Res­i­dents fear pub will re­place Fyne

Bea­cons­field So­ci­ety voice con­cerns at plans for derelict restau­rant

Buckinghamshire Advertiser - - NEWS -

South Bucks District Coun­cil’s (SBDC) plan­ning com­mit­tee ap­proved plans to re­build the porch area, in­clud­ing a bin store, at the for­mer Loch Fyne restau­rant, in Lon­don End.

The ap­pli­ca­tion states the new ex­ten­sion will not be “sig­nif­i­cantly larger” than the cur­rent porch.

The pro­pos­als were sub­mit­ted to the coun­cil by pub com­pany Brun­ning and Price, prompt­ing the Bea­cons­field So­ci­ety to raise con­cerns a pub would lead to anti-so­cial be­hav­iour in the area.

How­ever, a coun­cil of­fi­cer in­sisted that the com­pany is not plan­ning to change the use of the build­ing from a restau­rant.

Neigh­bour Matthew Chin­ery dis­puted the ac­cu­racy of the ap­pli­ca­tion, stat­ing a sep­a­rate pro­posal for the site has been sub­mit­ted to the li­cens­ing com­mit­tee, which in­cluded a “sig­nif­i­cant rear ex­ten­sion”.

He added the ad­di­tional plans also pro­posed to change the li­cence of the build­ing.

He said: “All would be well and good if the ap­pli­cant had the slight­est in­ten­tion of build­ing the site to th­ese plans.

“If any mem­bers of this com­mit­tee also sit on the li­cens­ing com­mit­tee they will also be aware there was an ap­pli­ca­tion for that com­mit­tee for a vari­a­tion to the premises li­cence.

“The plans for that ap­pli­ca­tion in­cluded a sig­nif­i­cant rear ex­ten­sion la­belled as a gar­den room and a new out­door ter­race at the side of the prop­erty, and a new out­door ter­race at the front of the prop­erty. I would sug­gest it would make a mock­ery of the plan­ning ap­pli­ca­tion sys­tem if an ap­pli­cant moved all the con­tro­ver­sial as­pects out of their pro­posal, not in an at­tempt to find com­pro­mise but to kneecap ob­jec­tors with a view to re­in­state those same con­tro­ver­sial pro­pos­als through a sub­se­quent ap­pli­ca­tion.”

Mary Will­cock, man­ag­ing di­rec­tor at Brun­ning and Price, did not dis­pute Mr Chin­ery’s state­ment, how­ever he said the com­pany is not try­ing to “make a mock­ery of the sys­tem”.

She said: “Our aim is not to try and make a mock­ery, nor is it to try to rail­road through. We are try­ing to work to get a prag­matic re­sult in this which is work­ing for us as a com­mer­cial prop­erty, but also work­ing with the com­mu­nity that we are go­ing to be work­ing and liv­ing along­side.”

The SBDC case of­fi­cer added any fur­ther ex­ten­sions can­not be built un­less another ap­pli­ca­tion had been sub­mit­ted and ap­proved by the coun­cil.

He added the com­mit­tee can only dis­cuss the ap­pli­ca­tion be­fore them - not the ad­di­tional pro­posal sub­mit­ted to the li­cenc­ing com­mit­tee.

Coun­cil­lor Bar­bara Gibbs raised con­cerns over the lack of park­ing, stat­ing she would not sup­port the plans un­less all six park­ing spa­ces at the front of the restau­rant were kept.

Chair­man of the com­mit­tee Cllr Ralph Bagge said there is “plenty of park­ing within walk­ing dis­tance” but added the ex­ten­sion will not take away pre­cious spa­ces.

He said: “It is quite clear that most of the cus­tomers who go there don’t park in the half dozen spa­ces in front. I think [the of­fi­cer] makes a good point, which is what we are re­quir­ing is no de­te­ri­o­ra­tion of what is al­ready there and pro­tect­ing and preserving land.”

Coun­cil­lors ap­proved the plans.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.