Appeal 6001359

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] against Halton Borough Council, and this is the subject of a separate Decision.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed change of use on the provision of community facilities in the Halebank area.

The appeal property is a large, two-storey building situated on a corner plot at the junction of [site address] with [address], and opposite the junction of [site address] with [address]. The proposal relates to the ground floor of the property only, which is currently unused. The first floor of the property has been in use as a restaurant for almost 30 years. There is a car park associated with the property, and at the time of my site visit there were signs to indicate that the car park was only to be used by restaurant patrons.

The National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework) indicates that to provide the social and cultural facilities and services the community needs, planning policies and decisions should 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.

Policy HC5 of the [name] and Allocations Local Plan 2014-37 (LP) states that the Council will support the retention of existing [name] and that proposals involving the loss of community facilities land or buildings will only be permitted in certain circumstances. These include where the loss of the existing community use would not create, or add to, a shortfall in the provision or quality of such uses within the locality; or where the building is no longer suitable or viable to accommodate the current community use, or the use has already ceased, and the building or site cannot viably be retained or sensitively adapted to accommodate other community facilities.

Policy HC5 also indicates that marketing of the property will be required to indicate that there is no demand for the property in its existing use, and where an application relies upon a marketing exercise to demonstrate that there is no demand for the premises in its current use, the applicant will be expected to submit evidence to demonstrate that the marketing was adequate and that no reasonable offers were refused.

This proposal is a repeat of an earlier planning application (Ref: 25/00165/COU) which was refused. It was submitted, with additional background information, in an attempt to avoid an appeal against the earlier refusal, but was itself refused by the Council for similar reason to that relating to the previous scheme. The reason for refusal was that the proposal would result in the loss of a community facility, and the applicant had failed to demonstrate that this would not result in a shortfall in the provision of such uses. In addition, no information had been submitted to suggest that the use of the premises as a community facility is not viable, nor has any marketing information been provided to demonstrate that there is no demand for the premises in its current use. Therefore, the proposal is contrary to the objectives of Policy HC5 of the LP.

The appellant’s agent, who has long and relevant experience in planning and development issues relating to the hospitality sector, contends that use of the premises as a community facility is no longer viable; that marketing has been carried out in the past; and that there are other community facilities in the area that render the appeal premises unnecessary.

From the information before me, it would appear that the use of the ground floor as a [name] ceased in 2018. I have no details as to any attempts to market the facility from that time until 2022, when it was put up for auction, though there is some limited anecdotal evidence that there was local interest in acquiring the premises. During this period, the premises apparently fell into a state of disrepair and was not used for its established purpose.

In 2022, the premises were advertised for auction, being described as “a former ground-floor social club with a bar and ladies and gents WCs. The property is in need of modernisation and refurbishment works. The property would be suitable for a number of uses, subject to any necessary consents.” The guide price was set at £50,000+. It would appear from the appellant’s statement that the appellant purchased the premises for £60,000 without seeing the property, and has subsequently spent over £100,000 on repair and renovation. It is acknowledged by the appellant that the intention was to use the premises for storage purposes, which presumably reflects the price offered and accepted, although no application was made to change the use of the premises until 2025, despite the description in the auction details that such consent would be necessary.

I have no detailed information as to the current state of internal repair of the property or, since there is no evidence of marketing since the auction, the current value of the premises for continued use as a licensed club/community facility or any other use. I acknowledge the expertise of the appellant’s agent on general matters of viability and the planning and development issues in the property sector relating to community facilities of varying types. However, in my opinion, the failure of previous owners to market the premises for community type uses between 2018 and 2022, and effectively to allow it to fall into disrepair cannot, in themselves, be considered evidence of lack of demand. Similarly, putting the premises onto the market via a one-off auction does not constitute an adequate marketing exercise.

I note that the published auction details made it clear that the premises were being marketed as a former ground-floor social club and that any other use would necessitate obtaining the appropriate consent. The monies spent by the appellant on purchase and subsequent repairs etc would, therefore, appear to have been at the appellant’s own risk.

The appellant makes note of other community facilities in the vicinity which should be considered an indication that the appeal premises are not needed by the local community, and that their loss would not create, or add to, a shortfall in the provision or quality of such uses within the locality. The other facilities named include the neighbouring [name]; the [address] [address] on the opposite corner plot; and the [address] [name]. However, there is no evidence that any of these facilities can offer a large, meeting/function space, available for use or hire by the local community as a whole. I recognise that the [name] has certain small-scale community activities associated with it, but it would appear that it is not licensed and has limited facilities.

From the information before me, it would appear that the appeal premises, uniquely for the Halebank area, have the potential for use by larger events which require a bar, toilet facilities, a large, uninterrupted space, and some car parking availability. Indeed, there remains a notice on the building that there has, in the past, been a function room available for hire. Moreover, the property is in a central location within the community with bus services running along [site address] . As it is currently unused, and effectively has been for some years, the space and established use associated with the premises have not yet been lost as such and retain a potential for community use in the future. I do not consider that the other community facilities in the area, as named by the appellant, represent equivalent alternatives.

The appellant contends that a recent planning permission for conversion of the [name], on [address], to residential purposes, indicates inconsistency by the Council in its approach to protecting a community facility, in that no viability information was required and no marketing evidence requested. I have some sympathy with this viewpoint, although I note that the public house is situated around a kilometre from the centre of Halebank, in a semi-rural situation and away from any bus route. It is, therefore, in a relatively unsustainable location for a local community facility and cannot be considered in a similar light to the situation of the current appeal premises, since it would appear that other policy issues may also have come into play in a way that does not apply to the appeal premises. In addition, I have no information as to whether the public house operated in any way other than as a basic food and beverage outlet.

The appellant has made reference to objections and a petition from the local community submitted in response to the appeal. I note that there were no such representations made with regard to the planning application at the time, and that interest in community usage at this stage does not equate to any firm commitments or indeed the ability of the community to pursue such usage. Nevertheless, this delay in apparent community interest does not alter the situation regarding lack of marketing evidence and routine maintenance/security of the premises between 2018 and the auction in 2022, at which point it entered the ownership of the appellant on the basis of the details provided in the auction publicity. Moreover, the fact that a planning application necessary for the intended change of use was not made until 2025 is likely to have impacted negatively upon community awareness of the situation in the meantime.

I acknowledge the difficulties facing many community facilities at the present time, both practical and financial. However, in this case, I find that there is no significant evidence before me to indicate that any satisfactory marketing exercise relating to the established use of the premises was undertaken either before or after the sale by auction. Moreover, I note that the premises were purchased by the appellant based upon an intention to use them for storage purposes, and the purchase price presumably reflects that intention, rather than any intention to continue the established use as a social club.

In the light of the above, I find that the proposal for a change of use does not meet the requirements of Policy HC5 of the LP, or national policy on community facilities as set out in the Framework, insofar as they require protection of community facilities from unnecessary loss. Moreover, I consider that other community facilities in the vicinity cannot provide the type and scale of community usage that the appeal premises could potentially offer. Accordingly, I dismiss this appeal.