Appeal 6003371

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the change of use from a public house to a single family home at [site address] , [name], [site address] , [site address] , Oxfordshire, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/02668/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawings entitled ‘existing and proposed west elevation’, ‘proposed and existing rear elevation’, ‘proposed ground floor plan v2 (floor plan)’, ‘proposed and existing front elevation’, ‘east elevation existing and proposed’ and ‘proposed first floor plan V2’.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until space has been laid out within the site for two cars to be parked. Each parking space shall be a minimum of 2.5m wide x 5m deep and shall be accessible from the public highway. The spaces shall thereafter be kept available at all times for the parking of vehicles for the lifetime of the development.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the availability of community facilities.

The appeal site comprises the two-storey former public house known as [site address] (the Inn) and is located within the village of [site address] . It benefits from parking fronting [site address] (albeit limited) and has a modest garden area to the rear. Historically, the Inn has hosted dart teams, pub sports, charity events and celebrations. However, it is currently vacant.

The Council has outlined the growth of [site address] including reference to recent permissions which have granted housing schemes such as those located near to [address], [address], Park Road and [address].

Additionally, there are numerous Public Rights of Way which link [site address] with other historic settlements, one of which is close to the appeal site.

Paragraph 88(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that planning decisions should enable the retention and development of accessible local services and community facilities such as public houses, amongst other things. Furthermore, paragraph 98(a) of the Framework outlines that to provide the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services the community needs, planning policies and decisions should, amongst other things, plan positively for the provision and use of shared spaces and community facilities such as public houses.

Policy E5 of the West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2031 (the WOLP) restricts development that would result in the loss of community facilities like public houses unless it is clearly demonstrated that appropriate alternative provision of at least equivalent suitability and accessibility, particularly by foot, will remain and in the case of public houses, the existing use is no longer viable and is incapable of being made viable or adapted to retain a viable service or facility. The latter would need a robust marking exercise to demonstrate that the use of premises is unviable.

The supporting text of the Policy E5 outlines that the high residential land values in the District make the closure and conversion of facilities such as shops and pubs attractive to investors. Accordingly, that this is a threat to the sustainability of communities particularly in the rural areas where such facilities can form the hub of social life.

Within walking distance (around 250 metres) of the Inn is The Masons Arms which is another public house. Consequently, there is suitable alternative provision in the village of [site address] considering the significant growth the village has seen in recent years.

The Marketing History Report authored by AG&G – [name] (the MHR) outlines that the Inn was uploaded onto both the AG&G website as well as [name]. Whilst the Council does highlight some concerns regarding the marketing of the Inn it accepts that on balance it has been reasonably well marketed.

Based on the evidence before me including the details contained within the MHR (such as the circulation of details online as well as hard copy sale details which were posted to approximately 20 nearby pubs), in my planning judgement, it has been demonstrated that the Inn has been robustly marketed.

The consistent marketing of the Inn above the purchase price has been highlighted as a concern in the evidence before me.

A letter dated 7 August 2025 by [name] (BKL1) is within the evidence before me. It is authored by a a member of the [name] of [name] and is a Royal Institute of [name]. It outlines that there was limited information regarding the historical trade from the premises. Amongst other things, it states that the Inn is in a reasonable condition and that once new beer lines have been introduced would be ‘ready to go’. It concludes that the Inn would result in an overall [name] of negative £49,228.

Given that there is no current business operating from the property the Viability Assessment contained within BKL1 has used estimated trade figures based on available trade space within the property and from knowledge of the trade levels of similar properties in similar locations which are fairly local to the Inn including The Masons Arms, [name], Lamb & Flag, [name] and [name].

I acknowledge the reservations the Council has regarding the population quoted in BKL1, which may have been taken from the 2021 census. Nevertheless, whilst there has been development within [site address] , there is limited substantive evidence to adequately demonstrate that the figure of around 2000 residents is wholly unreasonable to be relied upon.

In the second letter from [name] (BKL2) there are examples provided of other public houses in an approximate 15-mile radius such as [name], [name], Waggon and Horses and Wheatsheaf. All of which are valued significantly higher than the Inn. Whilst the Council considers there to be very little obvious similarities between these public houses and the Inn, it remains in my planning judgement that the appellant has provided fairly relevant examples given their general sizes and proximity to the appeal site. Consequently, whilst each application is determined on its own merits, these examples are material considerations.

The Council contends, amongst other things, that the basis on which this assessment moved from the available trade space to the estimated turnover is not clear as well as the conclusions drawn regarding other overheads and costs in BKL1.

Whilst BKL1 does not clearly provide explicit trade space and turnover data on the public houses which are considered to be comparable, given the Inn is currently vacant and the applicant did not previously trade from the pub, there is inevitably a level of estimation. Therefore, on balance, I consider that the potential turnover of around £2000 to £4000 a week is reasonable and accordingly, the referenced profit margin.

Additionally, it is relatively unclear as to what the trading style of the Inn would be or the method of funding should it remain as a public house. However, in BKL1 an example is provided including staff costs. [name] note the comments from the Council and indeed the pub protection officer of the Campaign for [name] (the PPO) regarding the property costs, ownership model, staff costs, the possibility of the first floor flat as either a rental or live in accommodation for the landlords, holiday accommodation or extra space for the public house and funding method, there is still an element of estimation and therefore planning judgement required given the Inn is not currently in use. This is also the case regarding the [name] referenced in BKL1.

I am mindful of the Council’s comments and those from the PPO regarding the number of [name] (FTE’s) regarding staffing costs. The appellant has adequately demonstrated in the evidence before me how the number of 4 FTE’s was concluded. There is limited substantive evidence before me to adequately demonstrate that this conclusion is unreasonable or excessive.

Additionally, the overheads have been estimated to equate to around 20% of net turnover. The Chartered Surveyor in BKL1 highlights that given the absence of historic trading accounts there is an element of subjectivity to this figure. Accordingly, given it includes business rates, council tax, water rates, heating and electricity as well as repairs and maintenance amongst other things, I consider, on balance, the approximate 20% figure to be reasonable.

National trends such as a change in customer habits whose preference is to now stay at home and drink alcohol at a cheaper price than at a public house, has to an extent affected the pub industry as a whole. Whilst a general trend does not provide a reason to justify the loss of the Inn it is a material consideration given the evidence provided by the appellant regarding viability.

There is a professional valuation before me of £290,000 for the Inn which considers the underlying value of the licensed premises although it is not clear whether this is also tied to the possibility of its change of use to a dwelling. It also outlines an approximate 8.5% return on capital should individuals apply for a loan as a funding method. I note that the marketing appears to have proceeded on a value of £305,000 although it was at one point at a guide price of £350,000.

I acknowledge the Council query why the Inn has been marketed at a higher price, but also why it has been given the valuation of £290,000 if it is indeed not viable. Nevertheless, given the marketing price history of the Inn, the information contained within both BKL1 and BKL2 and the comparable public houses outlined in the latter, I do not consider the marketing of the Inn including the price and return on capital to be wholly unreasonable. Especially given that it is not entirely unreasonable that a buyer would likely make an offer under the asking price of £305,000.

Additionally, within the evidence before me, it is clear that there is an overage clause, which would be payable should the Inn be converted to a residential use. Nevertheless, given the findings of the chartered registered valuer, the overage clause does not, in my planning judgement, significantly impact the overall valuation of the Inn for the purpose of this appeal.

I am mindful of the Council’s reticence to accept the fair maintainable operating profit outlined in BKL1 of approximately £21,600 highlighting that it is subject to potential significant variation depending on the assumptions made.

The Council highlight other options such as a sports bar, music (including karaoke), community bar, daytime coffee shop. It contends that these have not adequately been considered and that the capacity in the beer garden has been underestimated.

Regarding a café shop, whilst I acknowledge the size of [site address] , its location near to the Cotswolds National Landscape and thus the capacity for tourism trade as well as the New Yatt Business Centre, it is still a relatively small village. Consequently, on balance and given the evidence before me, there is limited substantive evidence to adequately demonstrate that it would likely be able to support a dedicated café/coffee shop given the existence of the [site address] [name] despite its limited operating hours.

Additionally, given the evidence before me regarding the Inn, a restaurant is generally a more specific subset of a general public house market. Accordingly, to my mind, this would also not likely be a reasonable alternative.

There are significant tourist destinations local to the appeal site such as [name], the City of Oxford, Witney, Woodstock and [name] amongst other historic settlements and buildings. However, given the layout of the building, particularly the first floor, a bed and breakfast operation would likely be difficult to implement.

Finally, a nursery or childcare facility, in my planning judgement would, likely be difficult to implement given the amount of substantial works that would be needed to make it a suitable location for the facility and the size of [site address] .

There is limited substantive evidence before me to adequately demonstrate that the loss of the Inn would result in serious detriment to the village and the wider parish given the presence of the [name]. Especially considering that Policy E5 of the WOLP only requires there to be appropriate alternative provision.

Interested parties have referred to Policies E1 and E4 of the WOLP which seek to promote the protection and development of local employment opportunities as well as the important role of pubs in supporting tourism and maintaining economic activity within the area respectively. I acknowledge the historic role the Inn has played in the village as well as the reviews it once received, there would be a loss of a community facility and therefore employment opportunities. However, I have identified above that I do not consider the Inn to be viable.

The Councils Economic Development Manager (the EDM) considers that the pub would incur annual losses. However, the Council contends that this relies excessively on the evidence submitted by the appellant and fails to question the length of the marketing exercise.

However, Policy E5 of the WOLP does not provide an explicit minimum period for the marketing of a community asset and at the time the Council determined the application it had been around 13 months of marketing. It also appears to have remained on the market throughout the planning process. I have identified that the price at which the Inn has been marketed has on balance, been reasonable. Thus, I consider the marketing of the Inn to have been adequate and therefore the reliance on the evidence by the EDM is reasonable. Thus, whilst the EDM response recognises the appeal scheme would result in the loss of future employment opportunities, it still concludes that the appeal scheme is justified given the specific circumstances of the Inn.

The PPO outlines that they consider the appellant to have not considered the [address] Viability test and that this test demonstrates the Inn would remain potentially viable. However, there is limited substantive evidence before me to demonstrate this to be the case. I am also mindful of the PPO’s comments regarding the trading history, condition of the building, exploration of other options, the viability report as well as competition. Nonetheless, considering the comments from the EDM and the evidence before me, in my planning judgement the appellant has carried out an adequate viability test. Accordingly, on balance, the appellant has clearly demonstrated that the Inn is incapable of being made viable or adapted to retain a viable service or facility.

I note that each public house is unique and attracts different clientele and therefore public houses are not necessarily in direct competition with each other as outlined in the comments from the PPO. Nevertheless, for the reasons given above, I consider that the appellant has adequately demonstrated that the existing use is no longer viable.

Regarding repairs of the Inn, the Council’s Officer Report outlines that given the good condition of the Inn it considers repairs to be non-determinative in terms of long-term viability. Nevertheless, it is not wholly unreasonable for the viability assessment to make allowance for depreciation including fixtures, fittings and equipment and thus the costs incurred in funding repairs and improvements to the Inn. Therefore, in my planning judgement, the viability assessment as a whole and its conclusion that the Inn is no longer a viable business is reasonable.

[name], [address], Eynsham and the apparent viability demonstrated by the [name], each application is determined on its own merits and given the specific evidence before me including BKL1, BKL2 and the comments from EDM, they do not lead me to a different conclusion.

Whether or not the appellant has a history of operating public houses is not a determinative factor for this main issue and whilst there is relatively little information regarding the previous tenancy at will this does not lead me to an alternative conclusion.

I am mindful that paragraph 135(a) and 135(f) of the Framework outline that planning decisions should ensure that developments function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development and amongst other things, that they create places that promote health and well-being respectively. Additionally, that given the social contact and sense of belonging the Inn could provide paragraph 96(c) of the Framework is relevant given it provides, amongst other things, that planning decisions should enable and support healthy lives including well-being needs.

Nevertheless, considering all of the above, the appellant has adequately demonstrated that the Inn is no longer viable and is incapable of being made viable, adapted to retain a viable service or facility including as a community run enterprise.

Accordingly, there would be a conflict with Policies E1 and E4 of the WOLP which seek to safeguard local employment opportunities and support tourism and maintaining economic activity, amongst other things due to the loss of a single public house.

Nevertheless, in my planning judgement, given it has been clearly demonstrated that the Inn is no longer viable, it remains that the proposal would comply with Policies E5, OS2 and H2 of the WOLP which are, to my mind, directly relevant to the appeal scheme, given they provide circumstances in which the loss of a community facility would be acceptable. These policies seek to ensure that the loss of community facilities is limited to those that are not viable and there is appropriate alternative provision as well as where it has been clearly demonstrated that the building is not capable of re-use for business, recreational or community uses amongst other things. Accordingly, I attached greater weight to the compliance with these policies in comparison to the conflict with Policies E1 and E4 of the WOLP.

Thus, in conclusion, the appeal scheme complies overall with the development plan when considered as a whole.

I am aware that the Inn is close to the [name] listed building known as Greystones which dates from around the early 18th Century. Mindful of the statutory duty set out in Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act), I have had special regard to the desirability of preserving its setting. Greystones is significant due to its architectural merit. Nevertheless, given the extent of the proposed development, I consider that the appeal scheme would preserve the setting of Greystones.

The Council has provided suggested conditions which I have considered against the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), and advice contained in the Planning Practice Guidance. I have amended the wording of the suggested conditions for clarity and to ensure accordance with the tests set out in paragraph 57 of the Framework.

In addition to the standard time limit condition (1), I have attached a condition specifying the approved plans to provide certainty (2). It is necessary, in the interests of highway safety to include a condition requiring the provision of parking spaces (3).

The material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan as a whole. For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.