Agenda Item 4 · The application site is The Crown Inn, Guildford Road in Westcott. The site is...

Application Number and Registration Date

MO/2019/1227 (Detailed) 10-Jul-2019

Applicant Mr D Downes

Case Officer David Webb

Amendments /amplifications

Committee Date 6 November 2019

Ward(s) Westcott

Proposal Conversion & extension of Public House into 3 No. dwellings, conversion & extension of outbuilding into 1 No. dwelling, erection of a two story Lodge at rear and erection of 2 No. semi-detached dwellings.

Site Description The Crown Inn (PH), Guildford Road, Westcott, Dorking, Surrey, RH4 3QG

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse

Summary

The application site is The Crown Inn, Guildford Road in Westcott. The site is within the defined village boundary inset from the Green Belt and is also within the Westcott Conservation Area and the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The site contains the two storey detached public house which is located centrally on the road frontage and a separate single storey building in the north-western corner of the site which was a former coach house/workshop and is currently used for garaging and storage. The public house is considered to be a non-designated heritage asset by the Historic Environment Officer.

Agenda Item 4

To the rear of the public house the land rises steeply towards the south due to the topography of the land, this land is currently the beer garden. Along the southern boundary with Broomfield Park are a row of TPO trees. Permission is now sought for the extension and conversion of the public house into a terrace of three dwellings and the conversion of the workshop building into one detached dwelling. Also proposed is the erection of a single storey dwelling built into the raised bank at the rear of the site, with parking proposed in an under croft. Proposed to the east of the pub building are a pair of semi-detached dwellings in a traditional style. The principle of the conversion of the public house has not been proven by the applicant; the public house is a community facility, policy CS17 states the loss of key services and facilities will be resisted unless an appropriate alternative is provided or, evidence is presented that the facility is no longer required and suitable alternative uses have been considered. Marketing evidence has been submitted by an estate agent to attempt to show that the facility is no longer required. Officers have had the evidence appraised by an independent consultant who have confirmed that the marketing particulars were aimed at property developers and not prospective buyers for the pub business. The particulars only included the proposed conversion of the public house to residential dwellings and for the erection of dwellings on the site. Also received is a letter of representation from the Westcott Village Association stating that they would have no alternative use for the building as a community facility and support the conversion of the site to residential use. The proposal would provide additional dwellings to the village and the district overall, and the layout, form and appearance of the new dwellings have been guided by in-depth discussions with the Historic Environment Office (HEO). The physical development is considered by the HEO to preserve the character of the conservation area and significance of the non-designated heritage asset. As the principle of the loss of the community facility has not satisfactorily been covered in accordance with Core Strategy policy CS17, the proposal is recommended for refusal. 1. Development Plan

1.1. Large Rural Village, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Conservation Area

2. Relevant Planning History

No relevant planning history

3. Description of Development

3.1. The application site is located in the centre of the village of Westcott and forms a public house fronting onto Guildford Road (A25) and a separate single storey building in the north-western corner of the site which was a former coach house/workshop.

Figure 1 - Location map

3.2. The current application seeks permission to extend (extension outlined in figure 2) and convert the public house into three dwellings, 2no two bedroom and 1no three bedroom (see figure 2 below). The extensions would be finished in matching materials.

Figure 2 - Proposed extensions outlined in green – red outline of existing building

3.3. Also proposed is the conversion and extension of an existing outbuilding into 1no two bedroom dwelling (see figure 3 below). This building would be finished in matching brickwork and plain tiled roof.

Figure 3 – Proposed extension and conversion of former coach house/workshop 3.4. Erection of a pair of traditional semi-detached two storey three bedroom dwellings to

the east of the public house, finished in render and slate tiled roof.

Figure 4 - Proposed new semi-detached pair of dwellings

3.5. In addition to the above a single level dwelling is proposed at the south-western end of the site above car parking spaces. This proposal is for a contemporary designed dwelling (see figure 5 below) finished in timber boarding and standing seam sheet roofing.

Figure 5 - Proposed new contemporary dwelling 4. Consultations

4.1. SCC Highways – No objection on safety, capacity or policy grounds subject to conditions relating to the implementation of the approved plans, submission of a Construction Transport Management Plan and the installation of electric charging points for electric vehicles.

4.2. Historic England – Do not offer any comments but suggest seeking the views of a specialist conservation and archaeological advisors

4.3. Surrey County Council Heritage Conservation Team: Archaeology - The proposed development is not within an Area of High Archaeological Potential and falls below the 0.4ha threshold above which archaeological assessment is required under Local Plan policy ENV50. As such, I have no archaeological concerns.

4.4. Joint Waste Solutions – No objection, however it was noted that a refuse collection vehicle would not be able to access this development and bins would need to be presented adjacent to Guildford Road for collection.

4.5. MVDC Historic Environment Officer - I have no objection to this application, which follows a lengthy period of pre-app discussion and negotiations. The scheme now proposed is considered to reflect the outcome of these discussions and largely deals with the heritage concerns raised at

that time. These issues related to the external appearance of the inn building, and the implications of the additional development on the character of this part of the conservation area. The Heritage Statement submitted with the application is well researched and provides a good account of the long and important social history of the public house within the village, confirming that its presence as an inn extended back at least two centuries. It also identifies surviving sections of a C 17th timber framed building towards the rear (south) of the current building, around which C 18th and C 19th additions have enclosed. Whilst the principle of subdivision and change of use of the main building had been established during the course of previous applications [applications were submitted and subsequently withdrawn], the scale and nature of the additional development within its curtilage led to serious concerns from the LPA. This scheme has now been scaled back and redesigned, resulting in the four additional dwellings within the curtilage now proposed. Dropping the proposed overbearing terrace of ‘town houses’ to the rear in place of a single dwelling with a contemporary design but in the vein of an ancillary outbuilding (weather-boarding with standing seam sheet roof and raised above car parking space), is welcomed. Similarly, the proposed rear addition to the existing brick outbuilding on the west boundary, to form another dwelling is considered to be acceptable to me subject to approval of the design of the proposed roof lights – those currently shown are inappropriate and conservation style roof lights should be detailed. To the east of the inn, a pair of semi-detached dwellings is proposed, reflecting the simple rendered and hipped, slate covered roofed design of two pairs of C 19th cottages to the north of the road opposite the site. These have been set back as much as possible so as to avoid unduly encroaching into views of the inn, particularly looking out of the village from the west. Concerns were raised over the omission of chimneys from these buildings - it is desirable to include these features as they are a strong part of the character of the C 19th cottages being emulated opposite, and roofscapes within historic areas generally. This omission has now been addressed. Works to the main building have also responded to feedback prior and during the application. This included the remodelling of the proposed side and rear additions to reflect the gabled roof form of the C 19th sections of the building. It also included the reconfiguration of the interior, particularly the first storey, to facilitate the legibility and retention of the surviving C 17th timber framed section. This 2.5 bay frame appears to be relatively well preserved at first storey, with further sections of (concealed) frame likely to survive at first and ground storeys. A survey and drawn record of visible and inferred timber frame has been produced by the applicant. The presence of this timber frame, from this date, raises the significance of this building and, although not listed, is considered to be a non-designated heritage asset. I welcome the commitment to recording this original part of the building and also to design and implement the scheme in a way which minimises the loss of historic fabric (including any surviving wattle and daub infill panels and, ideally, lath and plaster ceilings). The commitment to retain the C 19th windows of the front elevation is also welcomed. Overall, and subject to the below conditions, the proposed scheme is now considered to preserve the character of the conservation area and significance of the non-designated heritage asset.

Recommended Conditions

− External Materials – further details/samples to be approved − Roof Lights – conservation rooflights of a traditional (cast iron-style) design to

be approved

− C 17th Timber Frame: 1. Schedule of works 2. Stripped To Show Underlying Timber Frame 3. No Sawing Of Timbers In Connection With Works

− Sample Panel Of Brickwork − Retention of windows to front elevation − Window/Door Joinery − Landscaping Scheme (including boundary treatments)

5. Representations

5.1. 2no representations were received, 1no from the Westcott Village Association expressing their support and one objection with the following summarised concerns: Westcott Village Association

‘We request that the following points are noted by the planning department in support of this development.

Comment Officer comment Relevant condition(s)

Whilst this site is currently designated as a commercial property, the Village Association has recognised for some time that the presence of more than one public house in the village creates financial pressures for the owners which are unsustainable. The owner has made every effort to make a success of the pub and to advertise the property as a commercial opportunity, but the fact remains that within the village there is barely enough business for one pub let alone two.

No detailed information regarding the business has been submitted.

N/A

The Pub is considered under Planning Policy as a village amenity, the loss of which would be resisted by your department. The fact of the matter, like our two (previously three) community centres and two (previously three) village stores, is that these facilities are not financially viable as the needs of this community change over time, and

The pub is not currently a vacant property – Policy CS17 does support the change of use from community facility so long as it can be demonstrated that all other options have been considered/tried.

The threat of a building becoming vacant is not a reason for

N/A

as a result cease to function as village amenities, becoming instead vacant properties.

The Village Association would rather see this property developed for residential use as part of a community development plan than slowly die away and/or be left empty.

permitting development that is otherwise unacceptable in policy terms as this would create a very undesirable precedent.

The village housing stock is in need of 2/3 bedroomed properties with adequate parking provision. The proposed development provides these much-needed additions to the village housing stock, and will provide opportunities for movement within the village for growing families and those who currently have little or no off-street parking facilities. We support the development.

There is no dispute that housing is needed – the policies in the Development Plan seek to ensure that adequate existing facilities are available to support existing and future housing – this is the judgement that needs to be undertaken in this case.

N/A

The development has been designed to keep as many of the existing buildings as possible, to add a dwelling at the back of the property to reflect the original built footprint of the site, and adds two new buildings designed in sympathy with the road front architecture. The Village Association endorses this architectural approach.

The physical development on the site is supported and is covered in the below report.

N/A

‘The Applicant has taken considerable care in revising, with a new architect, the plans for the redevelopment to meet the expressed views of residents and we are pleased to support the application.’

Whilst this may be the case, no letters of support have been received for this proposal.

N/A

Further Representation received

Comment Officer comment Relevant Condition(s)

Number of dwellings unacceptable

As stated in the report below, the level of development on the site is not considered to be an overdevelopment and the building separations are also considered acceptable.

N/A

Increased number of vehicles and vehicle movements

Covered in the report below and by Surrey County Councils Highway Authority consultation response.

N/A

Increased light pollution and vehicle emissions

Neighbour amenity is covered in the below report

N/A

Felling of trees along front boundary of the site

The trees proposed to be removed are not protected by a Tree Preservation Order and could be removed at any time. Replacement landscaping is proposed and could be covered by planning condition if the proposal was recommended for approval

N/A

Reduction of wildlife and need for vegetation to offset the increased pollution

A landscaping scheme would be recommended as a condition to soften the impact of the development on the surroundings were the scheme to be recommended for approval

N/A

Where are the vehicles going to park

The submitted drawings show the location of the parking spaces. 2no spaces would be provided per dwelling in line with adopted guidelines.

N/A

6. Main Planning Policies

6.1. Government Guidance National Planning Policy Framework (Feb 2019) Section 2 – Achieving sustainable development Section 5 – Delivering a sufficient supply of homes Section 7 - Requiring Good Design Section 8 – Promoting health and safe communities Section 9 – Promoting sustainable transport Section 11 – Making effective use of land Section 12 – Achieving well-designed places Section 14 – Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change Section 16 - Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

6.2. Mole Valley Core Strategy CS1 – Where Development will be Directed (A Spatial Strategy) CS2 – Housing Provision and Location CS3 – Balancing Housing Provision CS14 – Townscape, Urban Design and the Historic Environment CS17 – Infrastructure, Services and Community Facilities CS18 – Transport Options and Accessibility

CS19 – Sustainable Construction, Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation CS20 – Flood Risk Management

6.3. Mole Valley Local Plan ENV22 – General Development Control Criteria ENV23 – Respect for Setting ENV24 – Density of Development and Space about Buildings ENV25 – Landscape Design of New Developments ENV39 – Development in Conservation Areas MOV2 – The Movement Implications of Development MOV5 – Parking Standards MOV15 – Provision for Cyclists in Development Proposals E2 – Safeguarding existing industrial and commercial land

6.4. Westcott Neighbourhood Development Plan WNDP1 – Size, Architectural Style and Character of Housing Development WNDP2 - Infill and redevelopment WNDP4 – Parking provision WNDP6 – Shops and Commercial Services WNDP7 – Enhancement of Community Facilities

7. Main Planning Issues

7.1. The main planning issues for consideration are:

• The principle of the development and an assessment of the proposed development against policy CS17 regarding the loss of a ‘community facility’

• Impact on the character and appearance of the area • Impact on the amenity of neighbours • Access and parking

The principle of the development

7.2. At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Paragraph 11 states that, in terms of the decision-making process, this means approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay, and, where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out date, granting permission unless:

i. the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance; or

Such areas include land designated as Green Belts, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and Conservation Areas.

ii. Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole.

7.3. The Council can currently only demonstrate 2.63 years of Housing Land Supply, however the ‘tilted balance’ in paragraph 11 does not apply as, this site is designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and a Conservation Area – both of which are precluded by clause (i) of paragraph 11.

7.4. Paragraph 127 of the NPPF states that planning policies and decisions should ensure the developments, inter alia: (a) will function well and add to the overall quality of an area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development; (b) are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping; (c) are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities); create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

7.5. At paragraph 130, it is stated that permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way in functions.

7.6. Paragraph 122 d) states that ‘Planning decisions should support development that makes efficient use of land, taking into account: the desirability of maintaining an area’s prevailing character and setting (including residential gardens).’

7.7. Policies CS1 and CS2 advise that new development will be directed towards previously developed land within the built up areas of Leatherhead, Dorking, Bookham, Fetcham and Ashtead and infilling and limited residential development (including redevelopment) within the districts villages, including Westcott.

7.8. Policy CS3 states that the Council will particularly seek the provision of two and three bedroom dwellings. The proposal would provide 3no, two bedroom dwellings, 1no, three bedroom and 3no four bedroom dwellings. Whilst 4 bedroom properties are not particularly sought by the policy it is noted that the majority of the proposed dwellings would comply with the policy.

7.9. Policy WNDP1 of the Westcott Neighbourhood Development Plan (WNDP) states that: ‘New housing developments should reflect the character of the surrounding area. Where necessary developments should be designed to respect the amenities of surrounding properties in general, and to avoid unacceptable levels of overlooking adjacent properties in particular. Depending on the size of the plot, new housing developments should be built in small clusters of dwellings of varying and sympathetic architectural styles. The size of the new dwellings should reflect the housing demand in the village. Proposals for small developments of houses for 1-4 bedroomed properties within the village core shown on the Policies Map will be particularly supported.’

7.10. Local Plan Policy E2 covers safeguarding of existing commercial sites and states, ‘The loss of existing suitably located industrial and commercial land in built-up areas to other uses will not be permitted unless its retention for industrial and/or commercial use has been fully explored without success.’

7.11. Core Strategy policy CS17 is concerned with community facilities and seeks to resist their loss. Sub paragraph 3 of the policy states: ‘The Council will resist the loss of key services and facilities (including community facilities), unless an appropriate alternative is provided or, evidence is presented that the facility is no longer required and suitable alternative uses have been considered. This will require the developer to provide evidence that they have consulted with an appropriate range of service providers and the community where relevant (see para.7.14 below).

7.12. Policy CS17 is supported by the NPPF which states in paragraph 83(d) that planning policies and decisions should enable ‘the retention and development of accessible local services and community facilities, such as local shops, meeting places, sports venues, open space, cultural buildings, public houses and places of worship’.

7.13. Para.92(c) also states that decisions should aim to ‘guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services, particularly where this would reduce the community’s ability to meet its day-to-day needs.’

7.14. In terms of compatibility of new residential development and existing community facilities, para.182 states that ‘Planning policies and decisions should ensure that new development can be integrated effectively with existing businesses and community facilities (such as places of worship, pubs, music venues and sports clubs). Existing businesses and facilities should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of development permitted after they were established. Where the operation of an existing business or community facility could have a significant adverse effect on new development (including changes of use) in its vicinity, the applicant (or ‘agent of change’) should be required to provide suitable mitigation before the development has been completed.’ Marketing information

7.15. This application would result in the loss of a community facility which as stated above, is not supported. To be considered appropriate the applicant is required by Policy CS17 to demonstrate that all other options for the facility have been explored or tried previously.

7.16. In this case that applicant has submitted a marketing report carried out by the White & Sons estate agency along with marketing particulars to support their application to change the use of the public house to dwellings (see Appendix 1). These have been considered below.

7.17. The marketing particulars purely outline the opportunities for the site to be redeveloped into dwellings. The particulars do not outline the details of the on-going public house business as an on-going possibility.

7.18. A letter from Westcott Village Association has been received which is in support of the application and who have been asked by the applicant if the Association could use the site for any alternative uses. They have confirmed that due to a contracting need for village services, other shops and public houses have already closed. They have stated that the Village Association would prefer that the site is developed for residential use than be left empty.

7.19. During the course of the planning application, officers commissioned an independent assessment of the applicant’s marketing report and particulars (see Appendix 2). The assessment was undertaken by (Christie & Co) a specialist advisor for over 80 years in the hotel, pub, restaurant, childcare, health, retail and leisure industries.

7.20. The main issue with the marketing, they concluded, was that the particulars given to circa 50 prospective buyers only showed the development potential of the site by showing the plans submitted in a previous planning application (which was for a residential re-development of the site and cessation of the community facility use) which was subsequently withdrawn by the applicant. The Christie & Co specialist concluded that it was difficult to judge the viability of the public house as they did not have the benefit of further details relating to the pub business.

7.21. The specialist did conclude however, that the Rateable Value of the business according to the Valuation Office Agency, who work out rateable values based on the annual level of trade, suggested that the business was not trading at a level that would support the asking price stated in the particulars.

7.22. The agent has drawn officer’s attention to, and makes a comparison to the similarities between this proposal and the redevelopment of The Pilgrim public house in Dorking to residential purposes, which was granted in 2017 (MO/2017/1220). By way of a comparison, the Pilgrim application was supported with a detailed marketing report (see Appendix 3) which advised it had been marketed for continuous period of 23 months with negligible interest by over 1500 active subscribers. One interested party who was interested in that site for alternative commercial use was unable to proceed with the purchase. At that time The Council were content that The Pilgrim site had been adequately marketed and so residential development was accepted. By contrast this application site was marketed for 12 months with marketing particulars that primarily contained the potential of the site for residential redevelopment. As stated above, this is considered to be inadequate.

7.23. It is therefore concluded that there is no comparison between The Pilgrim site and the application site, in terms of marketing.

Alternative uses

7.24. No information has been supplied showing that the site has been marketed for any alternative uses. No alternative community facility is proposed in the application. However a representation from Westcott Residents Association has been received stating that there was no alternative use needed for the building and that residential dwellings would be favourable. This is a material consideration.

7.25. In terms of alternative community facilities, Westcott Neighbourhood Development Plan Policy WNDP7 in its supporting text, identifies principal community facilities in the village and a survey carried out identified these are important to retain. These do not include The Crown. However, para. 6.7.5 states ‘Over the next 10-15 years some of these facilities will require significant financial investment in order to remain usable. It is anticipated that there may be opportunities to enhance, re-provide and create new facilities in accordance with the identified needs of the survey. In any new development, research into occupancy and usage of existing facilities would be carried out to ensure that there was no loss of capacity for activities.’

7.26. Para.6.7.6 states that ‘nursery provision within the Ward is a priority’ and that 34% [of people who took the village survey] use or intend to use a nursery out of the village. Nurseries could be considered a community facility. The application does not comment on policy WDNP7, the outcomes of the survey carried out to formulate the policy, nor has the possibility of a nursery on the site been considered.

7.27. To conclude, it is considered that insufficient information has been submitted in the application, or contained within the Westcott Residents Association comments, to demonstrate that the community facility is no longer required and that alternative uses have been fully explored. The proposal therefore fails to comply with policy CS17.

Impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area

7.28. Paragraph 127 of the Framework states (inter-alia), that developments should function well and add to the overall quality of the area, are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping, are sympathetic to local character and history, establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the

arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live.

7.29. Mole Valley Core Strategy policy CS14 advises that all new development must respect and enhance the character of the area in which it is proposed whilst making the best possible use of the land available.

7.30. Mole Valley Local Plan policy ENV22, General Development Control Criteria sets out seven general criteria for sound development control practice. Criterion 1 requires that development should be appropriate to the site in terms of its scale, form and appearance. Criterion 2 requires that the proposal does not significantly harm the amenities of neighbouring occupiers by reason of overlooking or its overshadowing or overpowering effect. Criterion 3 requires that development should respect the character and appearance of the locality.

7.31. Mole Valley Local Plan policy ENV23, Respect for Setting requires that development should take account of the scale, character, bulk and proportions of the surrounding built environment, and that it should not comprise overdevelopment in relation to the size of the plot and/or surrounding developments. Criterion 3 requires that new development has regard to established townscape features, including the space around buildings.

7.32. Mole Valley Local Plan policy ENV24 advises that development will not be permitted where it would result in a cramped appearance having regard to the general spacing around buildings in the locality.

7.33. Mole Valley Plan policy ENV39 covers development in Conservation Areas and states that developments should preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the area.

7.34. Westcott Neighborhood Development Plan (WNDP) Policy WNDP1 states, ‘“New housing developments should reflect the character of the surrounding area. Where necessary developments should be designed to respect the amenities of surrounding properties in general, and to avoid unacceptable levels of overlooking adjacent properties in particular. Depending on the size of the plot, new housing developments should be built in small clusters of dwellings of varying and sympathetic architectural styles. The size of the new dwellings should reflect the housing demand in the village. Proposals for small developments of houses for 1-4 bedroomed properties within the village core shown on the Policies Map will be particularly supported.’”

7.35. WNDP Policy WNDP2 states that proposal for infill or limited redevelopment of large existing gardens, within the village core area as shown of the policies map, will be supported where they increase the stock of 1-3 bedroom housing.

7.36. The existing pub and former coach house would remain in the north-western corner of the site and would all include 2 or 3 bedrooms. The new single level dwelling and semi-detached dwellings would be to the south and east respectively (outlined below in figure 6). The single level dwelling would be 2 bedroom and the semi-detached dwellings would both have 3 bedrooms. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with WNDP policy WNDP2.

Figure 6 - Proposed block plan 7.37. It is considered that the proposed buildings would be appropriately separated from the

existing buildings on the site so would not appear cramped.

7.38. The site is within the Westcott Conservation Area, Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) places a statutory duty on decision makers to have ‘special regard’ to preserving or enhancing the character of conservation areas.

7.39. The applicant and agent have been in communication with the Case Officer and Historic Environment Officer (HEO) and negotiated amendments have been made to the designs of the new buildings.

7.40. The scheme now proposed is considered by the HEO to reflect the outcome of these discussions and largely deals with the heritage concerns at that time. These issues related to the external appearance of the inn building, and the implications of the additional development on the character of this part of the conservation area.

7.41. Subject to the following conditions, the HEO has confirmed that the scheme would preserve the character of the conservation area and significance of the non-designated heritage asset.

• Roof Lights – design to be approved • Timber Frame - Schedule of works • Timber frame stripped to show underlying timber frame • No Sawing Of Timbers In Connection With Works • Sample Panel Of Brickwork • Retention of windows to front elevation of the PH • Window/Door Joinery • Landscaping Scheme (including boundary treatments)

7.42. Overall it is considered that the proposal would preserve the character of the

Conservation Area and is in accordance with Local Plan Policies ENV22, ENV23, ENV24, ENV39 and Policy WNDP1 and WNDP2 of the Westcott Neighborhood Development Plan and policy CS14 of the Core Strategy.

Impact on the amenity of neighbours

7.43. Local Plan Policy ENV22 states that where the principle of proposed development accords with the other policies in the plan a design and layout will be required which, ‘does not significantly harm the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties by reason of overlooking or its overshadowing or overpowering effect, noise, traffic or other adverse environmental impact;’

7.44. The residential properties most likely to be impacted by the proposal are those located to the north of the site, on the opposite side of Guildford Road, and no.21 Broomfield Park (see location plan below – figure 6).

Figure 7 - location plan 7.45. The neighbouring properties on the opposite side of Guildford Road are located

approximately 13 metres from the front elevation of the PH which currently has a flat on the first floor. The change of use of the ground floor of the building to residential use of not considered to have a demonstrably harmful effect on these neighbouring properties.

7.46. The new semi-detached dwellings would also face Guildford Road however they have been set back from the front elevation of the PH by over 7 metres and highway by over 9 metres. The front elevation of the new dwellings would be over 18 metres from nos1-4 opposite the site. Given this separation distance there is not considered to be a significant detrimental impact upon these neighbouring properties.

7.47. No.21 Broomfield Park is located to the east of the application site and its access driveway runs along the southern boundary of the site. The new semi-detached dwellings would be approximately 24 metres from this immediate neighbour and the eastern flank elevation of the pair would not include any side facing windows. Given the separation and lack of windows, these dwellings would not have a detrimental impact upon this neighbour.

7.48. The new single-level dwelling is located a significant distance (over 28 metres) from the joint boundary with no.21 and would not have a detrimental impact upon this neighbour.

7.49. Other properties in Broomfield Park to the south are located a significant distance from the application site and are on much higher ground so would not be detrimentally affected by the proposals.

7.50. The proposed dwellings would be positioned an acceptable distance from the PH so to not have an overpowering or overshadowing impact upon it (over 10 metres). The new single-level dwelling would have a front facing balcony, given the 10 metre separation the balcony would have a privacy screen to protect the amenities of the dwellings in the PH. The window to window separation from the bedroom windows would be over 15 metres and at an oblique angle, so is considered to be acceptable.

7.51. Overall it is considered that the proposal would not have a significantly harmful impact upon neighbouring properties so would comply with policy ENV22. Access and parking

7.52. Local Plan policies MOV2 and MOV5 cover parking requirements and movement implications of a proposed development. Para 106 of the NPPF states that ‘Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.’

7.53. Westcott Neighbourhood Development Plan Policy WNDP4 states that off-street parking provision for 2+bedroom developments should be 2 spaces per dwelling.

7.54. Access to the site would remain untouched from the existing PH car park entrance onto Guildford Road (A25). 14no parking spaces are proposed, 2no per dwelling. These would be largely located in the same position as the current car park with 4no new spaces located under the new single-level dwelling in the south-western corner of the site. (see figure 8 below).

Figure 8 - Proposed parking arrangement 7.55. The 2no new dwellings to the east of the PH would have no vehicular entrance from

Guildford Road but instead would have 2 no spaces each allocated in the car park which would be accessed via a new footpath running between the PH and the pair of semi-detached dwellings.

7.56. The Highway Authority have been consulted and no objection has been received, subject to conditions regarding the implementation of the submitted plans, a Construction Transport Management Plan for the construction phase of the development and for each of the parking spaces to be provided with a fast charge socket for electric vehicles.

7.57. It is considered overall that the proposal would provided adequate parking provision and suitable access, complying with Policies MOV2 and MOV5 of the Local Plan, Policy WNDP4 and advice contained within the NPPF. Comminity Infrastructure Levy

7.58. Policy CS17 of the Core Strategy states that development should make provision for new infrastructure where necessary. However the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) has now been introduced, which places a mandatory charge on new residential and retail developments. The Council will publish an annual infrastructure list detailing the

infrastructure projects or types of infrastructure which the Council intends will be or may be, wholly or partly funded by CIL.

7.59. This development is CIL liable and a contribution of £98,504.95 would be generated from the development. However, this figure may be amended if further information is forthcoming, and it may also be subject to an application for exemption.

Conclusion

7.60. The layout, form and design of the development are considered to be acceptable and the proposal is considered to preserve the character of the Conservation Area.

7.61. However, the principle of the loss of the public house has not been met to comply with policy CS17. This policy requires an appropriate alternative use to the Public House to be provided or, evidence be presented that the facility is no longer required and suitable alternative uses have been considered. The policy goes on to say ‘This will require the developer to provide evidence that they have consulted with an appropriate range of service providers and the community where relevant’. As stated in the report above, the marketing evidence provided is considered to be insufficient and the ‘range of service providers’ consulted appears to be limited to consulting with the Residents Association (RA).

7.62. Despite the Westcott RA comments regarding alternative uses not being needed, which are a material consideration, applications still need to be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations dictate otherwise. In this case the proposal is not considered to comply with policy CS17. Furthermore, Neighbourhood Plan Policy WNDP7 identifies a priority within the village that would be classed as an alternative community facility on the site that could comply with policy CS17 but this does not appear to have been considered by the applicant or RA. For these reasons the material consideration, in this case the RA comments, are not considered to outweigh the Development Plan.

8. Recommendation Permission be REFUSED for the following reason:

1. The proposal would involve the loss of a community facility. The marketing information

submitted is considered insufficient to comply with Policy CS17. The harm caused by the loss of the community facility would be contrary to Section 8 of the NPPF and would fail to comply with Core Strategy policy CS17.

APPENDIX 1

·

Planning Application for 7 Individual Units

·C

onversion of Former Public H

ouse

·C

onversion of Outbuilding

·3 N

ew D

wellings

·C

entral Village Location

The Crow

n, Guildford R

oad, Westcott, Surrey, R

H4 3Q

G

Price on Application

DESC

RIPTIO

N A fantastic opportunity to acquire a public house on a large plot in the

centre of Westcott village. The current ow

ner has applied for planning permission to

convert the existing public house into three dwellings, convert an outbuilding and erect

three new tow

n houses in the rear garden. The planning application can be found at w

ww

.molevalley.gov.uk and the planning reference num

ber is M0/2018/0901. The

conversion of the existing pub will create three cottages w

ith 2 x 2 bedroom units and

one three bedroom unit. There is also an existing single storey outbuilding, w

hich will

convert into one and a half storey two bedroom

unit and the both the pub and the outbuilding w

ill benefit from am

ple parking. The application also includes the erection of three brand new

town houses in the rear garden, w

hich will benefit from

parking and garaging and all properties w

ill have outside space and garden. This is a most exciting

opportunity to create an attractive collection of village homes, w

hich in our opinion will

be most saleable once com

pleted.

SITUATIO

N W

estcott is a semi rural village nestling in a valley at the foot of the steep

slopes of Ranm

ore and the North D

owns in the Surrey H

ills (an Area of Outstanding

Natural B

eauty).There is a strong sense of local comm

unity with excellent facilities

including a village shop, bakery, doctor’s surgery and two public houses. There is a

primary school (age 4-11) and good state and independent schools for all ages are all

within a tw

o mile radius. D

orking is approximately one m

ile distant with an extensive

range of High Street shopping, leisure facilities and excellent com

muter links. W

estcott offers som

e of the best walking, cycling and riding countryside in the South East

including nearby beauty spots of Ranm

ore Com

mon, Box H

ill, The Now

er, Leith Hill

and Denbies Vineyard, the largest vineyard in England.

·Fantastic O

pportunity

·Attractive R

e-Sale V

alues

·All M

ain Services to Site

·Planning Application

M0/2018/0901

APPENDIX 1

DIR

ECTIO

NS From

Dorking take the A25 in a w

esterly direction towards G

uildford. O

n reaching the village of Westcott drive over the brow

of the hill and shortly after passing the pedestrian crossing, the drivew

ay for The Crow

n will be found on the left

hand side.

VIEWIN

G: 01306 887654

104 High Street, D

orking, Surrey, RH

4 1AZ E-m

ail dorking@w

hiteandsons.co.uk R

ef: DO

R180251

ww

w.w

hiteandsons.co.uk

APPENDIX 1

M

easurements are approx and this accom

modation guide is not to scale. W

here there are sloping ceilings rooms are m

easured at 1.5m height, but the guide is

shown in accordance w

ith the layout at floor level. These particulars are for guidance only and we have not tested appliances or services. Interested applicants are

advised to comm

ission appropriate investigations before making an offer to purchase.

APPENDIX 1

Whitefriars House

6 Carmelite Street

London EC4Y 0BS

T: +44 (0) 20 7227 0700

F: +44 (0) 20 7227 0701

E: [email protected] Christie Owen & Davies Ltd, No 453594 England. Registered Office: Whitefriars House, 6 Carmelite Street, London EC4Y OBS. A member of Christie Group plc.

Regulated by RICS.

Mr David Webb

Mole Valley District Council,

Pippbrook,

Dorking,

Surrey,

RH4 1SJ

02 October 2019

Dear Mr Webb

The Crown Inn, Westcott, RH4 3QG

You have asked me to comment on the marketing of The Crown Inn, Westcott by White & Sons; in

particular whether it has been marketed as a public house or as a residential opportunity. You have

specifically asked me to comment in the context of The Council’s policy CS17 (extract below) and

whether the marketing referred to any possible alternative uses.

(CS17) – 3) The Council will resist the loss of key services and facilities (including community facilities),

unless an appropriate alternative is provided or, evidence is presented that the facility is no longer

required and suitable alternative uses have been considered. This will require the developer to provide

evidence that they have consulted with an appropriate range of service providers and the community

where relevant.

As agreed, I have not visited the property and am reliant on:

1. Marketing particulars prepared by White & Sons

2. A copy email from Mr James Turnbull of White & Sons to Mr David Batty of LPD (Land Planning &

Development, which in turn was copied to you.

3. My own enquiries in respect of the rateable value.

I have many years’ experience as a Chartered Surveyor in the licensed property sector. I set out below

my brief CV

• I qualified as an Associate of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in October 1975. I was

elected as a Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in October 1995. I have

specialised in licensed and leisure properties since 1977.

• Between 1977 and 1993, I was employed by Allied Breweries and Grand Metropolitan Estates in an

Estate Management capacity, culminating in my role as a Director of Property.

• In May 1993 I moved into general practice and have been employed by Erdman Lewis, Savills,

Humberts Leisure and Christie + Co.

• I am currently employed as a Director of Christie + Co based in their London office where I am part

of a team in which capacity I provide rental and capital valuation advice to a large number of clients

including banks, landlords, tenants, public house and restaurant operators and solicitors.

• In 2001 I attained a post graduate Diploma in Arbitration from the College of Estate Management. I

am a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators.

APPENDIX 2

APPENDIX 2

The Pilgrim, Station Road, Dorking, Surrey, RH4 1HF

MARKETING REPORT

IN RESPECT

OF

THE PILGRIM, DORKING

PREPARED

BY

SAVILLS (UK) LIMITED 2 CHARLOTTE PLACE

SOUTHAMPTON SO14 0TB

JULY 2017

APPENDIX 3


Contents

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Qualifications

3.0 Instructions

4.0 Background

5.0 Marketing Strategy

6.0 Interest

7.0 The Business

8.0 The Market

9.0 Conclusion

APPENDIX 3


1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This report provides details on the marketing of The Pilgrim, Station Road, Dorking, Surrey,

RH4 1HF.

2.0 QUALIFICATIONS

2.1 Before I deal with issues that are specific to this property, I set out my credentials. I have an

honours degree in Project Management and a Post Graduate Diploma in Surveying. I am

also a Chartered Surveyor, with a specialism in the licensed property industry.

2.2 I am a Director of Savills and work in the Firm’s specialist Licensed Leisure Department. I

specialise in the acquisition, disposal, valuation and other professional property matters

associated with public houses, restaurants, nightclubs and other licensed venues.

2.3 Savills Licensed Leisure agency teams are consistently selling premium pubs, bars and

restaurants in London, the Midlands, the South, South East and South West regions. Our

existing clients include national pub companies and major leisure corporations in addition to

premium operators across Central and Southern England.

3.0 INSTRUCTIONS

3.1 Savills were in i t i a l l y instructed to act on behalf of Punch Taverns in marketing the

subject property on 13th August 2015.

3.2 The property was first placed under offer on the 15th March 2016 however, this fell through on

the 19th September 2016.

3.3 Savills were then re-instructed to market the property and was placed under offer again on

29th November 2016.

3.4 During the duration of the marketing period of August 2015 until July 2017 the property was

continuously marketed so as not to prevent parties from enquiring.

APPENDIX 3


4.0 BACKGROUND

4.1 The Pilgrim is located on Station Road in the historic market town of Dorking, Surrey,

surrounded by the Surrey Hills and North Downs. Set within the Mole Valley District, the

venue benefits from a picturesque countryside location and proximity to various tourist

attractions such as Polesden Lacey and Box Hill and is within easy reach of London and

larger surrounding towns. The area is popular all year round with walkers and cyclists. It is

administered by Mole Valley District Council.

4.2 Access is good via the A24 and A25, with the M25 and M3 6 miles and 19 miles away

respectively. Crawley lies 15 miles (24 km) to the south east, while Guildford is 13 miles (20

km) west and Central London is 29 miles (46 km) north east.

4.3 The Pilgrim occupies a slightly set back position in a primarily residential area close to

Dorking West train station.

4.4 The Pilgrim public house comprises a two storey detached brick built property with slate tiled

roof and wooden framed single glazing.

4.5 The pub fronts the road and benefits from approximately 30 car parking spaces to the front

and right hand side. Also to the right hand side is a barn and customer patio. To the left of the

pub is an overgrown trade garden with circa 28 covers. The garden continues around the rear

of the site. The public house occupies a highly visible trading position.

4.6 Access is primarily from Station Road but can also be accessed via a lane from Ranmore

Road.

4.7 Internally, the main trading area comprises a traditionally furnished bar / dining area with circa

50 covers at wooden tables and chairs and bar stools. There is a commercial kitchen with

extraction, separate male and female WC’s and a fully fitted and equipped trade beer cellar

(basement level).

4.8 The first floor comprises of 6 potential letting bedrooms / manager’s accommodation. The

second floor eaves comprises one bedroom.

4.9 Please find enclosed our Sales Particulars for the property at Appendix 1.

APPENDIX 3


5.0 MARKETING STRATEGY

5.1 Our marketing campaign was in a standard form for a property of this type i.e. not

confidential and therefore fully exposed to all buyers and members of the public. We

summarise the marketing campaign for Punch Taverns as follows:-

(1) We prepared in-house marketing particulars giving full details of the property,

with unconditional and conditional ‘Offers Invited’ for the freehold interest

(excluding VAT). Offers were also invited to take a lease on the property.

(2) An ‘All Enquiries’ board was erected and this is confirmed by the photo below

(3) The property was advertised on the property website

www.propertylink.estatesgazette.com from where full details could be

downloaded.

(4) The property was further advertised through Savills’ website

www.savills.com/leisure, again from where full details could be downloaded.

(5) The property was included on Savills’ monthly Licensed Leisure Property list

which is emailed to in excess of 1,500 active subscribers whom have

registered with our Licensed Leisure team to receive details of pubs that we

are selling. Whilst some of these subscribers are looking specifically for

public houses to operate as pubs, we also have a wide range of potential

buyers looking to utilise pubs for alternative uses. I have analysed the

market sectors of the subscribers as follows:-

APPENDIX 3

http://www.propertylink.estatesgazette.com

http://www.savills.com/leisure


Pub and restaurant operators 315 applicants

Agents* in the pub and restaurant industry 195 applicants

Agents* acting for other potential occupiers 176 applicants

Residential and commercial developers and commercial investors 338 applicants

Others (inc. retailers and those whose businesses we have not identified)

495 applicants

*Agent is defined as a Surveyor or Estate Agent retained to find buying opportunities

5.2 The mailing list is a useful tool to expose the property to a wide range of potential buyers,

including a good proportion of list subscribers interested specifically on the licensed trade, but

also a number of subscribers whom are considering properties for a range of uses not limited

to the licensed trade sector. The property has therefore been marketed to a wide audience in

an effort to capture a range of offers and to expose the premises to parties considering the

potential to use such a building for alternative uses.

6.0 INTEREST

6.1 We did not set a guide price/rent for the property so that we did not alienate anyone from

coming forward and offering.

6.2 We received a number of enquiries from prospective purchasers, although the majority of

interest was expressed from developers/speculators looking to convert/develop the property

to residential use.

6.3 We received a total of 34 enquiries and have carried out 6 internal viewings internally,

however, there have been numerous external viewings conducted.

6.4 We received four proposals as follows which were put forward to our client, Punch

Taverns:-

§ Freehold proposal at £1,000,000 – Developer

§ Freehold proposal at £600,000 – Commercial restaurant/pub user



APPENDIX 3


6.5 From the four offers provided above only two were ‘backed up’ with proof of funding,

proposed timescales, and solicitors details.

6.6 The property was continuously marketed during and subsequent to the periods that it was

placed under offer. No other offers have been received.

7.0 THE BUSINESS

7.1 I have not been provided with trading accounts for the property however I have been supplied

with barrelage information which I set out below:

Year Ales Lager Cider Total (MAT)

Percentage Change %

2009 109.78 154.19 15.31 279.28 100

2010 106.23 133.67 15.15 255.05 -8.7

2011 102.19 106.05 13.67 221.91 -13

2012 96.94 89.63 13.29 199.85 -10

2013 92.07 86.47 15.72 194.26 -2.8

2014 65.07 61.92 10.86 137.84 -29.1

2015 15.61 14.98 3.72 34.32 -75.2

7.2 This decline is in line with total beer sales stated on the British Beer & Pub Association

website. The pub was closed from early 2016.

7.3 Despite there being a commercial kitchen at the property, when I completed a customer

inspection in August 2015, when the business was open and trading, the tenant confirmed

there was limited food offering. In addition having spoken to locals, they confirmed the

property has historically traded as a wet led business and therefore it would take a leap of

faith from an operator to reposition the offering of the property to incorporate a viable food

service. Furthermore the letting rooms at first floor level were not being used for that purpose

and instead were being used by staff and friends etc. They are also sub-standard by virtue of

not being en-suite. Given this, it is safe to assume the previous business relied heavily on wet

sales - a part of the business that is declining across the country and industry. Customers are

increasingly staying at home to drink but going out to eat and the resulting level of decline is

not unusual for this type of operation. Businesses such as the one run at the Pilgrim have

been unable to compete in the current market due to the lack of a food offering and only a

small customer trading area. These two factors are considered essential for a business to be

able to compete satisfactorily.

APPENDIX 3


8.0 THE MARKET

8.1 Pub numbers have been in decline in the UK for a number of years. It is estimated that there

are now 47,548 pubs in the UK, with a combined turnover of £21.55bn, capturing 14.3% of the

total UK eating out market. The market is primarily divided into three

tenanted and freehouses.

8.2 Freehouses are smaller privately owned pubs, with the owners having full control over the

operation and profitability. Managed pubs are generally larger more profitably business where

the company that owns the business employs staff directly and controls the operation

themselves. Conversely tenanted pubs are generally smaller and less profitably with landlords

having a predominantly leased estates to individual tenant.

8.2.1 Factors Affecting the Pub Market

Consumer Confidence

Consumers are willing to spend in pubs but the post recession consumer has become far

more discerning. Eating out has become ingrained into our behaviour with around three

quarters of adults over the age of 18 now eating out on a regu

not been materially changed by the recession. Savills research confirms that eating out has

been relatively unaffected in the consumer downturn and casual dining has continued to grow.

Whilst the frequency of eating out ha

head has risen. Consumers are still searching out deals but are also focused on quality and

therefore professional operators offering customers what they want at the right price are

generally doing well. The chart below illustrates how eating out remained unaffected by the

downturn of 2008 and this bodes well for the pub market over the next few years.

Pilgrim, Station Road, Dorking, Surrey, RH4 1HF

Pub numbers have been in decline in the UK for a number of years. It is estimated that there


total UK eating out market. The market is primarily divided into three groups: managed,

Freehouses are smaller privately owned pubs, with the owners having full control over the


e business employs staff directly and controls the operation


having a predominantly leased estates to individual tenant.

Factors Affecting the Pub Market


more discerning. Eating out has become ingrained into our behaviour with around three

quarters of adults over the age of 18 now eating out on a regular basis and their habits have



Whilst the frequency of eating out has declined slightly, the amount that customers spend per



well. The chart below illustrates how eating out remained unaffected by the

downturn of 2008 and this bodes well for the pub market over the next few years.

Freehouses 20,630

Managed Pubs, 9,408

Tenanted Pubs, 17,510

Pub numbers have been in decline in the UK for a number of years. It is estimated that there


groups: managed,

Freehouses are smaller privately owned pubs, with the owners having full control over the


e business employs staff directly and controls the operation



more discerning. Eating out has become ingrained into our behaviour with around three-

lar basis and their habits have



s declined slightly, the amount that customers spend per



well. The chart below illustrates how eating out remained unaffected by the

APPENDIX 3


Savills research; ONS; GfK

Pubs are taking an increasing share of the eating out market with many operators capitalising

on the growth in the eating out market. This growth is well illustrated by the proportion of food

sales by the largest operators

Operator Food as % of Total Sales

Mitchells & Butlers 51%

Greene King 40%

Marston’s Managed 50%

J D Wetherspoon 43%

Staff Costs

Staff costs have risen with the introduction of the National Living Wage (NLW) starting at

£7.20 for over 25s from April 2016 (increasing to around £9 an hour by 2020). The increase

in the national insurance employment allowance from £2,000 to £3,000 will be a help to the

smaller employers in the sector but will not help larger operators. All employers that pay

Class 1 National Insurance on their employee’s earnings are eligible for the new scheme

which enables them to forego paying their first £3,000 of Employers National Insurance

contributions. The introduction of the NLW is expected to add around 3% to the current

median salary across the pub sector. It is expected that independent operators, such as the

operators going forward at the Pilgrim, will be hit hardest by this rise as low turnover

businesses have higher staffing costs as a percentage of turnover. Many operators have been

making provisions for the changing costs in their budgeting and the increased spending power

of employees could create opportunity.

£0

£2

£4

£6

£8

£10

£12

£14

£16

£18

£20

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Ave

rage

wee

kly

spen

d pe

r HH

D

Con

sum

er c

onfid

ence

Restaurant and café meals Alcoholic drinks (away from home) Consumer confidence

APPENDIX 3


Taxation

The new draft valuation list was released in September 2016. Pubs are valued by reference to

fair maintainable profit with rateable values calculated as of 1 April 2015. From April 2017 a

new system of ‘check, challenge, appeal’ was introduced which could create an additional

work burden on operators. There is likely to be an overall increase in rates payable for those

operations which have seen improved trading performances over the period since the last

revaluation. At the moment there is uncertainty in how this will impact on individual

businesses.

The reduction in the rate of corporation tax to 19% from 1 April 2017 and 18% from 1 April

2020 should go some way to offset that for businesses with taxable profits.

The scrapping of the beer duty escalator has been a positive for the sector which has seen an

increased taxation burden with beer duty rising by 42% since March 2008.

Beer Volumes

Beer volumes have been in decline in recent years as a result of changing consumer

preferences and the availability of cheap supermarket product. Operators are working hard to

mitigate this with the widening of their offer to draw income from craft beer, which cannot be

replicated at home, and food, including breakfast and coffee, and accommodation.

The growing interest in craft beer is beginning to arrest the decline in beer volumes and is

growing in importance. This is available to the customer both in the pub and at home. Tesco

has recently commented that craft beer demand is the fastest growing drink trend with

demand at Tesco having increased by 130% in the past year. This trend is benefitting the pub

and regional brewers in particular are capitalising on this trend.

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

Volu

me -

Brls

Year

On-Trade Sales

Off -Trade Sales

APPENDIX 3


Public Houses such as The Pilgrim have suffered more than others since the economic

downturn due to them not having the economies of scale to compete with the larger managed

house operations. As the Property has a small commercial kitchen and trade area, it would

not attract ‘destination’ customers and it is clear from the barrelage information provided that

the local population has not supported the business recently. There are better located venues

with superior facilities within Dorking.

9.0 CONCLUSION

9.1 The property has been marketed by Savills for Punch Taverns for approximately 23

months.

9.2 The availability of the property has been circulated to a wide audience as evidenced by the

marketing campaign. Market conditions remain indifferent both as a result of

recessionary pu b trends and the competition from supermarkets retailing cheap alcohol

and branded restaurants offering “eating out” deals and discounts.

9.3 The Pilgrim is typical of the types of business that we have seen fail. The pub sits within

a town with a population of approximately 11,185 persons (2011 Census), and there are

currently 13 other pubs servicing Dorking all within 1km of the subject property.

9.4 As a result of our experience of marketing this property, I can confirm that interest from

pub and restaurant users were negligible and in view of the trading history, I form

the conclusion that this lack of interest came about due to the business being unable to

provide an operator with a viable and sustainable return. The only proposal received for a

commercial use was from a individual buyer who was not able to support the offer with proof

of funding.

9.5 Our marketing has demonstrated that there is limited local community use demand also. We

have received no community use interest or proposals.

Yours faithfully,

FOR AND ON BEHALF OF SAVILLS (UK) LIMITED

Adam Bullas BSc (Hons) PGDipSurv MRICS Director

APPENDIX 3


APPENDIX 1

Sales Particulars

APPENDIX 3

savills.co.uk

Licensed Leisure The PilgrimStation Road, Dorking, Surrey RH4 1HF

Freehold - Offers Invited

Savills Southampton2 Charlotte PlaceSouthampton SO14 0TB

+44 (0) 23 8071 3900

Large former community public house close to Dorking West station

Potential for six letting rooms and manager�s accommodation

Large beer garden (28)

Substantial car parking to front and side

Picturesque village location in Mole Valley

Of interest to pub and restaurant groups, commercial users, investors and developers

APPENDIX 3

Location The Pilgrim is located on Station Road in the historic market town of Dorking, Surrey, surrounded by the Surrey Hills and North

a picturesque countryside location and proximity to various tourist attractions such as Polesden Lacey and Box Hill and is within easy reach of London and larger surrounding towns. The area is popular all year round with walkers and cyclists. It is administered by Mole Valley District Council.

Access is good via the A24 and A25, with the M25 and M3 6 miles and 19 miles away respectively. Crawley lies 15 miles (24 km) to the south east, while Guildford is 13 miles (20 km) west and Central London is 29 miles (46 km) north east.

The Pilgrim occupies a slightly set back position in a primarily residential area close to Dorking train station.

Description The Pilgrim public house comprises a two storey detached brick built property with clay tiled roof and wooden framed single glazing.

parking spaces to the front and right hand side. Also to the right hand side is a barn and customer patio. To the left of the pub is an overgrown trade garden with circa 28 covers. The garden continues around the rear of the site. The public house occupies a highly visible trading position.

Access is primarily from Station Road but can also be accessed via a lane from Ranmore Road.

AccommodationInternally, the main trading area comprises a traditionally furnished bar / dining area with circa 50 covers at wooden tables and chairs

equipped trade beer cellar (basement level).

one bedroom.

Fixtures & Fittings

client will be included as part of the sale price (excludes stock at valuation).

Tenure The premises are held on a freehold basis with vacant possession.

The BusinessThe public house is currently closed.

Rating The subject property is listed in the 2010 Rating List with a Rateable Value £31,250 and in the draft 2017 Rating List with a Rateable Value of £25,900. The National Multiplier for England and Wales for 2016/17 is £0.497.

APPENDIX 3

Planning

House) Use.

LicensingThe pub trades under traditional hours. Sale of alcohol is permitted during the following times:

Day Time

Monday to Wednesday 11.00 - 23.00

Thursday to Saturday 11.00 - 00.00

Sunday 12.00 - 22.30

Energy PerformanceThe subject property has a D (88) rating. The EPC will be provided to seriously interested parties upon request.

Price

Offers are invited for the freehold. VAT is applicable.

ViewingFor a formal viewing, strictly by appointment with Savills.

Important Notice

Savills, their clients and any joint agents give notice that:

1. They are not authorised to make or give any representations or warranties in relation to the property either here or elsewhere, either on their own behalf or on behalf of their client or otherwise. They assume no responsibility for any statement that may be made in these particulars. These particulars do not form part of any offer or contract and must not be relied upon as statements or representations of fact.

2. Any areas, measurements or distances are approximate. The text, photographs and plans are for guidance only and are not necessarily comprehensive. It should not be assumed that the property has all necessary planning, building regulation or other consents and Savills have not tested any services, equipment or facilities. Purchasers must satisfy themselves by inspection or otherwise.

Designed and Produced by Savills Marketing: 020 7499 8644 | January 2017

Adam Bullas +44 (0) 23 8071 3957 [email protected]

James Greenlees +44 (0) 23 8071 3986 [email protected]

Contact

APPENDIX 3

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Agenda Item 4 · The application site is The Crown Inn, Guildford Road in Westcott. The site is...

Documents

Transcript of Agenda Item 4 · The application site is The Crown Inn, Guildford Road in Westcott. The site is...