New homes rejected for pub site

The Fighting Cocks pub in Lowestoft. Plans have been refused for a development at the site. Picture:

The Fighting Cocks pub in Lowestoft. Plans have been refused for a development at the site. Picture: Google Images - Credit: Archant

Plans to demolish part of a pub to build new homes have been rejected.

The proposed development had centred around five homes being built on part of the car park of The Fighting Cocks Public House, in Lowestoft, and two new apartments being built above it.

But after plans had been lodged with East Suffolk Council for "alterations and part demolition of The Fighting Cocks pub", on land adjacent to the pub in Carlton Road and Blackheath Road, Lowestoft, in October, the application was refused by the council on February 3 under delegated powers.

The application from Global Asset International Limited - which would see the pub remain open - was submitted to the council by agent Jason Barber at Studio 35.

A case officer report states: "East Suffolk Council, as local planning authority, hereby refuse to permit the development proposed in your application."

In summary, it said: "The proposal is considered to be at an unacceptable risk of flooding, have an unacceptable highways impact, and provides a lack of detail in regards to contaminated land and noise impact on potential occupants of the dwellings above the public house.

"Given these issues the proposal is not considered to adhere to planning policy and therefore it is recommended that planning permission be refused."

The site description of the case officer report states: "The site comprises of a detached two storey public house, with car parking to the north and east.

Most Read

"The site is situated within Flood Zone 2 of the EA flood zone mapping, and within flood zone 3 (1 in 200 Year+ Climate Change) for the council's Strategic Flood Risk Assessment."

In conclusion, the report says: "The proposed development is considered to result in inappropriate development in an area of flood risk, where there is likely to be reasonable plots that are available in areas at lower risk. The proposal also fails to protect the amenity of neighbouring residents or provide good amenity space for future occupants of the proposed dwellings. Whilst the proposal does seek to provide five additional dwellings which would have a benefit to the local economy, it is not considered that the harms arising as a result of the development outweigh the public benefits."