APP/C3105/W/16/3165654

DOCUMENT 38.    APPEAL STATEMENT:

The Appeal is made against Cherwell District Council’s Decision to Refuse Application 16/02030/F

1.	STATEMENT OF CASE:

1.1 
The Application is a perfectly acceptable proposal that is vital to the current and future long-term viability of the Public House.
The supporting evidence gives great weight to the significance and importance of Letting Accommodation for Rural Public Houses particularly in this location. 

1.2
Many of the nearby pubs to the site have Letting Rooms and rely greatly on this third income stream to maintain viability. When and where rural pubs can provide Holiday/Letting Accommodation the benefits are enormous, virtually instant and will improve their viability significantly.

1.3
Any of the concerns or issues raised by the Senior Officers Planning Team during the progression of the Application were addressed and overcome.
The Planning Team had the following qualifications: 
BA (Joint Hons) MA MR TPI and MCs
These Planning Experts concluded that the proposal was acceptable and their very extensive and detailed Report Recommended Approval.  Evidence Number 33.

2.	PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING:

2.1
Part of this Appeals Evidence is the Video Recording of the Planning Committee Meeting provided as Evidence Number 37.
Coverage of the Application begins at 2hours 44 minutes.

	OVERVIEW OF PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

2.2
Bob Neville the Case Officer, gave a very clear and positive Report to the Committee and recommended Approval.

2.3
Councillor Reynolds initially stated that ‘he could not find any Planning Reason to refuse the application’ yet he and other Members went on to manufacture one.
He advised the Committee to view the application with suspicion because of the numerous previous Applications, Appeals and Enforcement Actions on the property. He also said that if the proposal was granted it was very likely that the single storey structure would soon become a two storey building.

2.4 
It became very evident that most Council Members had no knowledge of the Area or the relevance and position of the Sibford Gap. 
Councillor Heath said that there should have been a site visit.
Councillor Kerford-Byrnes had no idea about the Sibford Gap but was clearly intent on supporting Councillor Reynolds by opposing the application.
Councillor Richards made personal and insulting comments; he accused us of greed and having no self-respect obviously without any knowledge of us or the true history of the pub. He did however say that the community was wrong to boycott the pub.  

2.5
Oswyn Murray (The Chairman of Sibford Gower Parish Council)
addressed the Committee and stated that the proposal was for Inferior and sub-standard accommodation. He asserted that there had not been any Health and Safety Inspection of the Pubs kitchen, that there was no bar and the property was operating illegally as a restaurant. He also attacked the new name of the pub stating that it demonstrated our contempt for the Villagers.
Mr Murray accused Planning Officers of allowing applicants to write their own Reports and in essence he threatened to terminate the Parish Council if the application was approved.

3.	RESPONSES:

3.1
Councillor Reynolds obviously has the right to his own opinions; however it was wrong for him to say that we would change the structure into a 2 storey building that was disrespectful. 
We very much doubt that he will make similar comments when the Gypsy Site Application comes back to the Committee.
 
3.2
None of Mr Murray’s accusations are true, the pub has been Inspected, it has a bar, operates as A4 and the proposed rooms will be of a very high standard. We renamed the Pub as a self-mocking description of Geoffrey Noquet ‘The Pleasant Chap’s In’ The name was intended as a fresh start for the pub, not as an insult to anyone other than himself. However with the benefit of hindsight’ the name could have been different and because of that we have changed it to The Pheasant Inn. Notwithstanding that the Villagers started Boycotting our pub in 2006 when it was called the Bishop Blaze this new name is just another excuse for their continued Boycott and Vendetta against us. 

3.3
Over the last decade we have been subjected to the most horrific abuse and fabricated lies, mainly because Geoffrey Noquet refused to serve some regular drinkers after hours and when it was apparent to him that some customers were going to drink and drive. The problems escalated when we tried to move a Barman’s shift from Friday to Thursday nights, spiteful lies were spread and the Pub was boycotted. For those reasons alone we looked at changing the use or selling the pub because that was our only option. We did want to continue running a pub that partly survived by breaking the LAW. Some remote rural pubs rely on customers that drink and drive as part of their culture where there is no Police presence, we will never accept or conform to that abhorrent practise.

3.4
In our submission Councillors should have moved for a Deferral to visit the site so that they could see for themselves that the proposed structure will not block any views across the Sibford Gap.
Evidence Number 39. This photograph is taken from the North side of the Green and even at this level the superimposed roof and ridge line show that there is no loss of ANY VIEWS.  

 
4.	OBJECTIONS:

4.1
Mr Pigeon: Whilst he launches a tirade of personal insults and accusations at no point does he object on the grounds that the structure will he deprive him of any views across The Sibford Gap. He owns the only property that could possibly be affected by the proposed Building and has not raised any issue of loss of views.   

4.2
Mr Butt:  In the absence of any proof that he actually represents a support group we respectfully ask that the Inspector disregards his objections.

5.	ASSET OF COMMUNITY VALUE

5.1
An ACV is a mechanism to allow a community to bid on what is deemed to be an Asset of Community Value in the event that the Asset is put on the Market for Sale. It is not designed to encourage that community to boycott the Asset with the intention of driving down its Market Value so that they can acquire it for 40% less than the true Market Value. 
The property has been Valued by the following 4 Leading Licensed Property Agents at 400K:
Sydney Phillips	   Christies	      Guy Simmonds	         Davey & Co

CONCLUSIONS:   
There was no proper planning discussion in regard to the intentions of the proposal which seeks to re-open the pub on a more regular and a viable basis. The Members completely disregarded the Submitted Evidence and also ignored the Senior Officers Recommendations; they did however refer to the Boycott. At the very least there should have been a motion for a deferral to visit the site.
For all of the above reasons we respectfully ask that the Appeal is allowed.

Signed:   Mr Geoffrey Noquet      Mrs Jacqueline Noquet