Convenience store and flats at The Prince Albert, Copthorne, Crawley

What was proposed

The application proposed separating the site to retain the pub and part of its garden, while building a convenience store, four flats and associated access and parking works.

“Proposal: Sever existing land to retain existing public house use and area of pub garden and erect a convenience store and 4 no. apartments with associated works, including alterations to the existing vehicular access and car park…”

“Full planning permission is to sever the existing land to retain the existing public house use and area of the pub garden and to erect a convenience store and 4 no. apartments with associated works, including alterations to the existing vehicular access and car park.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site contained a historic public house, garden, parking and storage on a corner plot within Copthorne’s built-up area and Green Belt.

“The 0.25 ha site consists of The Prince Albert Public House, which dates back to 1865, a large garden and parking area to the south and east, and storage container to the east with timber smoking shelter behind. The site is located on a large corner plot at the junction between Copthorne Bank and Brookhill Road, and access to the parking area is directly off Copthorne Bank.”

“In policy terms, the site lies within the built-up area of Copthorne and the Metropolitan Green Belt. It is subject to an Article 4 Direction ‘prohibiting the use of the land for the erection or placing thereon of moveable structures used for human habitation without planning permission first being obtained’ and ‘prohibiting the use of land for the purpose of parking, storage, warehousing, cleaning, maintenance or repair of motor vehicles and the erection or placing of…”

Officer report

Earlier permissions

Two earlier permissions for extensions providing eight letting rooms and other facilities were not implemented and had lapsed.

“In January 2016, planning permission was granted for an extension to the existing public house to provide 8 no. letting rooms, extended kitchen and staff accommodation (DM/15/4045). This permission was not implemented and lapsed.”

“In April 2019, planning permission was granted for a proposed 2 storey rear extension with external staircase to provide 8 letting rooms with new kitchen, disabled toilet and staff accommodation (DM/19/0134). This permission has not been implemented and has lapsed.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the pub was considered viable, the retail use acceptable, and the proposal’s benefits were not outweighed by its adverse impacts.

“In summary, it is considered that the proposal would not jeopardise the viability of the public house and the retail use is acceptable in its own right, which will provide benefits in terms of new employment generation, which should be afforded positive weight.”

“In weighing up these issues, when taken together, it is not considered that the adverse impacts of the development would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The senior planning officer introduced the application and highlighted corrections about the retail floor area and shared parking spaces.

Members’ concerns

Members discussed possible refusal reasons concerning the public house, existing shops, and the size and design of the retail and apartment buildings.

“Members discussed potential reasons to refuse the application. Discussion focused on the existing public house, existing retail units and the size and design of the proposed retail unit and apartment block building.”

Minutes

The committee vote

Members unanimously rejected the officers’ recommendation and unanimously approved a motion to refuse the application.

“The Chairman took Members to a vote on the recommendations as contained within the report. These were rejected unanimously.”

“The Chairman proposed a motion to refuse the application which was seconded by Councillor Casella. The reasons given for the refusal were on the design, the appearance of the block of flats and the prospective retail unit and the impact on the character of the appearance of the area.”

Minutes