The Traveller's Rest, Long Riston: Developer who demolished Yorkshire village pub without consent loses planning appeal as inspector finds rebuild does not have a bar or kitchen

The work left just a single-storey wing standing, which Low, who was issued with an enforcement notice by East Riding Council, turned into a small bar called the Micro Pig.

An appeal against the notice in 2021 led to a planning inspector agreeing that although Low should have to rebuild the pub as it was, he did not have to adhere to an identical layout and could provide toilets for customers in a different part of the site to where they had previously been located. He also did not have to re-install traditional signage.

The complicated saga continued in October 2021 when the council successfully prosecuted him for the illegal demolition at Hull Crown Court, where Low was fined £32,000. He also had an application to build housing on the pub site rejected, but said he was adamant The Traveller’s Rest would not re-open as licensed premises.

By the summer of 2022, Low, of Leconfield, had completed the rebuild and applied for a certificate of lawful development from East Riding Council, seeking their approval for the work – but this was refused last November.

Low appealed their decision and it went to a HM Planning Inspectorate hearing, the results of which were made public on October 3.

In the report, planning inspector Laura Renaudon expressed dissatisfaction with the new layout, which appeared to function as separate residential dwellings and had no bar, commercial kitchen, toilets, beer cellar or storage. She concluded that it was ‘unlikely’ the building could trade as a viable pub without these features.

The inspector noted that the appeal failed initially because ‘significant changes’ had taken place at the rear of the property, where an extension now consists of two storeys rather than one. She stated that she would otherwise have found the external appearance to have complied with the original notice.

However, the internal condition of the building was described as a ‘different story’ in terms of its suitability for use as a pub. Mr Renaudon observed that the Micro Pig bar was physically separate from the rest of the site and in different ownership, despite Low commenting that it would be possible to knock through to create access between them. She deemed that the small bar could not be considered as a replacement for the pub.

She added that there was no longer a cellar, which had previously been beneath the bar, which was an ‘obvious viability constraint’ for a pub operation as there was no storage for beer pumps or kegs.

Outside, no external storage was visible and the car park had been fenced off. Two separate back gardens had been created.

The inspector decided that due to the placement of the garden fence, the building ‘is apparently designed to be two separate dwellinghouses, each with a separate internal staircase and independent living facilities either in place or as depicted on plans supplied by the council. Although three separate bathrooms are depicted to the first floor, the ground floor finds a single understairs WC adjoining the ‘bar’ area with only a single door leading to it.’

The previous appeal had underlined the requirement for customer toilets to be provided after Low had cleared an old lavatory block, and the inspector noted that a single WC would not be suitable for customer use and was ‘not designed to be accessible’.

There was no bar or evidence of any work to create one, and Ms Renaudon concluded that even if it had one the building would still be unsuitable to open as a public house doe to its layout and lack of car park. The ground floor kitchen was described as ‘domestic’ rather than commercial.

She also commented that two separate sets of electricity meters had been installed, apparently for each dwelling, and though Low said that one was for a manager’s flat, the inspector said it was ‘not explained’ why the manager would have a separate power supply. There was no commercial waste storage area and only domestic smoke alarms.

She concluded: “I have had regard to all the matters raised in representations and by the parties, but nonetheless the failure to reconstruct the building to its former dimensions without material deviation is fatal to the appeal.

"Nor in any event would I have found that what exists is a rebuilt public house. Internally, this is far from its style. It is plainly unsuitable for such a use, lacking in particular the provision of adequate customer toilets and all necessary services and utilities including suitable storage areas, car parking or even a bar.

“For the reasons given above I conclude that the council’s refusal to grant a certificate of lawful use or development in respect of the erection of a public house to comply with an enforcement notice at The Traveller’s Rest, Long Riston, was well-founded and that the appeal should fail. The appeal is dismissed.”

An East Riding Council spokesperson said: “We note the decision of the independent planning inspector to dismiss the appeal made by Wayne Low in relation to the rebuilding of the former Traveller’s Rest pub in Long Riston.

“We are pleased the inspector agreed with our decision to refuse the certificate of lawful use, and particularly note the inspector’s conclusion that the building was not rebuilt as similar as possible to the one that was demolished, and that internally it was immediately evident the property had not been designed as a rebuild of the pub.

“We will now take time to consider the matter further.”