To refuse Conservation Area consent to demolish the Flying Pig Public House
Why is this important? In a nutshell the Flying Pig is a great pub and its loss would be deeply felt amongst the local community. There has already been wide support against the demolition of the Flying Pig and we need to back this up with a petition to the Council in the form of a letter which sets out why Conservation Area consent should not be given.
In order to justify their actions the developer and others may claim that the wider public would benefit from the demolition and redevelopment of the Flying Pig. If we can demonstrate that the wider public is in fact against the demolition and redevelopment of the Flying Pig, by getting as many people to sign this petition as possible, then it would be much more difficult for the developer and others to argue their case and for the Council to give Conservation Area consent for demolition.
So please help us to save the Flying Pig by signing this petition.
We, the undersigned, respectfully request that Cambridge City Council refuse Conservation Area consent to demolish all or any part the Flying Pig public house, if and when such an application is submitted by the developer. We set out our reasons below.
In their report dated 1st November 2012 English Heritage concludes by stating ‘The Flying Pig makes a significant contribution to the character of the Conservation Area and to the local streetscape but does not meet the criteria for listing in a national context’. So it is established by English Heritage that the Flying Pig makes a positive contribution to the character of the Conservation Area.
Paragraph 4.40 of the Cambridge Local Plan (2006) states that ‘When considering the demolition of buildings, which contribute positively to the character of a Conservation Area, the same tests that would apply to the demolition of a Listed Building will be applied (see Policy 4/10).’
The Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policy 4/10 states that:
‘Works for the demolition of Listed Buildings will not be permitted unless:
• a. the building is structurally unsound for reasons other than deliberate damage or neglect; or
• b. it cannot continue in its current use and there are no viable alternative uses; and
• c. wider public benefits will accrue from redevelopment.’
So these three points above can be used to establish whether or not Conservation Area consent should be permitted for the demolition of the Flying Pig Pub. Clearly points a and b are not applicable because the Flying Pig pub is structurally sound and can continue in its current use.
This leaves point c, whether wider public benefits will accrue from its demolition and redevelopment. It is accepted that if the Flying Pig pub was not demolished then this would result in the loss of a small number of proposed residential units on the site of the Flying Pig and therefore the loss of benefits resulting from them. However, we consider the benefits of the existing Flying Pig to the wider public as evidenced by the strength of feeling and by this petition to be much, much greater than any benefit accruing from this small number of residential units and so do not consider point c to be applicable either.
Therefore, as none of these points are applicable, it is clear from policy 4/10 that the Council should not permit the demolition of all or any part of the Flying Pig.