Andrew Walker, policy researcher at LGiU · heart of the community but like any small business they...

Public Houses: How councils

and communitiescan save pubs

http://www.lgiu.org.uk/

http://www.camra.org.uk/

Andrew Walker, policy researcher at LGiU

Author

Contents

Introduction 1

Context 2

Interviews 11

Case studies 20

Protecting your pub: a guide for planners 31and councillors

Recommendations for local government 34

Conclusion 35

Acknowledgements 36

Public houses LGiU

Pubs are very important. They play a variety of roles: they help create cohesion, theyprovide local character, they contribute to the local economy and they provide an importantfocal point for local communities.

This report sets out some of the ways councils can help to protect community pubs. In doingso they help to build places that are economically and socially sustainable: places thatpeople want to live in.

In debating how best to protect community pubs, we need to ask important questions aboutthe role of government and the capacity for citizens to participate meaningfully in public life.These themes are central to LGiu’s mission of empowering local communities.

The relationship between local government and citizens has a crucial democratic premium,but is also a practical necessity. by working together communities and councils canaccomplish more than either can alone.

at LGiu, we aim to support local government in using its powers as creatively as possible toengage and meet the needs of citizens. Localism has the potential to be practical andmeaningful if it can generate responses to the challenges local communities face that arelocally appropriate and which draw on the creativity and energy of local people.

It's important to get this right, to develop and strengthen the capacity for communities toshape their environment and make decisions that affect their lives.

Pubs are not the only part of this of course, but this is an exciting opportunity to engage withcommunities and we hope that this report will help to equip more councils with the tools,resources and confidence to do so.

Jonathan Carr-West Chief Executive, LGiU

Forewords

LGiU Public houses

Thank you for taking the time to read this report and giving thought to how you canprotect much loved and valued community pubs.

Pubs are a part of the fabric of life in this country and can play a pivotal role in your work asa champion of your community. for many, community pubs are about bringing peopletogether and are an icon of british life, but unfortunately too many are closing their doors forgood – current figures show 28 pubs close every week.

The reasons behind these closures are not as simple as a badly-run business or a changingmarketplace; there are many external factors and pressures which have a bearing on pubsurvival. soaring property prices and gaps in planning law mean that all too easily acommunity’s favourite local can be turned into a supermarket, flats or even demolished –siphoning money out of the local economy and damaging community wellbeing andcohesion.

Pubs have the ability to adapt and cater for changing lifestyles while still remaining at theheart of the community but like any small business they need support, investment andprotection.

CaMra is a not-for-profit consumer campaigning organisation with 165,000 members. our vision is to have quality real ale and thriving pubs in every community. every day weare called upon for help from communities campaigning to save their local pub fromredevelopment. We do what we can to assist, while also lobbying government to changelegislation to protect pubs, but the last line of defence is frequently in councils’ hands.

The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of challenges faced by both councilsand communities, and advocate the powers available to protect community assets, sharingbest practice on how councils can be that last line of defence.

as demonstrated by the many case studies in this report we want councils to adopt strongpub protection policies in Local Plans, see the potential in the community right to bid andconsider alternative ways of protecting pubs in light of weak national planning law. butcentral government doesn’t get off the hook: we want action to add to councils’ toolkit ofpowers to support pubs by strengthening national planning law, so communities andcouncils always have a say in the future of their neighbourhoods.

CaMra is grateful to the trailblazing councils that are leading the way in pub protection. We want all councils to follow suit and we hope the ideas in this report provide a usefulstarting point.

Cheers!

Colin Valentine CAMRA National Chairman

“45 out of 49 localauthorities said they didconsider pubs as valuedcommunity amenities

worthy of protection, yet 33felt that existing planningregulations do not givesufficient protection to

public houses from changeof use or demolition.”

1LGiU Public houses

The pub industry is going through a turbulenttime. establishments are closing at analarming rate up and down the country. Thisis a worrying prospect for the landlords andowners of those pubs, but it also presents aworrying picture for many communities.

Pubs are more than just businesses, andmore than just drinking establishments; theyprovide a very real and important service tomany communities, in a variety of ways.They help to strengthen social networksbetween people who might not otherwisemeet, host events, clubs and meetings thatare necessary for community cohesion –andthey are often central to local history andheritage. once they are gone it is difficult tobring them back.

Many communities are, therefore, concernedto protect these important assets. recentlegislation, in the Localism act 2011, gavecommunities the right to nominate assetsthat they felt were particularly valuable.

This is a positive development as it begins togive power back to citizens so that they canstart to make the decisions that shape theplaces they live in. however, as thingscurrently stand this does not give sufficientpowers at the local level to fully ensure thatpubs are protected.

Local authorities also have a decisive role.They have the capacity and the tools tomake real change by designing planningpolicies to shape the environment in theinterests of the communities they serve. Thenational Planning Policy framework (nPPf)is often overlooked as a tool that councilscan use to this end, but it contains anumber of points which empower them toprotect pubs in urban, as well as ruralareas. strong local plans are widely seen asthe most powerful tool for councils toproactively protect pubs.

action is required to assist councils inperforming this role, though. In a survey ofenglish local authorities carried out on behalfof the all Party Parliamentary save the PubGroup, 33 out of 49 local authoritiesdisagreed or strongly disagreed that existingplanning regulations give sufficient protectionto public houses from change of use ordemolition. 41 of 49 responded that theywould like planning permission to berequired before a pub can be converted.

This report sets out to demonstrate the toolsthat are currently available to localauthorities in england, how they are beingused, and aims to encourage councils to beproactive, confident, and to engage with theircommunities to protect treasured assets.

Introduction

2 Public houses LGiU

Pubs have the potential to bring a great dealof value to communities up and down thecountry. In a recent report, IPPr1 calculatedthat beyond the immediate economicturnover they produce, pubs typically add£80,000 to local economies every year. Theygenerate more revenue and jobs per pint ofbeer, than beer sold through supermarkets,for example.

They also provide a range of social benefitsand have a vital role as a hub in manycommunities. Part of this role involvesbringing together members of the communitywho may not otherwise interact with oneanother.

There are real positive outcomes associatedwith this, including increased communitycohesion, a sense of belonging, andwellbeing. Through community-orientedevents and activities, they add to the civiclife of an area, but they also enhance theheritage and cultural identities that makeindividual locations unique.

They are diverse places, offering an array ofservices including libraries, childcare,meeting spaces for community groups, andshops. The old stereotypes are slowlybreaking down in many ways, as well. Pubsare no longer the male-only, anti-familyplaces they may once have been perceivedto be. a great deal of this can be attributed tothe increased quality and diversity of whatpubs offer.

There are other benefits associated withcommunity pubs. While alcohol has manydamaging effects, this is often due to aminority of venues. Community pubs tend tooffer a more regulated environment for safer,more moderate drinking that causes lessdisturbance and disorder.

The threat to pubs

Despite the immense value they bring to ourcommunities, british pubs are going through aturbulent time. In March 2014 CaMrareported that there are 28 net pub closuresevery week in the uk (1,300 a year). This is acause for alarm in itself, but the rate at whichclosures have increased is especially worryingfor the industry: in the last six months of 2011the number of pubs closing per week was 16.

a number of factors are associated with thissharp increase:

l rising costs faced by landlords

l high rents, particularly in urbanlocations

l increasing land value, which raisesthe amount developers are preparedto pay

l the high price of alcohol in pubs asopposed to the supermarkets and offlicences

Context

This section establishes the social and economic value of community pubs, buildingon previous research, and sets out why it is important to look for ways for localauthorities to unlock that value.

1 Muir, r (2012) Pubs and Places: The Social Value of Community Pubs London: IPPr

3LGiU Public houses

l competition from alternative leisurepursuits.

once these pubs have disappeared, beendemolished, or redeveloped it is very hard toreplace them. If this trend continues, we risklosing something of great value to ourcommunities.2

Why should this matter to localauthorities?

Meaningful engagement betweengovernment and citizens has a democraticpremium. It enables them to buildcommunities that they want to live in andthat meet their needs.

but localism is also a practical necessity.Complex problems are rarely solved by one-size-fits all solutions. The challenge of pubclosures is different in different areas.Innovative responses to that challenge mustreflect that difference by being flexible andadapting to local circumstances. Crucially, tobe effective it will also need to draw on theenergy and ability of local people.

Localism demands the participation ofcitizens in shaping the environment they livein by exerting real influence on decision-making. Centralised, or market controlledplanning is less responsive to individualcontexts and places. It is also less welldisposed towards reinvigorating local civiceconomies that draw on and fit around theneeds, aspirations, and creative energies oflocal people.3 Planning is a key mechanismwith the potential to make this kind ofengagement a reality.

Losing these important assets will haveimplications beyond the direct value thatthey bring to communities, therefore. The

rate of closure and conversion of treasuredcommunity facilities also indicates the levelof participation and influence thatcommunities have over the planningprocess. Where assets disappear that oncehad a central role in the social infrastructure,or held particular value for the community, itindicates that concerned citizens are unableto have any meaningful say over whatassets exist in their communities, or toshape the physical and social environmentthat they live and work in.

The role of local authorities in this is crucial.They are the institutions through whichcitizens can engage in the decisions thataffect their lives and they are well placed toalign the interests of the state, the marketand wider civil society with the communitiesthat they represent. This requires localauthorities to use the tools and powers attheir disposal to enable innovation and drivetowards real change.

Unlocking the value

unlocking the value that pubs can bring tocommunities is not always straightforward forlocal authorities. although they have theaspiration and the will, it remains challengingfor councils to act decisively when acommunity pub is under threat.

The competing priorities and limitedresources that councils face make thisdifficult. The drive to build enough newhomes to service increasing demand inbritain’s rising population is, without doubt, a vital social and strategic goal that needs tobe met one way or another. however, thisdoes mean that council priorities andresources are being steered in a particulardirection. The retention of pubs and othercommunity facilities takes a backseat andwill have to be fought for much harder.

2 o’Connell, s (2013) Keeping Local: How to Save London’s Pubs as Community ResourcesGreater London Conservatives

3 Carr-West, J (2013) Connected Localism: A blueprint for better public services and more powerfulcommunities LGiu


having said that, there is a widespreaddesire among councillors and officers inlocal authorities to take on the challenge. Ina survey of english local authorities,conducted by CaMra between March andJuly 2013 for the all Party Parliamentarysave the Pub Group, the overwhelmingmajority of respondents (45 out of 49)said they did consider pubs as valuedcommunity amenities worthy ofprotection.

however, it was widely felt that currentplanning powers, including the nPPf do notgive local authorities the power they need toensure pubs are retained. 33 out of 49 localauthorities disagreed or stronglydisagreed that existing planningregulations give sufficient protection topublic houses from change of use ordemolition.

Given the limitations, local authorities shouldthink creatively if they are to be proactiveand take action. The Pubs and Placesreport, from IPPr, acknowledged that thereis no magic bullet that will eliminate thethreat faced by community pubs. rather,local authorities will need to equipthemselves with a range of tools. The goal ofthis report is to establish what those toolsare, and the best ways to use them.

The tools at hand

recent developments in government policy have shown a willingness to assist withsome of the problems facing communitypubs. The announcement in the 2013autumn statement to relax business rates forsmall businesses will impact on most pubs inthe country, for example.

Local authorities have access to a selectionof tools with which they can make proactiveinterventions into the planning process. Theyinclude:

l listing buildings as assets ofCommunity Value (aCVs)

l local plan, core strategy, andsupplementary Guidancedocuments

l relevant sections of the nationalPlanning Policy framework

l article 4 directions

l the sustainable Communities act

l local heritage listings andconservation areas.

Assets of Community Value

The Localism act 2011 made provisions forcommunities to nominate important assets tobe listed as aCVs. This places a six-monthmoratorium on sale or redevelopment andgives the community group in question thechance to raise the capital and put togethera bid to buy the asset. Twenty-onesignatures are required to submit anomination, which then goes to the localauthority for consideration. If it meets thecriteria laid out in the guidance documentsthen the local authority will add it to its list.

Pubs lend themselves particularly well to thislegislation and they are the most listed type ofbuilding. Currently over 450 pubs have beenlisted as aCVs. They often serve an existingcommunity, so getting the requisite supportingsignatures should not be a problem, and theytend to attract grass-roots support.

Guidance is available from the governmenton the ways in which local authorities cansupport the Community right to bid in theirarea.4

south Cambridgeshire District Councilpassed a motion in January 2014 to requestthat central government make changes to

4 DCLG 2012 “Community right to bid: non-statutory advice note for local authorities”

5LGiU Public houses

remove permitted development rights whena building is listed as an asset of communityvalue. This could add significant weight tothe aCV legislation, giving local authoritiesmore leverage in decisions that matter totheir communities.5

Parish councils also have a key strategicrole in carrying this agenda forward. In fact,parishes can nominate assets to be listed so

are particularly well placed to ensure that themessage is spread among communities.

Local plan and core strategy

Local plans and core strategies areimportant planning documents that clearlydepict a council’s strategic approach to themanagement of the assets in its jurisdiction.The nPPf provides the background for

5 http://scambs.moderngov.co.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=410&MId=5965&Ver=4

Examples of strong local plans:East Hampshire District Council incorporated a strong pub protection policyinto its Local Plan. “Planning permission will only be granted for the changeof use of a public house if one or more of the following criteria are met: a. noother potential occupier can be found following a realistic effort to market thepremises for its existing use; b. substantial evidence of non-viability issubmitted; and c. it is demonstrated that suitable alternative public housesexist to meet the needs of the local community.”

London Borough of Lewisham: “The Council will only permit the change ofuse of public houses to other uses where it has been demonstrated that thereare alternative remaining public houses in the vicinity and that the potentialfor alternative community use of the building has been exhausted.”

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea: “The NPPF clearly intends LocalPlans such as this Review to play their part in facilitating social interactionand creating healthy, inclusive communities. It says that planning policiesshould aim to achieve places which promote opportunities for meetingsbetween members of the community who might not otherwise come intocontact with each other. Our strategic objective to keep life local is for strong,effective local centres and for social and community facilities to be widelyavailable and for neighbourhood functions, including neighbourhoodshopping facilities, to be easily accessible so that residential communities canflourish.”

Broadland District Council’s Policy 6.29 is instructive here too: “Pubs arevaluable social and community facilities and the Council will thus seek toprevent the loss of such facility. Proposals for change of use will not bepermitted unless there is an alternative public house within walking distance /it has been demonstrated that the PH has been marketed for a reasonableperiod / no reasonable offers have been received to purchase or let the pub &it can be proven the property is not economically viable.”


these documents, and feeds directly into theprocess of their production.

Councils are encouraged to draw up theseplans, following local consultation, becausewithout them it is more difficult to make thekey strategic decisions governing localassets. It is here that the weight given tohousing development comes in, because,thanks to the nPPf’s “presumption in favourof sustainable development”, the frameworktakes precedence where there is no localplan fully established. Local authorities needto be able to show a five-year supply ofdeliverable housing. even where there is aplan in development, local planningauthorities will have trouble blockingunwanted developments if they are pressedto meet this target.

There is plenty of opportunity for planners touse their local plans in innovative ways that

do actually prevent the loss of communitypubs. There is also evidence to suggest thateven where a plan is in development it maystill carry material weight and bear animportant influence in planning decisions.

There are numerous examples of pubprotection policies that have been adoptedinto local authority planning documents. 35of 49 respondents to the all PartyParliamentary Group (aPPG) survey saidtheir local authority “has adopted, or is in theprocess of adopting, a local plan policyaimed at supporting the retention of viableand valued public houses”.

a common theme in many of the local plansis that community facilities, including pubs,should be retained when they are viableassets. Viability can mean a number ofthings, but given the high rate of closure inthe pubs market, making the business case

Supplementary Planning GuidanceBirmingham City Council has supplementary guidance, in place since 1992,which stipulates that anyone wishing to change the use or redevelop a pubmust meet certain criteria against which planning applications will beconsidered. They include: impact of the pub's loss on the community; thenature and proximity of adjacent land uses; and highway considerations.

East Riding of Yorkshire Council has supplementary guidance that details theadded value of having community pubs in rural areas: “The 341 public housesin the Rural East Riding directly employ over 3400 people in either a full timeor part time capacity and indirectly support the employment of approximately900 people through the purchase of supplies and services.”

Ribble Valley Borough Council issued guidance, which is similar in the way itis drawn up to retain rural pubs: “If no evidence has been submitted, nogenuine attempts have been made to market the pub as a going concern orany realistic offers have been made but rejected by the pub and the pub is thelast remaining pub or community facility within the village, then the BoroughCouncil is likely to refuse the planning application. It is also likely to berefused if it is felt that the closure of the pub is likely to have a significantdetrimental impact upon the visual impact, attractiveness and social oreconomic vitality of the village.”

7LGiU Public houses

for keeping a pub as a pub is an importantstep on the way to preventing itsredevelopment.

Supplementary Planning Guidance

Many local authorities supplement theirplanning documents with detailed guidanceand research that relates specifically topubs. This is designed to assist decisionmaking and to give more robust support forthe retention of community assets.

NPPF

The nPPf was drawn up by the governmentto serve multiple purposes. It was intendedto increase the rate of planning approvals fornew developments and to ensure adequatehousing supply, while at the same to involvelocal people in the decision making processby encouraging the design of local plans.

The nPPf’s “presumption in favour ofsustainable development” means that theframework takes precedence where there isno local plan fully established. This hasencouraged the perception among manycouncils that they are unable to blockunwanted development because they mightnot be able to show a five-year supply ofdeliverable housing.6

however, within the framework there are anumber of clauses that increase the powerof planners to implement pub protectionpolicies. They can also be used to helpcouncils make decisions that favour theretention of community pubs.

Article 4

Changing the use of a building, ordemolishing it altogether, requires thatcertain regulations are followed. often it isthe case that planning permission is

necessary, which the Local Planningauthority will deliberate. for many changesof use, however, such as demolition orconversion to shops, betting shops andrestaurants, no planning permission isrequired. These changes are covered bypermitted development rights under theTown and Country Planning act (1995) andmean that a pub can be turned from an a4use such as a pub, to an a1 use, like asupermarket, without the approval of thelocal planning authority. over 208 pubs havebeen converted to supermarkets sinceJanuary 2012.7

The local authority does, however, have thepower to remove these permitteddevelopment rights by imposing article 4directions on a particular building, or on anarea. once these rights have been removed,that development decision needs to bedeliberated by the local authority.

There is a smaller number of cases wherearticle 4 directions have been enforced inorder to protect pubs, compared with aCV.Just 13 of 49 survey respondents agreedthat article 4 powers are adequate to enablecouncils to protect pubs, while 27 disagreedor strongly disagreed. only five respondentssaid that their authority had used article 4powers to withdraw permitted developmentrights for a pub or other community asset.There are a variety of reasons behind this.Local authorities are wary of resorting to thismeasure because it takes up precious timeand resources, is complicated to establish,and has the potential to lead to legal disputeand compensation.

Issuing an article 4 direction is a verypowerful way for local authorities to at leastslow down the process and ensure thatthere is public consultation, allowingcommunities the opportunity to make a casefor retaining assets. They have been issued

6 http://www.cpre.org.uk/resources/housing-and-planning/planning/item/3260-countryside-promises-planning-realities

7 http://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1230605/camra-details-pub-to-supermarket-conversions


National Planning Policy FrameworkSection 28 of the NPPF provides explicit support for pubs that are importantfor tourism, or necessary as village facilities.

“To promote a strong rural economy, local and neighbourhood plans should...support sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments that benefitbusinesses in rural areas, communities and visitors... this should includesupporting the provision and expansion of tourist and visitor facilities inappropriate locations where identified needs are not met by existing facilitiesin rural service centres; and promote the retention and development of localservices and community facilities in villages, such as local shops, meetingplaces, sports venues, cultural buildings, public houses and places ofworship.”

The Section also states that in order to promote a strong rural economy, localand neighbourhood plans should “promote the retention and development oflocal services and community facilities in villages, such as local shops,meeting places, sports venues, cultural buildings, public houses and places ofworship.”

Section 70 of the NPPF stipulates that ‘to deliver the social, recreational andcultural facilities and services the community needs, planning policies anddecisions should:

l plan positively for the provision and use of shared space, communityfacilities (such as local shops, meeting places, sports venues, culturalbuildings, public houses and places of worship) and other local servicesto enhance the sustainability of communities and residentialenvironments

l guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services,particularly where this would reduce the community’s ability to meet itsday-to-day needs

l ensure that established shops, facilities and services are able todevelop and modernise in a way that is sustainable, and retained for thebenefit of the community

l ensure an integrated approach to considering the location ofhousing, economic uses and community facilities and services.”

9LGiU Public houses

more widely to cover other assets, but thereis a great deal of reticence among plannersto impose them in the case of public houses.

successful cases include the highbury barn,which babergh District covered with anarticle 4 direction in 2012 and backed up atappeal. More recently Cambridge CityCouncil have imposed article 4 directions tocover 20 pubs in a specific area of the city.

one of the key issues with using article 4directions is the aversion to risk among localauthority planning departments. Properguidance and legal advice could be decisiveby encouraging greater confidence.

Sustainable Communities Act

under the sustainable Communities act(sCa) councils are able to pass motions tolobby central government to makeadjustments to planning policy that shiftpower in favour of communities.

applications to use the sCa are becomingmore widespread. so far 35 councils havepassed motions calling for centralgovernment to make changes so thatplanning permission is required when thereis an application to convert or demolish a

pub. a further 26 are in the process ofputting together similar proposals.

Support for the community

some councils, such as east riding ofyorkshire, offer business support tocommunity groups seeking to take over andrun a pub. This support can be decisive andthere are various ways that viability tests,such as that drawn up by CaMra, could beused to bolster the case for alternative formsof ownership such as cooperatives orcommunity share issues. In cases where thelocal authority is unable to offer direct materialsupport, it can give helpful signposting toother sources, such as the architecturalheritage fund, which gave a substantial grantto assist with the community buy-out of TheIvy house, in nunhead, the first community-owned pub set up following aCV listing.

In order to understand the ways localauthorities understand these powers,how they are using them, and theconfidence that they have in them, LGiUconducted a series of interviews withcouncillors and planning officers. Thenext section demonstrates the findings of the interviews and outlines the mainthemes and concerns that arose.

Article 4Some comments from the survey give a clearer picture of the issues involvedwith implementing Article 4 directions:

Waltham Forest Council: “We are trying to, but the process and timescalesinvolved are far too long and are well out of touch with reality.”

South Oxon DC: “Article fours are expensive and require a great deal of otherresource. The default position should be to skip them.”

A respondent from Tendring DC was more positive, however, arguing that“Article 4 directions at least provide an opportunity for the impact of losing apub to be considered but ultimately it might not always secure theirprotection.”

“Local authorities shouldsee themselves as

‘curators of town centresand neighbourhoods’,

with the confidence to alignmultiple agendas and

use the available powerseffectively.”

11LGiU Public houses

There are specific challenges relating to theactual use of the powers outlined in theprevious chapter. some of these challengesrelate to the aspirations within the council,some to the legislation and regulationcovering planning policy and others relate tothe level of understanding and confidence ineach of the powers.

In order to establish how local authoritieswere using the tools at their disposalinterviews were conducted with sevencouncillors and eight officers fromCambridge City Council, Derbyshire DalesCouncil, London borough of Lewisham,norwich City Council, London borough ofWaltham forest, north Devon DistrictCouncil, north somerset Council, Londonborough of hackney, uttlesford DistrictCouncil, London borough of kingston,Walsall Metropolitan borough Council,royal borough of kensington and Chelsea,staffordshire Moreland DC, and LbWandsworth. Leaders of save the Ivy houseand save the George and Dragon campaigngroups were also interviewed.

There is a strong sense in the interviews thatpub protection policies work best where theyare a part of a coherent, place-basedapproach to planning that seeks to shapethe environment in the interests of thecommunity.

Wider debates about public health, localeconomy, successful high-streets,citizenship, and participation all play animportant role in making this meaningful.The councils that have found thingsparticularly challenging are those in whichthere is no support and where planning isdriven by other targets, or left to marketforces.

Though aCV legislation by no means solvesall of these problems, it does start aconversation between the council andcitizens, as well as between different tiers oflocal authorities and the parishes.

This is an important step in galvanising asense of pride and ownership in the thingsthat exist within our communities.

Interviews

This section lays out the key themes and concerns that arose from interviews withcouncillors and officers in local authorities. It covers the general issues that werediscussed, as well as looking in detail at the implications for specific planning tools


Aspirations

There was an aspiration to defendcommunity pubs in most councils, thoughthere was seen to be a variation in howwidespread this was within the council.

Gordon Glenday, head of planning policy andregeneration at Waltham forest commented:“There is a great deal of aspiration in thecouncil to pursue this agenda and defend

community pubs. They are a key part of thefabric, culture and history of the east end.”

Guy nicholson, a councillor from hackney,commented that it was a significant andimportant part of the role of the council tostand up for the community and defend theassets that are important to them.

Determination is important, however, forcouncillors who want to take this forward.

Key Findings:l There was broad agreement that using a package of tools was the most

effective approach, rather than relying on one or two.

l The attitudes and aspirations towards Community Pubs and Assets ofCommunity Value vary widely in different local authorities. Some have aclear idea of a “Community Pub”, others do not see it as so important todesignate the “community” purpose.

l ACV legislation is important as a means of galvanising the community,raising awareness and starting a conversation amongst citizens about whatthey value in their local area.

l The direct impact of ACV was seen as limited, though it can be used as amaterial planning consideration.

l Working with Parishes, where relevant, is seen as an important element ofengaging with communities – they are expected to communicate ACVagenda to communities and to be a liaison between the two parties

l Some do not take a stance and simply follow the regulations when a groupapplies for ACV status, while others are actively engaged in promoting theagenda and communicating with parishes/communities.

l Local plans and core strategies are seen as very important tools. There aregood examples of these being used to good effect.

l There is varied understanding of how Article 4 directions work– there is aparticular need to clear up confusion over compensation, timing, andviability.

l Perception among some councillors that officers do not see something likeACV as an important issue and so employ a very dry interpretation of the lawand regulation.


Tina Jukes, from Walsall Metropolitanborough Council said that “it is difficult andthere are lots things that will go against youbut you have to keep battling,” if you aregoing to succeed.

Political support was seen as anotherimportant factor in building this aspiration. In councils where a leader or local MP wassupportive of the agenda there was,unsurprisingly, a more proactive approach.The political orientation in other localauthorities meant that planning was moredirectly guided by the market. Thoughlegislation such as aCV would be adhered toand regulations followed, there was unlikelyto be any specific ‘pub friendly’ policies.

Threats to pubs

The chief threats to community pubs thatinterviewees identified were house prices andhigh land value. This was felt in all areas, butparticularly keenly in London and Cambridge,which saw the highest percentage rise inhouse prices in 2012-13.8 The potential profitfrom selling to a developer outweighs whatcan be made from even a very successfulbusiness. Many felt that the nPPf addedpressure to local authorities to prioritisedelivering housing targets over retaining amix of assets in their communities.

Liam Curran, a councillor at London Boroughof Lewisham, said: “Land value is causingthe loss of pubs, not wider factors such asthe smoking ban, beer price, and so on. It is a perfect storm because it combineswith the battle for market share amongst thebig supermarkets.”

Identifying community pubs

how local authorities identify andcategorise community pubs variessignificantly from place to place and is

instrumental in the approach that councilstake to the issue overall.

some highlighted the danger of being tooprescriptive about what would or would notconstitute a “community” pub. There wasconcern that this might draw planners intodetailed decisions about specific assets,rather than putting more robust policies inplace. Jonathan Wade, at royal borough ofkensington and Chelsea, emphasised thatdesignating a pub as a community facilitywas an arbitrary decision on the part of thelocal authority. It was seen as more effectiveto protect all public houses, regardless ofwhat they “should” or “should not” beproviding, because this allows the councilthe flexibility to defend a whole range ofassets if they are seen as important to thecommunity.

It was argued that the best approach is toput in place wide ranging policies thatprotect community facilities more generally. If it was too specific, then owners anddevelopers may “game the system” bychanging their offer so that they are nolonger subject to the regulation.

There were some, however, who felt verystrongly the need to emphasise the“community” aspect. having a detailedclassification of the different uses and assetsbeing defended was seen to enable somecouncils to make a more robust case,building their confidence while also helpingto engage with the different communitieswho use those assets.

a planning officer in rural north Devon feltthat an assessment of the viability of a pubwent hand in hand with its position as acommunity asset. being a rural area theproximity of assets is more of a key issuethan in an urban environment, meaning thatthe retention of a certain number ofcommunity facilities becomes more of apressing issue.

8 Centre for Cities outlook 2014 p.52


Assets of Community Value

There was widespread understanding in theinterviews that aCV is a partial solution to theproblem of widespread pub closures. Theyare an important tool for local authorities,though, as they help to buy time, to galvanisethe community behind a campaign, andpotentially deter owners and developers fromselling or redeveloping their pubs.

however, Tessa blunden, leader of thecampaign to list and then buy the Ivy housein nunhead, south London, commented:“aCV listing is only the start, the hard workreally starts after. for example, there is nonecessity for the owner to sell, even if youcan raise the money.”

There was mixed opinion as to whether anaCV listing could carry material weight in aplanning decision by itself, though it wasgenerally seen as adding to the list ofreasons to retain an asset. The policystatement from the Department forCommunities and Local Government statesthat it is down to the local planning authorityto decide whether to consider listing as anaCV as a material consideration in anapplication for change of use.

It was widely agreed, however, that listingcarries more weight as part of a package ofmeasures used by local authorities.

Mark forrester, community service managerat staffordshire Moorland District Council,was clear that aCV listing “can be a materialconsideration and add important extraammunition to a community’s case”.

Gordon Glenday, head of planning atWaltham forest, said that pubs wereincluded as part of the “social infrastructure”in the authority’s core strategy, which theplanning inspectorate has approved forprotection alongside high-streets, roads,health services and so. an aCV listing wouldbolster this association and strengthen theargument that a pub should be retained.

another commented that though its localauthority had not listed any aCVs so far, thelocal plan is being drawn up and it willcontain a specific recognition of the weight ofa listing in planning decisions.

As the first pub to be bought by thecommunity following ACV listing, The IvyHouse is an interesting case. The Save theIvy House’s success, according to TessaBlunden, lay in their diverse mix of skills, butit was noted that “constant contact with theowner and a lot of persistence helpedbecause we had to let him know that thegroup was serious”.

Talking to the community

The principle benefit associated with aCVlegislation and local planning was almostuniversally felt to be the conversation it canstart between the council and citizens.

one councillor said that “a lot of acouncillor’s role is about encouraging peopleto get galvanised about these issues… toget out there and take an interest in what’saround them”, which the aCV legislationcertainly helps to facilitate.

This was seen as an important step inbuilding a sense of pride and ownership inthe assets that exist within communities,giving a positive message to communities toencourage them to think about what theyhave in their local area, what it is for, andwhat they can do together.

In royal borough of kensington andChelsea the local plan demonstrated that“the community was galvanised and the loudsupport for retaining the pubs demonstratedthat they did have value to the community intheir current use”, according to JonathanWade, leader of the planning policy team inthe council.

engagement between the council andcitizens often centres around parish councils


as they have a vital role as mediator in thisrelationship. one interviewee said thatengaging with parishes was an essentialaspect of the aCV agenda, while anotherfrom north Devon said that they were a vitalpoint of communication and know theconditions on the ground. being able torespond to demand, or to help build supportfor individual cases, makes the process oflisting an asset far easier.

some local authorities, such as high Peakborough Council, flagged the legislation toparishes in the early stages of the Localismbill and the council continues to meetregularly with parish forums. This hasenabled them to build a conversation withthe community. Dialogue was important, asthe legislation is still relatively new and allthe parties involved are learning as they go.

The majority of interviewees highlighted theimportance of parishes promoting the use ofaCVs in rural areas and feeding informationback to the council. They are particularly wellplaced to champion individual cases andbuild up community support.

one planning officer said that working withparishes in this way was also likely toencourage them to set up neighbourhoodplans, or pursue other initiatives like applyingfor public works loans, increasing localcontrol of assets. This report profiles aparish council, bishampton & Throckmorton,which did just that, enabling them to buy apub and to run it as a community asset (seepage 23).

There is a lot of responsibility for parishes toassume, however. They are often alsoinvolved in other forms of asset transfer workand getting aCVs listed is not always apriority.

some councillors who were interviewedindicated that their approach to aCVs wasdifferent to that of officers. some officers, itwas suggested, did not see the legislation asof particular importance and so were more

likely to interpret the regulations very rigidly,rather than seeking to make them work inthe interest of the community as much aspossible. one interviewee commented that,as a councillor, they felt they had lessexpertise and experience of planning thanofficers and so it was not always easy tocollaborate on an equal footing.

It was also indicated by many of thoseinterviewed that aCVs are a more useful toolin some areas than in others. some arguedthat they were more likely to have a directpositive impact in rural areas, wheregalvanising a local community around onespecific asset would be easier, while othersargued that the costs in urban areas wouldbe too high and most community groupswould be unable to raise the capital.

Local plan and core strategy

having a strong local plan was widely seenas one of the most powerful ways for localauthorities to protect pubs in both urban andrural environments. They help to formulate acoherent approach to planning that isresponsive to an individual area and providean opportunity to engage in properconsultation with the community, so that theplan represents the actual needs andaspirations of citizens.

Guy nicholson from London borough ofhackney stressed how a coherent local plancan be transformative but that it is essentialto involve local people at all stages of itsproduction.

There are different techniques in how thesetools are deployed, which reflect differentconditions on the ground and differentaspirations within the council. This also pointsto a contrast in the evidence that differentcouncils use for their planning decisions.

a robust plan, that will be passed by theplanning inspectorate and then achieve itsintended outcomes, relies on a good


evidence base. The Cambridge Publichouse study is an example of best practicehere and there was general agreement thatgood evidence was essential.

It was not universal, however. Interviewees inrural areas argued that they knew where thecommunity pubs were and where the biggestthreats were to their existence. There was noneed for a formal exercise to establish this,as it would be difficult and costly.

There have been stipulations in many localplans to protect “social infrastructure” and“community facilities” with guidance showingthat this covers public houses. This isintended to emphasise specifically what it isthat pubs offer to the community. for others,though, it is important not to be tooprescriptive so that the council has theflexibility to cover a wider variety of assets.

A plan is enhanced by ensuring that morethan one policy applies to pubs. JonathanWade, from Royal Borough of Kensingtonand Chelsea, said that the use of an asset isan important contributing factor in itscharacter. Policies to protect the character ofan area can, it was argued, be used to resistchange of use, on the grounds that “usecontributes to character”.

It was commented that even if a local plan isnot finalised it could still be used as a materialconsideration in a planning application,meaning that the council is empowered tointervene, while an officer from DerbyshireDales District Council commented that thelocal plan currently being drawn up willinclude recognition of aCV status as amaterial consideration in planning decisions.

Andrew Taylor, assistant director of planningand building control at Uttlesford DistrictCouncil, said: “There is a lot of potential inthe planning policy – if it is linked to the ACVlisting and there is a specific policy whichensures a marketing exercise is followed fora year to ascertain whether or not a pub is agoing concern.”

again, this was not universal, with somecommenting that due to changes in planningregulations their local plans have lost theireffectiveness. also, although councils arebecoming aware that they can incorporatepub friendly policies into their local plans, itis not a practical solution for many who havealready agreed them.

The case studies in the next section (Page20) show local plans are being used to goodeffect in urban and rural areas.

Article 4

There is a limited number of cases ofcouncils using article 4 directions to blockthe redevelopment of pubs, though therewere a number of interviewees who said thattheir local authority was seeking to expandits use of article 4 directions in the future.

The potential benefits were raised ininterviews. The desired results might notbe realised in their entirety, noted theofficer from north Devon, but “the best use of article 4 is to maintain a level ofcontrol – even if redevelopment ispermitted”.

as with the aCV agenda, a great deal ofpersistence is needed on the part of thelocal authority to make it work.

They are widely seen as problematic,however, because of the resources andtime needed to set up. There is also thethreat of compensation, which puts off mostcouncils, and a great deal of confusion overhow and under what circumstances toapply article 4 directions.

Cambridge City Council and Clyde Loakesfrom London borough of Waltham forest,among others, said that the threat ofcompensation was one of the key barriersto the use of article 4. This is in addition tothe cost and the resources necessary toput them into place.


Councillor Guy nicholson from Londonborough of hackney said that given howtime consuming and complex the processaround article 4 is “we have to seriouslyconsider whether this is an appropriate useof public money”.

There was also a great deal of uncertaintyas to how they actually work and in whatinstances the local authority is able toimplement them. officers reported conflictinglegal advice, which left them unsure aboutthe appropriate course of direction to takewithin the council.

one interviewee noted that a key problemwith article 4 directions was that it isessentially a reactive strategy, leading thelocal authority into a protracted appealprocess which takes up time and resources,potentially leading to a large compensationbill. If there were more clarity over the legaland financial implications of using article 4and guidance over where use wasappropriate, then there would be moreconfidence in local authorities that this was alegitimate avenue to pursue.

NPPF

some councils interviewed found thatsections of the nPPf were particularlyuseful. In general, however, there was amixed response to the nPPf in interviews.some saw it as not at all helpful, or even athreat to community pubs because of theemphasis that it places on building houses.

A councillor from Cambridge City Councilsaid that the first piece of advice he wouldoffer would be to read and understand theFramework as it is gives useful guidanceand was a strong basis for the work thecouncil is doing to protect pubs.

Those who have used the frameworksuccessfully, however, as demonstrated by

the case study of Cambridge City Council,said they did so because they read theframework thoroughly and confidently tookup the sections that offered some support.

Viability

some, such as north Devon, emphasisethe importance of viability, with a stipulationin the plan that a marketing exercise mustfirst be agreed among officers, and thentested on the asset to see if it is a viablebusiness. When the decision over viabilityis marginal a consultant is used to make afinal decision.

The north Devon planning officer said:“There is a general will in the council toretain pubs where they are a viable concern.The policies in the local plan are there tosupport this aspiration. We would be moreconcerned with saving the last pub in alocation, than saving one of several.”

The council in question also hadmechanisms in place to refer pub owners toeconomic development teams to help themaddress the viability of the business. It wasfelt that this framework had saved somepubs from redevelopment, though it was stillrelatively new.

The north Devon plan stipulates that amarketing exercise is necessary to provethat an asset is not viable before it goes forredevelopment. The strategy, price andtiming of the marketing exercise are agreedwith officers and the Viability Test, drawn upby CaMra, was seen as especially useful.9

Many interviewees noted that they hadpolicies in place, which sought to defendagainst the loss of pubs by requiring thatmarketing and viability tests be carried out.

Lewisham’s policy, for example, stipulatesthat a pub cannot be sold unless

9 http://www.camra.org.uk/viabilitytest


marketed for three years as a pub. others, however, such as royal boroughof kensington and Chelsea, avoidmentioning viability at all costs as they feelit might weaken the policy if owners anddevelopers decided to conduct their ownviability tests.

Sustainable Communities Act

applications to use the sustainableCommunities act are becoming morewidespread. so far, 35 councils have passedmotions calling for central government tomake changes so that planning permissionand community consultation is required whenthere is an application to convert or demolisha pub. a further 26 are in the process ofputting together similar proposals.

amy stammers, a norwich City councillor,said that she felt the sCa gave power tocommunities to influence decisions, even ifthey vote for redevelopment. The act waspraised as a means of building coalitions ofmultiple councils to put a substantialproposal to government.

There was a mixed perception of theusefulness of sCa, however and many didnot generally see the act as a particularlypowerful tool.

Aligning the tools

There is a strong sense in the interviews thatpub protection policies work best when theyare a part of a coherent, place-basedapproach to planning that seeks to shapethe physical and social environment in theinterests of the community.

Wider debates about the local economy,healthy high-streets, citizenship,participation, and public health have animportant role in making this meaningful.Local authorities with a clear and coherentvision of the places that they want to shapewere more likely to take a proactive stancethat would protect pubs, as they would beable to align the various tools at theirdisposal behind a common purpose. Guynicholson commented that local authoritiesshould see themselves as “curators of towncentres and neighbourhoods”, with theconfidence to align multiple agendas anduse the available powers effectively.

The councils that have found thingsparticularly challenging are those in whichthere is no support, where planning is beingled disproportionally by other targets, or leftto market forces. one interviewee, aplanning officer, said that the politicalorientation of the council means that theplanning documents do not specificallyaddress pubs.

“A strong Local Plan is oneof the most powerful ways

for local authorities toprotect pubs. They help to

formulate a coherentapproach to planning that isresponsive to an individual

area and provide anopportunity to engage inproper consultation with

the community.”


Case studies

The case studies included here give an indication of the range of methods beingimplemented by councils at present. These are reasonably isolated and do notnecessarily demonstrate widespread practice. The range of understanding and use of the various tools available seems to indicate the need for greater dialogue to sharebest practice and help solve problems.

They show diversity, in terms of geographical spread, political orientation, and arural-urban divide. One of the issues that arose in the interviews and other researchwas that ACVs in particular are seen as a rural only legislation and so it is good tosee that there is proactive work taking place across the board.

Uttlesford: list your assets, start the conversation

uttlesford District Council was an early adopter of the Community rights legislation. It is a rural area in which over 170 assets have been listed so far.

They are seen as a key mechanism for the council to engage with the community.even though the asset in question may not be under threat at the time, there isvalue in supporting members of the community to come together and make astatement about the things in their community that mean something to them.

by listing so many assets in such a short space of time the council hasdemonstrated that the process is reasonably straightforward. Though it is reliant onthe community to put in the bid, the local authority has the important role ofapproving it and of working with groups in the community who wish to find out more.

Parish councils are the vital point of communication with citizens. It is down to themto spread the message in both directions and so the upper tier authority has madesure that all parties are fully informed of their rights and responsibilities, as well aswhat they can expect from the process.

officers may not have the resources to offer all the support that groups need,particularly if they want to put together a bid. but through aCVs the council hashelped to galvanise the community behind specific campaigns, which is particularlyimportant in more rural, disparate areas. It is seen as a key part of the place-shapingagenda that may reap potentially big rewards in the future.


Waltham Forest: champion your assets –Waltham Forest Pub Awards

Championing the assets that make an area unique is important for cultivating asense of pride and ownership among the local community. Pubs are a key part ofthe social fabric in the east end of London, and central to the area’s culturalheritage.

In the London borough of Waltham forest, where pubs are closing at an alarmingrate (and some wards now have none at all) the council is determined to mobilisethe community to build a base of support for the assets that need protecting. Thecouncil’s development management policy stipulates that pubs are valuedcommunity assets, which the council will seek to protect where possible, but publicsupport will make this a far more likely prospect.

a big part of the council’s work on pubs, therefore, involves getting local people outinto the community and taking an interest in what is around them. It has madeefforts to champion good standards as well as diversity and the links between pubsand the wider economic and social environment.

one of the more innovative methods developed in the borough is the WalthamstowPub awards, which first opened for nominations in october 2013. The awardscheme ties in with the government’s best bar none accreditation, a scheme thatpromotes quality pubs and responsible management.

residents are encouraged to nominate their local pub for awards in a selection ofcategories, which include Pub of the year, best new Pub, and best real ale. Theintention of the awards is to bring pubs in to the heart of the community bycultivating awareness, and championing the diversity within the sector. It also servesto encourage residents to think about the assets that exist in the local area, aboutwhat is important to them and why.

The aCV agenda relies heavily on this grass-roots support for local assets. byhelping to encourage the conversation among the community, and by finding aninnovative way of championing the assets, Waltham forest have started to build thatsupport which helps the wider policy programme to fall in to place.


Bishampton and Throckmorton Parish Council: workwith the community 1 – parish council buys the pub

Parish councils have a key role in the community rights agenda. They often have theclosest contact with members of the community and it is through them that localauthorities deliver the message about aCV, as well as listen to the concerns andaspirations of citizens.

It does not have to end there however. some parish councils have gone one stepfurther and have actually bought out the local pub to run it in the interests of thecommunity. bishampton and Throckmorton Parish Council, in Worcestershire, didjust that.

The Dolphin, in bishampton, has been through several owners in recent years and astring of closures. Given that this was an important place for the villagers, there weremany who were keen to see this cycle come to an end, ensuring that the pub wouldremain open.

The community applied to have the pub listed as an aCV and approached theParish Council for advice on putting together a bid to buy it. since the council hadrecently bought the village shop, it was decided that it could also buy the pub.following a public meeting with near unanimous support an application was puttogether for a loan from the Public Works Loan board.

The application process was simple. The main requirement that had to be metinvolved a robust business plan, demonstrating the ability to pay back the loan, withor without a tenant, and without increasing local charges. regular meetings andcontact with members of the community was essential. The pub was going to bebought and run in their interests and so it was necessary that they had real input intothe plan at every stage.

a working group was formed among the community to ensure that the project movedforward. advice from surveyors and solicitors was sought, though it was felt that thiswas an unnecessary cost because the expertise already existed within the council.

having secured a loan of £300,000 the Parish bought the pub as a going concern,thereby avoiding hefty VaT charges, and there is a 15-year lease with the presenttenant. Given limited support from upper tier authorities it was important for theparish to be brave and decisive.

The key message, which the council delivers to the community, is that this is theirpub and so they must continue to support it. Working together and pulling in variouspeople with different ideas and levels of support was difficult, but essential. The pubreopened in summer 2013 and is bringing new life to the village.


Babergh District Council – confident and proactiveusing Article 4

babergh District Council have demonstrated the best that has been achieved so farin terms of imposing article 4 directions in order to protect community pubs. To datethere have been two imposed, in a rural area, both of which withstood an appeal tothe planning inspectorate. The cases made at appeal were bolstered by using theavailable resources effectively, including relevant sections of the nPPf that seek toprotect community facilities and the contribution of the building to local heritage andcharacter.

Punch Taverns announced plans to demolish and redevelop The highbury barn, inGreat Cornard, in august 2012. The council received prior notification of the plans,which is required so that the council can ensure demolition is conducted safely, but alarge section of the community lobbied the council against the proposed demolition.

There has been a pub on the site since the 17th century and the building wasconsidered by the petition signatories to be a local landmark as well as an importantcommunity facility and a building of historic importance. When they were madeaware of the plans, the community submitted a petition, with 310 signatures, askingthe council to do what they could to save the building. Great Cornard Parish Councilplayed a part too, by helping to raise awareness, protesting against the plans andhelping to gather signatures among the community.

Given the support within the community for the pub, it was deemed necessary for thecouncil to take action. article 4 direction was decided on as an appropriate course ofaction. by making planning permission a necessity for redevelopment, the concernedcommunity would now be assured of their chance to have a say in the process.

Punch appealed the decision on the grounds that highbury barn was not anationally listed heritage asset and that the proposed development would not harmthe character of the area.

however, the council drew attention to Paragraph 69 of the nPPf, indicating theimportance of facilitating social interaction through the planning system, by creatinghealthy, inclusive communities, as well as paragraph 70, declaring that planningshould guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services.Paragraph 135 (and the definition of a heritage asset in the frameworks glossary)was also considered to be significant in the case of the highbury barn as the pubwas a non-designated heritage asset.

The inspector found that while the pub is not a nationally listed heritage asset, it is of local importance and contributes to the “harmonious and settled character of thestreet scene.”

furthermore, the inspector concluded: “The demolition of the highbury barn publichouse would result in the loss of a significant local heritage asset which makes a positive contribution to the street scene and local distinctiveness and which provides


a historic link to the area’s past, as well as providing a traditional focus forcommunity and social interaction.

article 4 directions are one of the most powerful tools available to local authorities toslow down or halt redevelopment, and to allow the community greater participationin the planning process. With the confidence to act it is possible for councils to beproactive and decisive in support of their communities.10

The George and Dragon: work with the community 2 –community share issue, incorporating services intothe pubhudswell, in yorkshire, is a village with a population of around 240 and a popularpub, which is owned by the community through an industrial and provident society.The George and Dragon is an interesting case because it provides a number of localauthority services, including a library.

In 2008 the landlords declared bankruptcy and the pub closed and hudswellCommunity Pub Ltd was formed with a view to acquiring the asset for communityuse. Dales national Park, the planning authority, had said that the pub could not bede-licensed unless it had been on the market for two years, which gave them theopportunity to put together a case for community ownership. The business viability ofcommunity and cooperative small businesses, particularly in rural areas, is strong,and there is potential for a wider variety of viability tests to be adopted andsupported by local authorities.

Proprietors often set inflated asking prices for pubs, based on their value as aresidential development. hCP put together a business model and made an offer tothe owner based on the value of the George and Dragon as a going concern,substantially below the asking price. Tenants appointed by the board run the pubbusiness independently.

keen to avoid landing the community with large debts hCP decided to arrange acommunity share issue.Village meetings indicated overwhelming support among thecommunity, with most people willing to buy over £500 of shares.

There was a clear vision that the pub would have a diverse offer that would cater toall in the community and, perhaps most importantly, ensure that business wouldremain viable. To that end, the council helped by suggesting that the owners mightincorporate local authority library services into the pubs offer, alongside the wifi,computer hire, music, food, children’s services, meeting space and other servicesprovided on the premises.They currently offer 10 allotments for rent, which haveproved very popular to the local community and beyond.

10 http://bdcdocuments.onesuffolk.net/assets/uploads/Committees/Committee-reports/reports-2012-13/M170.pdf

http://bdcdocuments.onesuffolk.net/assets/Uploads/Committees/Committee-Reports/Reports-2012-13/M170.pdf

http://bdcdocuments.onesuffolk.net/assets/Uploads/Committees/Committee-Reports/Reports-2012-13/M170.pdf


Lewisham: align your tools – using core strategy,NPPF, London plan, and Article 4Imposing article 4 directions entails complications, which often deter localauthorities. yet it is possible to overcome the challenges and make a successfulcase for blocking demolition, as London borough of Lewisham has demonstrated.The council drew on many of the available tools to protect The Catford bridgeTavern and The baring hall hotel.

In 2011 the Grove Park Community Group (GPCG), in Lewisham were vocal inopposing plans to demolish and redevelop the baring hall hotel, built in 1882.Though the council had signed off on the demolition plans, this was before theplanning committee had considered the overall development and the GPCGmanaged to get a temporary injunction to block the decision. The planningcommittee then rejected the application.

a council meeting followed in september 2011 where it was decided to imposearticle 4 directions, removing permitted development rights on the building.

The council drew on a range of the tools available, making sure that they all aligned.

at the same meeting it was agreed to add the building to the Local List, which isset up under the sustainable Communities strategy to promote a “Clean, Greenand Livable” environment.

The supporting document referred to Government Planning Policy Statement 5,which supports the retention of locally listed historical assets and states that “localplanning authorities should consider whether the exercise of permitteddevelopment rights would undermine the aims for the historic environment.”

The London Plan (Policy 4b.12) states that boroughs should, “…ensure that theprotection and enhancement of historic assets in London are based on anunderstanding of their special character…”

The council’s pub protection policy, in its core strategy, states that a pub can onlybe sold once it has been marketed as a going concern for three years.furthermore, the council will only permit the change of use of public houses toother uses where it has been demonstrated that there are alternative remainingpublic houses in the vicinity and that the potential for alternative community use ofthe building has been exhausted.

The council also has a development policy, which asserts that “The council willseek to ensure and encourage the preservation and enhancement of locally listedbuildings of townscape merit and will use its powers where possible to protect theircharacter and setting.”

The case is similar with the Catford bridge Tavern, which was subject of a plannedconversion to a supermarket. strategic objective 4 of Lewisham’s core strategy is to


protect the viability and vitality of town centres. This was influential in the decision,as were key sections of the London Plan and paragraph 152 of the nPPf, whichstates: “Local planning authorities should seek opportunities to achieve each of theeconomic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development, andnet gains across all three.”

The pub was also locally listed and under an article 4 Direction prohibitingconversion from its current Class a4.

The strength of the approach adopted in Lewisham is rooted in the way plannersplayed to their strengths and used the policy documents they had. having beensaved from demolition, the pub reopened in november 2013 under the ownership ofantic London, who plan to run it in the interest of the whole community.

Kensington & Chelsea: know your goal – ensuringyour plan and strategy inspire confidence in whatthe council can do

royal borough of kensington and Chelsea’s local plan and core strategydemonstrate clarity of thought over what it is that the council is aiming to protect.This is important as it helps to build confidence and encourages everyone involvedto pull in the same direction.

Contrary to other councils, kensington and Chelsea deliberately drew up broadregulations, which were not too specific. The planning documents do not insist, forexample, on an overly prescriptive definition of what constitutes a “community pub”.They argue that this is an arbitrary decision on the part of the local authority and sodid not want to go down this route. Instead, it was felt to be far better to ensure thatall public houses would be covered by the policy, regardless of what theestablishment “should” or “should not” do.

The intention is to give the council the flexibility that allows it to act in the bestinterests of the community. applying strict definitions would allow developers orlandlords to alter their offer just enough to avoid the regulations. In fact, its policycovers all a2/3/4 uses. This council is unique in the respect that it took this line,which also covers a very wide range of establishments such as letting agents.Planners do not insist on viability surveys or long marketing exercises, for the samereason that it leads to an overly prescriptive definition.

The approach led to a positive response from the Planning Inspectorate, who hassided with their interpretation of the nPPf and national Planning Practice Guidance.The huge rise in property prices in the borough was persuasive that buildings suchas pubs needed protection.


Clarity and confidence about what the council sought to protect, why it wasimportant, and the powers that enabled them to do it, meant that the council couldpresent a robust case.

officers considered the possibility of using article 4 directions, but it was deemed tobe too risky and there was insufficient understanding of how such it would work.

This is a holistic approach that plays in to a town centre policy, which they had inplace already, and aligns with the conservations areas in the borough that allow thecouncil to use heritage and character in defence of pubs. Interestingly, planners inthe area also make the argument that the use of a building contributes heavily to itscharacter.

North Devon: consider the viability – going concernsand marketability of assets, in a rural area

Community pubs are particularly important in areas such as rural north Devon.Viability tests have been crucial to north Devon Council’s approach to communitypubs because they allow them to impose a certain amount of control over theredevelopment of particular assets, but also to decide for themselves where best todeploy their resources. The biggest threat is from viable pubs being lost to moreprofitable alternative uses such as housing"

Planners made good use of Paragraph 28 of the nPPf, which provides explicitsupport for pubs that are important for tourism, or necessary as village facilities,when drawing up the Local Plan. This has given added impetus to the local planningauthority to be proactive and take a stand in cases where an area is at risk of losingaccess to these facilities. The strategy makes clear that

There will be a presumption against any development that involves the loss ofcommunity services and facilities, education, health, social and other publiclyprovided community services, except where it is part of the service provider’s plansto provide the equivalent or improved local services in an equally or more accessiblelocation.

It also makes the pledge that “development within rural settlements will contribute tomaking communities more sustainable,” and ensures that it will be carried outthrough “partnership working with parish councils, affordable housing providers andcommunity groups.”

Planners were keen to help address the issue of viability for struggling businessesand are willing to refer cases to business development teams if advice and supportcan be offered that might help to preserve a pub where it is needed.


London Borough of Hackney: build a vision, shape aplace – town centre plan and local listing hackney has a number of town centre area action plans as well as conservationareas, which the council has used to prevent redevelopment and demolition of TheWenlock arms.

aware that they were unable to block redevelopment on the grounds of wanting toretain a particular business, the council developed a robust defence of the heritagethat The Wenlock arms brought to the area. It was in the vicinity of a conservationarea in shoreditch, so when the boundaries came up for review, they were adjustedto include the pub. Conserving the character and appearance of the area wasparticularly decisive in blocking the development.

a great deal of the local authority’s success in this case was due to its confidence toact and its strong will to use the planning policies for this purpose. Without having aclear vision to shape to local civic economy and the built environment in a way thatwas distinctive and catered to the citizens of hackney, this may not have beenpossible.

The council encourages this vision at the micro level as well, by supporting theestablishment of town centre area action plans and neighbourhood plans. Thisallows citizens to make important decisions at the granular level in a way which canreally impact on their lives.

“Pub protection policies work best where

they are a part of a coherent,place-based approach to

planning that seeks to shapethe environment in the

interests of the community.Wider debates about public

health, local economy,successful high-streets,

citizenship, and participationall play an important role inmaking this meaningful.”


The aspiration to protect pubs is widespread.acting on that aspiration is less common,however. The research in this report raisessome key themes, challenges, and questionsthat are relevant to different local authoritiesin different areas. no one solution applies inevery area, but having a strong local planwas seen as a particularly powerful tool inboth urban and rural areas across thecountry. In order to formulate a robustapproach to protect community pubs that fitsfor them, planners and councillors in localauthorities should consider some key points:

l Know the purpose: What are youtrying to protect? How do you definea community pub? What is the visionfor the local area?a clear understanding of the desiredoutcome is essential for a coordinatedapproach to community pubs.Circumstances are radically differentacross the country and the challengesfaced by local authorities varyenormously. It is important, therefore,that councils have a clear idea about thespecific needs and goals in their area.royal borough of kensington andChelsea and hackney are particularlyinstructive in the way that they haveformulated a clear idea of what theywant to achieve with their planningpolicies, based on local context.

lTalk to the community, start aconversation and help to buildmomentum. It was a common

perception in the interviews that aCVwas a really good mechanism for doingthis. The Pub awards in Walthamforest is a particularly innovative wayof starting the conversation andencouraging the community to getactively engaged in their local area.

l Understand your assets: gatherinformation, survey the market,build the evidence. a solidunderstanding of the situation in thelocal area is important in beingproactive. Cambridge City Council’sPublic house study provided a vitaltool with which to galvanise a robustapproach to the community pubsagenda. north Devon DC alsounderstood the need to be able todemonstrate the level of access,though they did not see the need for a comprehensive market survey toestablish where the assets were.

l Consider the viability. Protectingassets that have been identified asimportant to the community can bemade easier if they can also be shownto be viable businesses. The CaMraViability Test has been a usefuldocument for many local authoritiesseeking to do this. It is available online:http://www.camra.org.uk/viabilitytest north Devon District Council used theviability test and seeks to defend pubswhen there is a viable business casefor keeping them open. alternative

Protecting your pub: a guide for planners and councillors

This section outlines the key lessons that arise from the interviews and the casestudies. It sets them out as a short guide for councillors and officers to follow. This isby no means exhaustive and will not be applicable in all areas equally, though itprovides a useful way of thinking through the problem as it relates to the specificarea and will help to point towards possible solutions.

business models should also beconsidered, though, in order to helpbolster the case for community andcooperative management.

l Align the priorities: using a packageof tools to drive towards a coherentgoal. The most robust approachestend to make use of the range of toolson offer, rather than relying exclusivelyon one. If this is to be effective,however, it is important to ensure thatthese are used for a common end, andthat the various departments andofficers involved are pulling in the samedirection. Lewisham used a package oftools to justify an article 4 direction,which depended on a close alignmentof different aspects of planning policy.babergh DC’s case in support of thehighbury barn stood up to appealbecause of the range of evidencemounted in its defence.

l Be proactive: The powers and theguidance are there to be used.Councils that have been proactive tendto have an idea of what they want toprotect, and the places they want tohelp shape. This means that they aremore likely to be prepared to takeaction when a community asset isunder threat. a good understanding ofthe positive potential of the relevantsections of the nPPf was seen as animportant basis for action. uttlesfordDistrict Council, meanwhile, were earlyadopters of the aCV agenda and sothe preparation is in place to protectassets, should it be required, whilebishampton & Throckmorton showedconfidence and decisiveness in orderto buy the village pub and run it in theinterest of the community.

l Show leadership and don’t let riskdominate decision making.risk aversion is a key issue when itcomes to planning decisions. Planners,understandably, often lack the

confidence to take appropriate action inorder to protect community pubs.Leadership is a big factor here. Manycouncils have taken action where therewas no precedent, includingCambridge, with their Public housestudy, and rbkC with their innovativeuse of planning policy. article 4directions, in particular, are seen as toorisky by many, but there is plenty ofprecedent showing that it works andstands up to challenge.

l Think creatively. There is legislationalready in place that gives localauthorities a degree of power. What isoften needed is the creativity andconfidence to begin making full use ofit. The Waltham forest Pub awardscheme is a fantastic example of alocal authority thinking creatively tobuild a sense of pride and sharedownership among the community,which is likely to galvanise futuresupport for retaining community pubs.Councils could consider: using viabilitytests creatively, particularly in relationto different models of communityownership; using 6 month moratoriumperiods effectively; using heritagelisting and conservation areas, asrbkC have done by declaring that“use contributes to character”; parishcouncils could consider buying theassets, if there is demand, by applyingfor a public works loan.

l Support the community. Though theymay not be in a position to offer directmaterial support to individualcommunity groups, local authoritiescan offer guidance and signposting. abroader understanding of the workingsof Community shares, for example,would help to build their capacity towork with groups pursuing differentapproaches. The willingness andflexibility to work with different groupsand to adapt to different circumstancesare hallmarks of success.


“The debate aroundcommunity pubs addressesimportant questions aboutthe role of government atall levels and raises issues

about how citizens andcommunities can activelyparticipate in shaping the

places they live.”


a range of tools has been outlined in thereport and the responses of a number ofofficers, councillors and pub campaignershave been detailed.

l Include pubs in planningdocuments. Community facilities,public houses, and social infrastructurecan all benefit from specific inclusion inplanning policies. relevant sections ofthe nPPf can help to shape andsupport a local plan in protectingcommunity assets, while aCV listingbrings extra weight in decision making.

l Embrace Assets of CommunityValue. While this is not a panacea it isan opportunity to start a conversationwith the community and to build up thecapacity for a more proactive defenceof the assets that are important to thecommunity. Comprehensive guidanceto getting pubs listed as aCVs isavailable from CaMra.11

l Consider using Article 4 Directions.While there is a great deal of confusionsurrounding the appropriate guidance,and many planners perceive thepotential risks to be too severe, there isevidence of article 4 being usedsuccessfully in a wide range of cases,including babergh District Council,London borough of Lewisham, andCambridge City Council.

l Consider using conservation areas,Heritage, and other forms of local

listing. These can be used creativelyand to great effect. royal borough ofkensington and Chelsea, for example,made the case that the way an asset isused contributes to its character. Thiswas approved by the PlanningInspectorate as a reason to retain theuse of a pub as a pub. The decision tosupport babergh DC’s article 4direction on the highbury barn wasbased on evidence of its contribution tothe local heritage, as was a great dealof London borough of hackney’sefforts to retain pubs withinconservation areas.

To provide greater support for action thegovernment should respond to the 33 out of49 local authorities that felt existing planningregulations give insufficient protection topublic houses.

In order to make the community rightsagenda more robust there are a number ofmodifications that the government couldmake to existing regulations.

These should include closing the planningloophole that allows developers to changethe use or demolish pubs without planningpermission. 35 councils have so far passed amotion under the sustainable Communitiesact calling for just such a change.

The government should also considermaking funding available for discretionaryreduction of business rates for pubs listed asaCVs.

Recommendations for local government

11 http://www.camra.org.uk/listyourlocal


The agenda around community pubs is animportant one for local authorities to engagein because they have the powers and thecapacity to make a real difference. Localplanning policy can be a powerful tool forprotecting community interests, as theinterviews and case studies in this reporthave shown.

The Community rights legislation containedin the Localism act 2011 goes some way tosupporting communities who want to protectand shape the places they live in. one of thechief benefits this brings is that it helps to startconversations between citizens, government,and civil society organisations about what wewant to see in our communities, what wevalue and what we need to protect.

The debate surrounding community pubsaddresses very important questions aboutthe role of government at all levels andraises issues about how citizens andcommunities can actively participate inmaking meaningful decisions that affect theplaces they live in.

Many local authorities are rising to thechallenge of protecting community pubs. Thecreative and proactive approachdemonstrated by councils such asLewisham, kensington & Chelsea, andCambridge, among others, shows thepositive impact that is possible.

This is an exciting opportunity to engagewith communities in a meaningful way andwe hope that this report will help to equipmore councils with the tools, resources andconfidence to do so.

There are limitations to what can be donewith planning policy. stretched resourcesand a host of competing priorities makes itchallenging for councils to take action in thisone area.

but using these tools creatively, and in a waythat engages and meets the needs ofcitizens is precisely what localism should beabout. It has the potential to be practical,meaningful, and to work in the interests ofcitizens.

Conclusion


Acknowledgements

Tessa Blunden, Save the Ivy House

Paul Cullen, Hudswell Community Pub Ltd

Cllr Liam Curran, London Borough of Lewisham

Mark Forester, High Peak Borough Council

Cllr Tina Jukes, Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council

Gordon Glenday, head of planning policy and regeneration, London Borough of Waltham Forest

Cllr Clyde Loakes, London Borough of Waltham Forest

Cllr Guy Nicholson, London Borough of Hackney

Mike Perry, Plunkett Foundation

Andrew Taylor, assistant director of planning and building control, Uttlesford District Council

Jonathan Wade, planning policy team leader, Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea

Tim Ward, former Cambridge City Councillor

Babergh District Council

London Borough of Wandsworth

North Devon Council

Norwich City Council

North Somerset Council

Bishampton & Throckmorten Parish Council

Jonathan Mail & Claire Cain, CAMRA

© LGiU June 2014

Third Floor, 251 Pentonville Road, Islington, London N1 9NG020 7554 [email protected]

http://www.lgiu.org.uk/

Andrew Walker, policy researcher at LGiU · heart of the community but like any small business they...

Documents

Transcript of Andrew Walker, policy researcher at LGiU · heart of the community but like any small business they...