A fierce council row has erupted after a local authority refused to grant retrospective permission for alterations at a village pub, despite 70 letters of support and backing from the local parish council.
Warwick District Council’s meeting on the decision descended into chaos as councillors calmed down on the “intrusive” additions to the boozer.
The Three Horseshoes in Bubbenhall, found south of Coventry, had sought approval for two gazebos already erected on the premises, along with a proposed patio extension and disability access ramp.
Publican Ashleigh Spence made the case for the works, but Council planning officers argued that the proposals represented excessive development within both a conservation area and green belt land.
At the fateful council meeting, Parish councillor Jim Roberts spoke in support, highlighting how The Three Horseshoes transformed what had been a derelict building.
“I want to make it very clear, our ancient village and our community overwhelmingly wants these improvements to go ahead,” Mr Roberts declared, noting the substantial support and absence of any objections.
His remarks prompted applause from supporters in the public gallery, which planning committee chair Councillor Alan Boad swiftly moved to suppress.
“We don’t normally have applause in the council chamber during a planning meeting,” the Liberal Democrat councillor stated.
A council row erupted after a local authority refused to grant retrospective permission for alterations at a village pub
|
A man in the gallery shouted back: “Well, we are tonight!”
Councillor Boad responded with a threat: “In that case, I will have to ask you to leave.”
The supporter remained defiant, replying: “I’ll leave, certainly. It’s a shame you don’t like people clapping.”
The man was then ejected from the meeting.
Warwick District Council was voting on ‘intrusive’ additions to the boozer
|
Warwickshire County Council’s highways department separately flagged concerns about the impact on car park access, citing safety issues.
Planning officer Millie Flynn told the committee that the gazebos had been classified as permanent structures that added excessive bulk and mass to the pub’s frontage.
She also confirmed that the existing car park access measured 4.9 metres, already below the recommended six metres required for typical vehicle manoeuvring. The proposed patio would reduce this further to just 3.1 metres, which highway officials considered “unacceptable”.
County councillor Ben Edwards drew sharp criticism when he suggested the committee “should ignore county highways” over what he described as “minor concerns” that had been addressed by the publican.
The council’s legal adviser Nigel Bell responded forcefully: “I’m afraid that is quite an irresponsible comment.”
“With respect, Councillor Edwards is not a highways engineer. He is not qualified to comment on highway matters, the local highways authority has given its advice which is that there are safety issues,” Mr Bell stated.
He warned that approving the application against the highways advice represented the only scenario where the planning authority could face liability “if, God forbid, someone was injured or worse.”
Ward councillor Josh Payne urged colleagues to take “a human point of view”, arguing the pub helped combat social isolation among elderly residents and those with limited mobility.
Concerns were also raised over parking at the inn
|
Councillor Payne believed refusing the application would constitute “a breach of natural justice” given the public backing, but Mr Bell reminded members that planning decisions did not function as a democracy.
“The number of people who support the scheme is absolutely irrelevant,” the legal adviser stated, adding: “It is a technical question and you have the advice of your conservation officer and your planning officer.”
Councillor Bill Gifford acknowledged feeling conflicted but considered the gazebos “intrusive”, arguing the pub’s evident success demonstrated it would thrive regardless of the alterations.
Following concerns about setting a precedent for green belt development, all 10 committee members voted to continue discussions in private, excluding the press and public for 20 minutes.
The refusal ultimately passed with six votes, with two councillors voting against and two abstaining.