BBPA fails in legal action over planning guidance on protecting pubs

An attempt by the British Beer & Pub Association (BBPA) to challenge by judicial review a city council’s interim planning policy guidance on the protection of pubs has failed.

At issue was guidance adopted by Cambridge City Council in October 2012 that set out how applicants should justify their proposals for change of use, conversion or redevelopment of pub sites.

The document said that development would only be permitted where evidence had been provided to satisfy the following criteria:

"(a) The pub has been marketed for 12 months as a public house free of tie and restrictive covenant and for alternative local commercial or community facility, at a price agreed with the Council following an independent professional valuation (paid for by the developer) and there has been no interest in either the free- or lease-hold either as a public house, restaurant or other use falling within the ‘A’ use classes or as a community facility falling within ‘D1’ use class; and

(b) All reasonable efforts have been made to preserve the facility (including all diversification options explored – and evidence supplied to illustrate this) but it has been proven that it would not be economically viable to retain the building or site for its existing or any other ‘A’ or ‘D1’ class use; and

(c) It has been otherwise demonstrated that the local community no longer needs the public house or any alternative ‘A’ or ‘D1’ class use and its loss would not damage the availability of local commercial or community facilities that provide for day-to-day needs in the local area."

The BBPA sought to argue that the council failed to follow procedure for the development of policy. But its application for judicial review has been turned down.

A spokesman for the association said: “We will continue to voice our concerns, as we believe that overly restrictive policies can be damaging to the trade. Even interim guidance such as this should properly reflect the intention of the National Planning Policy Framework - to reduce red tape and burdens on business, and to promote growth.”

He added that the BBPA was particularly concerned that Cambridge was proposing to set the price at which a pub could be sold.

The spokesman said: “We will certainly continue to oppose the policies where we believe they are damaging to small local businesses and the local pub trade as a whole. As this was interim guidance, we will of course continue to raise our concerns during Cambridge City Council’s consultation on proposed changes to their local plan. As one planning inspector has already noted, the Cambridge policy has not been independently tested, as it will be if it becomes part of their local plan.”