value and architectural character and adds positively to the local distinctiveness of the area. Inadequate justification has been provided for the demolition of the existing building, and as such its demolition would result in an unacceptable loss of a heritage asset and consequently would result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area, which includes the Grade II Listed London to Greenwich Railway Viaduct. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies 7.4 Local character and 7.8 Heritage assets and archaeology of the London Plan (July 2011), Policy 16 Conservation areas, heritage assets and the historic environment of the adopted Core Strategy (June 2011) and the guidance provided in PPS5 - Planning for the Historic Environment. 2) The proposal would result in the unacceptable loss of an operational public house and boxing gym which provides a valuable amenity as a social and cultural centre for the local community. As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policies 3.1 Ensuring equal life chances for all, 3.16 Protection and enhancement of social infrastructure and 7.1 Building London's neighbourhoods and communities of the London Plan (July 2011), Policy 19 Provision and maintenance of community and recreational facilities of the adopted Core Strategy (June 2011) and Saved Policy LCE 2 Existing Leisure and Community Facilities in the adopted Unitary Development plan (July 2004). 3) The proposed development is of unsatisfactory height, scale, mass and appearance which fails to respond to the local context and character of the site contrary to Policy 7.6 Architecture of the London Plan (July 2011), Policy 15 High quality design for Lewisham of the adopted Core Strategy (June 2011) and Saved Policy URB 3 Urban Design in the adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2004). . . 4) The proposed ground floor bedrooms at the rear of the site would have unsatisfactory outlook onto the car park of the proposed development contrary to Policy 15 High quality Design for Lewisham of the adopted Core Strategy (June 2011) and Saved Policies URB 3 Urban Design and HSG 5 Layout and Design of New Residential Development in the adopted Unitary Development Plan (July 2004).

You may also like to see this from CAMRA: Since 2007, 23 pubs have closed in the Cambridge City Council area, which represents the loss of nearly a quarter of the pub stock. Most of these pubs have gone for residential development, reflecting the high demand for housing land in the city. The Council lacks planning policies designed to protect pubs so planning applications generally went through on the nod. After much badgering from the local CAMRA Branch and the Civic Society, the Council agreed to take action to stem this haemorrhaging of the city's pubs. Late last year, they appointed consultants to carry out a detailed study of the remaining pubs in Cambridge, focusing on their value to local communities. The study found that, compared with similar cities elsewhere in the country, Cambridge has a significant under-supply of pubs. Attention was also drawn to strong pro-pub policies adopted by other urban authorities like Norwich and Merton. Recommendations for an effective local policy were made. The Council is now consulting on Interim Planning Policy Guidelines on protecting pubs in Cambridge. Using the data from the study, they have classified pubs as either important local community facilities in suburban areas, edge of centre pubs providing important city-wide economic and local community functions or city centre/riverside pubs providing an important economic and tourism function – though all three are given equal weight. Three (currently closed) pubs are excluded from the lists. Development of pubs on the lists would only be permitted if they had been properly marketed as pubs for 12 months, it had been shown that the local community no longer needed the pub and there was adequate alternative pub provision nearby. Interestingly, these policies would apply not only to existing pubs but those which in recent years had converted to restaurants and other uses not needing planning consent. The consultation period ends in late July and the new policy will come into operation in October. The City Council has involved Cambridge CAMRA at all stages of the process and the branch is generally very pleased with the way it is progressing. We will nonetheless be suggesting ways in which the policies could be strengthened – notably by making Article 4 Directions that would render it necessary to obtain planning consent to change a pub to a restaurant, shop or financial services office. If you live in an area where the Council(s) doesn't have local planning policies in place to protect pubs, you might suggest that they go down the same route as Cambridge. Please let me know if you'd like more information (paul.ainsworth@camra.org.uk)

Just a word or warning. If you impose an article 4 directive, the owner may, in certain circumstances, require financial compensation from the council for the affects of the article 4. Anyone considering such action needs to be aware of the financial consequences to the public purse, which is now confirmed to be a material consideration. Similarly, looking to make the pub a community asset also results in a claim for compensation in respect of the (up to) 7.5 month delay in disposing of the pub. Assume the pub is worth a million pounds, that is 7.5 months interest at say 5%... not chicken feed (and that is without consequential losses). Good luck Phill

Is it correct that no compensation is payable if the council gives 12 months notice that it is to impose an article 4 direction? e.g. the council would announce it now but the direction wouldn't come into effect until October 2013.

That is my understanding, but its always best to check with legal. Its not really an option for "slap an Art 4 on it quick"

Useful guide for anyone wanting to follow up Phil (S)'s point on community asset compensation. Page 18: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/2229703.pdf Looks like liability is capped.

Dear Richard: As always you are a mine of useful info. The concerns we have here at stroud is that the compensation cap is not in statute and as such may be cut at any time. These listings last for 5 years and as such the liabilities for cash strapped authorities may be just too much.