Planning inspector rejects bid to turn derelict pub into housing

The Cleveland Arms, in High Ercall, has been closed since 2016 and plans were submitted to convert the derelict building into a home.

Telford & Wrekin Council refused the plans and planning inspector David Cross has now supported that decision following an appeal hearing held in June.

At the hearing, applicant John Hickinbottom said that the derelict pub currently has structural issues and repair works were needed to the internal floors, walls and chimney structures.

The pub’s owner predicted that the work would cost between £816,000 and £1.08 million to bring it back into use as a public house – a price Mr Hickinbottom said was ‘uneconomic’.

However, Mr Cross found that this evaluation was based on a Building Cost Information Service (BCIS) area calculation.

Two further estimates for the repairs were £75,000 and between £100,000 to £135,000 to return the public house to a condition where it could trade.

The planning inspector accepted that these two estimates did not include compliance matters such as fire safety requirements.

He concluded: “I am not persuaded that substantive evidence has been provided with regards to the structural integrity of the building and the works required to bring it back into operation as a public house or community use.

“Moreover, the cost of such works should be reflected in the marketing guide price, which may then generate interest from viable businesses.”

The marketing exercise undertaken to sell the pub was also questioned, with an initial price of £295,000 later reduced to £220,00 or £285,000 when combined with the adjacent bowling green.

During the hearing Mr Hickinbottom said the only offers he had received to buy the pub were from property developers wanting to turn it into housing.

The planning inspector said: “A range of offers were received over the periods of marketing, although these did not progress for a number of reasons including not meeting the appellant’s expectations in terms of value, and interested parties not wishing to proceed on the basis of the existing use.

“The appellant may not wish to sell the property for less than they purchased it for, or for less than anticipated values for alternative development. However, the loss of community facilities should not be driven by an inflated guide price based on hope value at the time of purchase or subsequent scenarios which do not comply with development plan policy.

“A realistic asking price, cognisant of the condition of the property, is crucial to bringing forward viable business interest in the site. A robust marketing exercise is a valid approach to determining whether the appeal site has a viable future as a public house or other community facility. For the reasons stated previously, a robust marketing exercise has not been undertaken.”

Mr Hickinbottom claimed that there was an alternative provision provided on a Friday night by the village hall.

Mr Cross concluded: “Typically, the role of a village hall is very different to that of a public house and it would not provide an equivalent alternative facility.

“The village hall is not a fully licensed premises, and the temporary bar is used for fundraising or in support of hirers of the hall. The popularity of the community bar is a clear indication of the need for the facilities that would be provided by a public house.”

Mr Cross said that it had ‘not been established’ that the property is no longer viable for a pub or community use.

“The issue of viability does not therefore weigh in favour of this appeal,” he added.

“I have concluded that the proposal would be contrary to the development plan and the framework with regards to the protection of community facilities.

“There are no other material considerations of such weight that indicate that this appeal should be determined otherwise than in accordance with the development plan."