Part-retrospective pub garden plans for The Old Vol, Caythorpe, refused by Newark and Sherwood District Council
Councillors have refused retrospective plans for a pub garden despite threats it could cause job losses — but say they are keen to find a compromise.
The Old Vol in Caythorpe sought retrospective permission for a beer garden and carpark extension, and prior permission for a large glazed structure over the beer garden.
It had been claimed by the applicant that if the pub could not continue to operate its beer garden, it would not be financially viable and jobs could be lost — and also that, if approved, additional jobs could be created alongside the safeguarding of existing roles.
However, the application site is in the greenbelt, on a flood zone and has faced noise complaints — and so was unanimously refused by Newark and Sherwood District Council’s planning committee yesterday (May 8).
Committee chairman Andy Freeman suggested the employment concerns had been used as a “bit of a stick to beat [the council] with” and added: “It would have been far better if there’d been a process and a project plan and then there wouldn’t be the danger of people loosing their jobs if we turn this down.
“It’s not a really nice position for a planning committee to be put in when we would naturally look at supporting businesses like this — but we’re not going to be bludgeoned into supporting businesses like this.”
He was building on a point raised by Tim Wildgust, who said: “It was constructed without planning, which is key. I have been a project manager and just very simply what I would have done is produce a project plan, build a business plan, have a financial plan, apply for the necessary permissions including planning, obtain the planning, build, and then staff it.
“I would have asked, what is the probability of me being able to get planning permission on greenbelt land, what is the probability of me being able to build when there is a flood zone 3B? And I’d be going, that’s pretty low.
“Wherever the responsibilities lay for this if it doesn’t go through planning, I don’t think it’s sits with this group.”
While the pub was described as looking ‘lovely’, attractive to families and offering a good employment opportunity, councillors felt they could not overlook the harm to the greenbelt, noise pollution, and flood risks associated with the application.
A previous application for the beer garden and glazed structure had already been refused in 2024 due to these issues and additional highways concerns due to increased numbers of vehicles visiting the site.
More than 200 public comments were received regarding the latest application — with many Caythorpe residents raising concerns about noise levels.
A representative of Caythorpe Parish Council spoke at the meeting, to highlight residents concerns about the noise level generated by the beer garden — describing an occasion where there had been a ten-hour party at the venue with noise levels recorded above 60 decibels.
Roger Jackson, who represents the area on the council, added: “Sometimes its on all day. It used to be a lovely local pub and restaurant, now it’s more like a nightclub.
“They levelled a grass field to create a carpark without planning permission, just to please the highways objection. Flood water is now channelled further down Car Dyke to Lowdham.
“No one wants the pub to close, but there’s ways of doing things.”
The agent for the application also addressed the meeting, and highlighted the large amount of support for the application, the economic and social benefits and employment opportunities granted by the pub’s operation, and the applicant’s large financial contribution to flood response in Lowdham.
He described the venue as a “valued community asset” and expressed the applicant’s willingness to implement proactive flood safety measures and conditions on noise levels.
“Quite a lot of the 190 letters of support are from residents outside of Caythorpe,” said Emma Oldham.
“Actually a lot of those against it are the residents of Caythorpe. So I appreciate there is a lot of support there, but it’s at the expense of the residents who have to live next to that and experience that noise pollution.”
David Moore added that while the pub looked “lovely” it would “bother” him if the garden had been built near his home, and that he didn’t believe the noise levels could be adequately mitigated with conditions.
“It isn’t appropriate for where it is unfortunately,” he added.
“And it is unfortunate.”
An objection had also been received from the Environment Agency due to the flood risk vulnerability of the development.
Penny Rainbow said: “I think it is inappropriate in a greenbelt — we do have to protect the greenbelt.
“The Environment Agency have gone against it and we go against them at our peril. We have to rely on their expertise.”
Many concerns where echoed about the greenbelt location, and also about the retrospective nature of the application — with Simon Forde saying it seemed “very blasé with the rules” and said he was “really angry” that people could rip up medieval fields to create a carpark.
Andy Freeman added: “It is a really, really nice community facility, and I take the point of what the parish council said — they used the word ‘compromise’. Councillor Jackson said he doesn’t want the pub to close. I don’t want that pub to close, I’m sure everyone around here wants it to be a thriving business.
“But the application we have in front of us today has been given a reason of refusal of flooding, and I think the reason for refusal should also include the greenbelt. It is a fine balance regarding employment and the business, but I think this committee is entitled to bring that balance back the other way on this occasion.”
The applicant was encouraged to go back to the drawing board to create a compromise which is “acceptable both to residents and people who use it” and takes into account the greenbelt and flood concerns.
