As detailed here, McCarthy & Stone appealed to the Planning Inspectorate over the refusal of Vale of White Horse District Council to grant planning permission for 44 retirement apartments on ‘Lot 3’, a.k.a. the ‘pub plot’.
The result of that appeal has just been published and the appeal has been dismissed. This means that the District Council’s original decision stands and planning permission has been refused.
Reasons for dismissal
The reason for the dismissal of the appeal, and the original refusal, is still purely about how much money McCarthy & Stone would need to pay in S106 contributions. These S106 contributions are held by the council and used to fund roads, affordable housing etc.
A pub at Kingsgrove
Many residents believe that they were ‘promised’ a pub at Kingsgrove and commented on this aspect on both the original application and at the appeal itself. These comments have been largely ignored.
The following is taken directly from the decision letter, paragraphs 60-63 inclusive, but the emphasis is mine.
Provision of a Public House
Local residents have referred to an expectation that the appeal site would provide a Public House (PH). It was acknowledged at the Inquiry by the parties that there is no LP [Local Planning] policy requirement to provide a PH at the appeal site but an earlier planning application for the wider development did include provision of a PH on the site.
A clear consequence of the appeal scheme therefore is that, if approved, a PH could not come forwards on this site and local residents would be denied a PH, identified by local residents as a community benefit and this would result in harm to the formation of a community in the wider development.
However, the appellants have carried out a marketing exercise to demonstrate that the PH use is not viable or that there is no commercial interest in the PH development. Moreover, there is a clear absence of any planning policy requirement or other planning obligation to provide the PH at the appeal site.
In this instance as a result of the above, I find that the absence of a PH in the appeal scheme and the loss of a potential PH, in the absence of any policy or other requirement, would not be harmful and accordingly attach neutral weight to it.
Planning Inspectorate Appeal: APP/V3120/W/24/3356728 Decision Letter
Summary
So while a lot of residents will be pleased with the decision to dismiss the appeal, it is important to realise that this doesn’t mean that a pub will be forthcoming.
Information
The link to the appeal decision letter is to a copy held on this website but the original download can be found here.