A planning bunfight that featured a threat of ejection for clapping, an official calling a county councillor "irresponsible" and a sudden change of heart after 20 minutes behind closed doors saw permission denied for works outside a village pub.

The Three Horseshoes on Spring Hill, Bubbenhall, asked Warwick District Council to approve two gazebos that have already been built, plus a planned patio extension and disability ramp. 

Planning officers – the council's employed professionals – advised elected officials to say no, arguing that it would represent too much change in a conservation and green belt area, while Warwickshire County Council's highways department were unhappy at the prospect of eating into the access to the pub's car park on safety grounds.

The case for the changes was put by publican Ashleigh Spence with the backing of 70 supportive comments on the council's planning portal and Bubbenhall Parish Council. 

That volume of backing led councillors to spend more than half an hour questioning the reasons and whether they could be overcome and while permission was set to be denied on the car parking issues, the meeting was taken into private session with the council's legal and planning professionals worried over the implications of dismissing the green belt reasons. 

Unhappy clapper

Parish councillor Jim Roberts spoke to back the pub, highlighting the turnaround since it had been saved from a derelict state just a few years ago.

"I want to make it very clear, our ancient village and our community overwhelmingly wants these improvements to go ahead," he said, citing support levels and absolutely no objections".

That was followed by applause from the public gallery that planning chair Cllr Alan Boad sought to control.

"We don't normally have applause in the council chamber during a planning meeting," he said.

Someone shouted back: "Well we are tonight."

Cllr Boad replied: "In that case I will have to ask you to leave" to which the man said: "I'll leave, certainly. It's a shame you don't like people clapping."

Councillor told off

County councillor Ben Edwards was part of a three-way share of the three minutes available to the applicant and supporters. 

Taking just 30 seconds, he argued that the committee "should ignore county highways" over "minor concerns" that was persuaded had been "alleviated" by Mr Spence.

The council's legal adviser Nigel Bell was not amused.

"I'm afraid that is quite an irresponsible comment," he said. 

"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.

"If the committee were to approve this contrary to that advice, that is the only situation where the local planning authority could be liable if, God forbid, someone was injured or worse."

Ward member Cllr Josh Payne also challenged his colleagues to look at it from "a human point of view" and made the case that very special circumstances to override green belt concerns existed through the pub's work on social isolation for elderly locals and those with mobility issues.

Leaning on the volume of support, he felt it would be a "breach of natural justice not to approve this" but Mr Bell told councillors it didn't work that way. 

"The number of people who support the scheme is absolutely irrelevant," he said.

"It is not a democracy, it is a technical question and you have the advice of your conservation officer and your planning officer."

The committee's thoughts

Opinion was divided on the gazebos, which planning officer Millie Flynn said had been deemed permanent and to add too much bulk and mass to the front of the pub.

Cllr James Kennedy was left scratching his head over the argument that the plans had no public benefits.

He asked: "From what we have heard about this pub being of huge community benefit, not only in what it provides but the fact it has been rescued from dereliction – does that not count as a public benefit?"

Ms Flynn said the benefits had been attributed to the business, adding: "In terms of the argument on viability, officers are aware that the site does operate as a drinking establishment without the requirement for the works as part of this proposal."

Cllr Bill Gifford admitted to being torn, seeing the community's argument but also finding the gazebo structures "intrusive". 

"While you could argue that the success (of the pub) is something that should be supported by allowing the balance to go in favour of granting, I would argue that the success and letters of support show that this pub will be successful whether it has the gazebos and patio or not," he said.

"I don't think the people of the area are not going to turn up just because it has umbrellas rather than gazebos or doesn't have the patio which highways consider to be dangerous.

"On balance, I feel the officers have come to the right conclusion."

Ms Flynn was also questioned on the safety of the car park and stated the access was "already substandard" at 4.9 metres – less than the six metres advised to swing out a typical car. The patio as designed would reduce that to 3.1 metres which highways felt was "unacceptable".

The ruling

Cllr Kennedy was "particularly uncomfortable" saying no to plans with "significant benefit to accessibility, the community, the business and all that brings" but could not go against the legal advice.

However, councillors remained keen to dismiss the arguments on the green belt and harm to the character and appearance of the area, with Mr Bell rising from his seat to confer privately with Cllr Boad and business manager Sandip Sahota.

Cllr Boad then said: "There is some concern about us approving the green belt aspect.

"If we approve this one, there could be lots of pubs and buildings in the green belt coming forward with similar proposals. It would make it a weaker case for us."

Cllr Kennedy replied: "We are always told to deal with the application in front of us and not to look at precedents."

Mr Sahota confirmed that was correct but said the committee would "need to be very specific about what leads you to that judgment".

"There is no evidence," he said. 

"There is no viability appraisal submitted, anything like that to say this pub will struggle if this development is not approved.

"There are very similar cases, there is nothing unique about this case. There is the disability access issue but that in itself, if we had a standalone application for the ramp, that would in all likelihood be approved.

"It is the scheme as a whole (that is problematic) with the gazebos and other aspects.

"Just approving based on the level of support and it being a good thing for the business, it is very difficult to say that these are very special circumstances and to differentiate that from other cases."

Mr Bell again rose from his seat to address Cllr Boad privately with Cllr Boad recommending that the discussion continue in a private session. All 10 councillors on the committee voted in favour with the public, including those who spoke, and the press excluded for 20 minutes. 

The decision to reject the application in line with all of the officers' recommendations was then taken in public. Councillors could have commented further at that stage but none did. 

The refusal was passed with six votes. Cllr Martin Luckhurst and Cllr Richard Dickson voted against that, while Cllr Kyn Aizlewood and Cllr Robert Margrave opted against voting either way.