Posts tagged NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN
Bigbury Bay Golf Club Ltd Registered No. 6929632 Vat No. 236 1893 93
As you may know, I was asked by our Chairman to continue to maintain the relationship with our landlord since the Bantham Estate was purchased by Nicholas Johnston. Stephen and I have been steadily working toward replacing the highly restrictive lease that would otherwise remain in place until 2030 and includes some very challenging financial obligations.
We are delighted to advise you that Nicholas Johnston has agreed to the basic principles of a joint long term strategy that will help secure the future of our Club. I have explained some key elements below and ask you to please share these as widely as possible to ensure all members and especially potential members understand this positive development.
1) Nicholas Johnston continues to express his great appreciation that our Golf Club is an important part of his Estate. He has again confirmed that he has no desire to use the course for any other reasons. He specifically has no intention to use the course to extend the pheasant shoot, or for building purposes or any activity that would interfere with golf in any way. His ambition is for the Club to remain a prosperous Member owned and run asset, as we are now.
2) We are actively working with the Estate on the details of our joint strategy which includes an entirely new long term lease. We have a shared intention to complete this work over the next few months.
3) We have the Estates assurance that providing the strategy is successfully delivered, all outstanding deferred rent payments will be cancelled.
4) As an interim gesture of his commitment to the Club, Nicholas has also agreed to an additional reduction in our rent payments. This is a generous offer and underpins his support for the Club and the local community, and his ambition for Bigbury Golf Club to remain a vibrant business.
5) The Estate have agreed that a permanent Air Ambulance Landing Site will be created between the carpark and practice bunker. This again demonstrates the Estates view of our Club as an important community asset that they wish to support.
The financial generosity offered to the Club as part of the strategy will need to be balanced by the successful development of a limited and contained residential scheme on the Estate, but outside the Golf Course boundary. The Estate will be progressing this scheme over the next 12 months.
We will be releasing a press announcement jointly with the Estate, building on these key points.
In recent months many of us have been greatly troubled to hear of all sorts of ridiculous rumours circulating about the relationship between our landlord and the Club, none of which have been constructive. We hope that this very clear and positive statement will squash these rumours and demonstrate to all those interested that we continue to build a solid future. Please do your best to immediately correct any negative and unfounded discussion which can only damage our Club.
Richard Adcock and Stephen Price
Valerie Scott will be placing leaflets and nomination forms in Holywell Stores for people to send in suggestions for the List of Local Heritage Assets and also asking people to let her have suggestions for important views and vistas to be included in the Neighbourhood Plan.
There will be a comments box in the Holywell Stores for people to post their ideas but it would be more helpful if people could do this on-line by sending Valerie an email (to: email@example.com) and also including photographs of local heritage assets, views and vistas.
A nomination form for Heritage Assets can be found here – Nomination form
An explanatory leaflet about Heritage Assets is available here – List of Local Heritage Assets – Leaflet explaining process
The invitation to submit public views and vistas is here – Important Views and Vistas
This is brilliant news for the community coming hard on the heels of SHDC’s favourable delaying ruling on the application for demolition (see elsewhere on this site).
Valerie Scott, Chair of the Neighbourhood Planning Group writes – ‘You will all be delighted to hear that the appeal on the Bay View Café has been dismissed. I attach a copy of the decision. It is a very thorough decision letter picking up many comments made by the local residents either in writing prior to the hearing and or as other matters raised at the hearing itself. The fact that so many of you attended the hearing will have made it very clear how important these buildings are to the local community both as a community asset and a local heritage asset so many thanks to all those who objected to the application or attended the hearing.’
For the Inspector’s full Decision Notice click here – 3171733 Decision
See link for details:-
Neighbourhood Plan Progress b 12 January 2018
Extracts from the Planning Officer’s report on the latest stage in developing this site (app. no. 2655/17/VAR) are included below.
Site Address: Royal Oak, Road From St Anns Chapel Cross, Bigbury, TQ7 4AP
Development: Variation of condition no.2 of planning consent 05/2313/14/F to allow redevelopment
of land to allow construction of 4 no. dwellings with associated parking and
Recommendation: Conditional Approval
Time limit for commencement – S73
In accordance with plans
Permitted development restrictions
Construction Management Plan
Spaces to be retained for public house
Details of foul and surface water drainage
Key issues for consideration:
Whether the proposed amendment to the approved scheme is acceptable
The application site comprises of land to the south of the Royal Oak public house, which is
currently closed. The land originally formed part of the car park for the pub, and is itself
located on the eastern side of the B3392. The site is bounded by residential properties to the
north and south, and established hedgerows and agricultural land to the east.
This application is for the redevelopment of part of the former pub car-park with the erection
of four dwellings with associated car parking and amenity space.
County Highways Authority: No highways implications
Environmental Health Section: None received
Bigbury Parish Council: Objection, see casefile for full response
Landscape officer: No objection to modest height increase
Representations from Residents
Comments have been received and cover the following points:
Increase in height resulting in harm to living conditions of adjacent occupiers
Development more prominent in wider views
Land was artificially raised
Increased light pollution
Relevant Planning History
05/2313/14/F – Re-development of land to allow construction of 4no. dwellings with
associated parking and amenity space – Approved
Permission was given for the development in 2014, this application seeks to vary the
approved plans by building the dwellings on the existing ground level rather than excavating
and sinking the dwellings down on the site.
It is considered that the increase in height of 870mm does not result in harm to the
conservation area, views in and out of the site or the wider landscape and does not result in
significant additional overlooking to adjacent occupiers.
Principle of Development/Sustainability:
This application site is located within a village location, but is located outside of any
defined settlement boundary, and is therefore designated as a countryside location.
The applicants have made the argument that the development of the site with four
dwellings would provide the necessary capital to ensure that the pub would be reopened.
It has been stated by the applicant that the public house, which closed in
November 2013 was not receiving sufficient trade to be a viable business, and that the
pressures of the recession, the smoking ban and the rural location of the pub were
factors in seeing a reduced trade. The applicants make the case that local trade is
more likely to be able to sustain a smaller pub, based around the wet trade with a
simple food offering. The point is made that the applicant would most likely seek to let
the pub out to a third party to run.
Although comments have been made to the contrary by objectors, it is stated that
even when previously open the car park of the pub was never fully utilised, and that a
smaller-scale pub would give rise to less demand for use of the car park, based on the
fact that the focus and catchment area for the pub would be local custom, for those
who can walk to the pub. The point is made that to enable the business to justify the
costs of repairs to the pub and the marketing to secure a tenant, return from the site is
required. Essentially this development would enable the re-opening of the pub.
A further point put forward by the applicant is that the Council (citing appeal decisions)
fails to demonstrate a deliverable five year housing land supply and that the
development of this site would give rise to a social benefit through the re-opening of
the public house, and that the development is on previously developed land (being
part of the pub car park). The assertion is also made that the village has a shop, and
although public transport opportunities are limited, there exists the ability to reduce
reliance on the private car.
The issues put forward concerning the need to raise funds to re-open the pub are
noted and understood, but it is not considered that it would be reasonable to issue any
permissions solely upon the basis of the development being acceptable only if the pub
were to re-open.Whilst a legal agreement could be put into place to see the pub reopened
within a defined timescale, it is not considered that this would be reasonable
since it is not an asset of community value, nor is there at present any specific
framework or mechanism offered to secure the re-opening of the pub.
The Planning Balance:
The re-opening of the pub however can be looked at as part of the planning balance of
circumstances in that the re-opening would provide direct and indirect employment,
would provide a local facility for existing and new residents of the village, and the
construction of new dwellings would expand housing supply. The site makes use of
previously developed land (the pub car park) and looking at the issue of re-opening
the pub amongst the circumstances and considerations with the application, it is
considered that there is a distinct balance.
In terms of principle, it is acknowledged that the site is within a rural location, however
it is considered that the situation that is put forward by the applicant in terms of the
relative sustainability of the village is acceptable, and the proposal itself will be sited in
a manner that is largely contained within the existing village envelope. Paragraph 55
of the NPPF advises that housing for rural areas be located where it will enhance or
maintain the vitality of rural communities and it is considered that the array of
circumstances put forward with this application complies with this. Given the position
of the application site, and given the intention to re-open the pub, it is considered that
in principle the application is acceptable, subject to compliance with all other
remaining development control criteria.