In case you missed it as part of his grand plan to save local boozers, pubs minister John Healey recently announced possible changes to the planning rules governing the on-trade.
On reflection, the alterations he is proposing would appear to change little and it is questionable whether the suggested amendments to the planning system would have any real effect were they to come into force.
Arguably the planning system should be more receptive to the development proposals, including residential development, to allow pub owners to make the most of their property portfolio.
This would generate income from sites that are no longer viable and allow investment in other locations.
Key strands
Healey's announcement identified two key strands in relation to planning. The first element was to allow pubs to branch out into other commercial uses without the need for planning permission.
But this is not a new provision; it has been possible to occupy pubs for alternative purposes for many years under 'permitted development rights'. Alternative uses include shops, post offices, banks, betting shops, and restaurants... even undertakers.
It is, perhaps, more surprising that once a pub has been occupied for an alternative purpose, planning permission would be needed for it to go back to being used as a pub.
These 'permitted development rights' only extend to the reuse of the existing building - any proposals to put an entirely new building on the site would require approval, and permission would also be needed to make any alterations to the external appearance of the premises to allow alternative uses to operate.
In practice, it can be very difficult to re-use an existing pub building as a shop or any other commercial use without substantial alteration.
The second strand of Healey's rescue plan suggested the local councils would be given the power to intervene before a pub is demolished. It is envisaged that this would give a 'grace period' to consult local communities and to see if any alternative buyer can be found.
Lack of detail
No detail has been given on how this might work in practice, but this could potentially require considerable changes to current planning legislation that may meet with resistance from other sectors of the development industry.
Moreover, it could introduce unnecessary delay and add further costs.
That aside, it is likely that by the time demolition is contemplated the premises have already been vacant for a considerable period of time, and that efforts have already been exhausted to continue a viable pub use.
Healey's suggested revival plan would, therefore, appear to be a rather blunt instrument insofar as the suggested changes to the planning system, and efforts may be better focused on matters of taxation and pricing.
By the time the local planning authority is approached, it is often too late to save a pub. At that time, a pragmatic approach is needed to enable freeholders to dispose of unviable sites, generating income to invest in other locations.
Chris Green is associate partner at DPP, a firm of planning and sustainability consultants