Agenda item

Questions and Representations from the Public

To receive questions and representations from the public under Rules 3 and 4 of the Executive Procedure Rules of the Constitution





Mr Peter Salway submitted the following question under Rule 5 of the Cabinet (Executive) procedure rules of the Constitution.


According to the website, ACV status on a property not only gives a Community the right to bid, but that achieving this status should protect the Inn via the “removal of permitted development rights for change of use and demolition – owners seeking to change a pub’s planning use, class or to demolish it must allow the community and customers of the pub to comment.”


My question is, this appears to be appliable to what is happening to the Crown & Mitre. If the Council disagree, can they please explain why.


The Leader gave the following response:


The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 was amended in 2015. These amendments relate to certain permitted developments and provide that during a specified period, certain development is not permitted in relation to a specified building. The Lake District National Park is the planning authority for the property in question so it would not be appropriate for this Council to comment on the use of the property or the application of these regulations.


Mr David Kitchen submitted the following question under Rule 5 of the Cabinet (Executive) procedure rules of the Constitution; the question was read by the Monitoring Officer due to Mr Kitchen’s absence at the meeting:


Does the council feel that it is in the interests of community to have an unsupervised 24 person holiday let in the centre of a village community of approx. 50 residents ? Bearing in mind the same village already has a 32 person holiday let within 0.5 miles and several other holiday lets/airbnb’s /second homes within the village.


The Leader gave the following response:


The Council’s views on tourist development might be see in the extract from our Local Plan quoted in the application for ACV status. However the planning authority for Bampton is the LDNP so EDC’s policies are not applicable.


As politicians, we are extremely concerned about the prevalence of second homes and the increase in Air BnB and similar property use. I can assure Mr Kitchen that we lobby central government for powers which will enable us to address the situation, which indeed threatens the sustainability of our communities, more effectively.’


Ms Aileen Salway submitted the following question under Rules 5 of the Cabinet (Executive) procedure rules of the Constitution.


I refer to the quote below from the Camra website


“Most local authorities have planning policies that help protect valued community facilities and ACV-listing is clear evidence that the community does indeed value the pub.  Some Councils have policies which single out ACV-listed facilities for higher levels of protection. National planning policy recognises that ACV listing should be a ‘material consideration’ in planning decisions.”


With submitting a request for ACV status on the Crown and Mitre where the majority of permanent households agreed to its submission, would the Council agree that this property is clearly valued by the local community and as such should have some level of protection around its use now and in the future, especially as it is operating as a large holiday let.



The Leader gave the following response:


The Council accepts that the group that has nominated this asset does view the property as an asset to the Community.


The use of a property is a matter of planning law and policy and it is open to local planning authorities to take ACV status into account as a material consideration when determining planning applications, but the weight given to it will be a matter for the decision-maker, which in this case is the Lake District National Park Authority.


Ms Salway asked the following supplementary question:


If the Council would grant the ACV for this property it might help us in keeping the coaching inn as a historic coaching inn for our community if the council would grant it, so would you agree to that for us?


The Leader gave the following response:


I realise it’s a bit sort of litigious, but I just have to repeat what I just said, which is that it’s a matter for the decision maker, which is the Lake District National Park Authority.


Mr Jonathan Davies submitted the following question under Rules 5 of the Cabinet (Executive) procedure rules of the Constitution:


I wish to ask how the cabinet can consider using S106 funding to provide capital grants to developers that in some cases have made the commitment as part of planning application S106 agreements to provide affordable homes that Eden council are now subsidising it appears if the grants are approved in item 7 tonight and other grant applications also for consideration by the cabinet for developments. That based on information received over the weekend means the applicant has no planning application put forward or approved to Eden as the planning authority and also does not own the land the grant funding is proposed for to provide properties on.

Given the governments proposed changes to S106 requirements on affordable homes would Eden not be better placed by delivering directly affordable homes potentially via the councils own Heart of Cumbria Ltd company instead of subsidising already agreed affordable homes that are part of S106 agreements and giving grants for developments not even approved for development at this time.


The Housing and Health Portfolio Holder gave the following response:

Housing Developers and Registered Providers would ordinarily ensure that they have all of the necessary funding in place prior to submitting a planning application.  Notwithstanding that, the Council could approve the initial allocation of funds, but any payment would still be subject to the necessary due diligence having been completed, such as proof of land ownership, planning permission and review of the business case. 

In relation to the direct delivery of affordable housing units.  The work undertaken to review the Heart of Cumbria showed that direct delivery is not financially sustainable and therefore funds from section 106 more appropriately spent in partnership with those providers who are delivering in the Eden District.

Mr Jonathan Davies asked the following supplementary question:


One of these grant applicants has previsouly agreed in planning to provide for affordable homes which now the council are looking to subsidise potentially, if the grants are approved this evening, is it not that council are actually subsisising what was orginally agreed in planning applications to get that planning passed now?


The Housing and Health Portfolio Holder advised Mr Davies that a written response would be provided.




Members received written representations from two members of the public in relation to Item 8 on the agenda.