Much-loved pub likely to be refused for flats

The Grenville Hotel is important for social connection, meeting told

Planners in Plymouth look likely to refuse a proposal to convert a former pub into flats.

The owner of the Grenville Hotel in the St Judes’ area of the city wants to change the use of the ground floor after previously converting the first floor into flats.

He claims the pub is not viable and has been on the market for 18 months and even gone to auction but there have been no offers.

But local residents have expressed interest in buying the property which they say has provided social connection and brought a sense of community to the area.

The city council’s planning committee deferred the application by Mr A Cotterell while officers review how changes in policy could affect the council having enough homes over the next five years.

But they said they were “mindful to refuse” the proposal when it comes back to the committee next month.

Officers originally rejected plans for the change of use in May, saying there was not enough evidence to justify it, but they have since changed their view after information came forward about the pub losing money in three out of the last four years.

They said that although some people in the pub’s catchment area would have to walk more than 10 minutes to get to the next nearest bar, they did not think this would cause significant harm or be against policy.

But councillors disagreed with officers after hearing how important the pub was to local people.

Grenville Road resident Beatrice Belgrave Jones told planners she had jointly offered to purchase the pub with another local person but the owner would not entertain it without proof of funding.

She said it was more than a place to buy alcohol, and was about “social connection and a strong community which was so important to individual wellbeing.”

Before it closed several months ago, The Grenville was a place where neighbours could get together, it was diverse and inclusive, dog-friendly and used by young and old, she said.

“We raised money for charity, danced and sang and laughed, but sometimes it was a place where we just sat and talked.

“The planning officers’ report treats it as a place purely to drink alcohol, replaceable by any other pub. Alcohol only does not make a community facility or valued asset.”

The committee heard that the pub is to be assessed as being an asset of community value (AVC).

Cllr Sue Dann (Lab, Sutton and Mount Gould) said that where pubs were taken over and run by local residents they became really successful.

She said the council is making efforts to have “inclusive spaces” where people could go to avoid social isolation keep warm. Cattedown Social Club is one example.

Speaking on behalf of the applicant, James Wells said there are other community services nearby including Tothill Community Centre and The Elder Tree and other pubs.

He said the applicant had demonstrated everything needed for the planning process.

Councillors argued that the plans are against policy in the Joint Local Plan which protects facilities of community important such as post offices, cafes, restaurants, pubs and shops from change of use if there is significant harm to the level of service locally and they have prospects of continuing into the future.

They also opposed the scheme because of a lack of outdoor space for the three one-bed flats.

Cllr Sarah Allen (Lab, Peverell) said she was grateful for the local plan which put “an extra layer of humanity” into the planning regulations.

“This application, more than any other I have seen, highlights what is sometimes a disparity between real-life and community and the letter of the planning regulations.

“It is so difficult to measure and quantify a facility like this that is so much more than a local pub.”

Cllr Matt Smith (Lab, Compton) said this could be a viable space: “There is a community that want their pub back and they have the money to do it. I hope the owner gives the community their pub back.”

The council has received 43 letters about the proposals of which 19 supported the change of use and 24 opposed it.

Supporters said there is a need for housing and the proposal would result in less  noise.