Appeal 6007020

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for conversion and alteration to create residential dwelling, and provision of parking at [site address] , [site address] , Hampshire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01951/FULLN, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The description of development in the application form and banner heading above differs from that set out in the Council’s decision notice. It was confirmed at the hearing that the application should be determined in accordance with the latter and this is set out in the formal decision above.

Additional supporting information was provided with the appeal in respect of marketing efforts. This does not fundamentally alter the scheme and there has been an opportunity for those involved to comment. In accepting this, I am therefore satisfied no procedural unfairness would ensue.

The main issue is whether the loss of the public house would be acceptable having regard to the development plan.

The first part of Policy COM14 of the Test Valley Local Plan (LP) permits the loss of a pub under certain circumstances, including where it can be demonstrated the use is no longer viable, or the accommodation is not suitable, or it is no longer needed. While representations made in respect of viability are acknowledged, not all the aforementioned criteria have to be met, and this proposal is advanced on the basis it is no longer needed.

The second part of the policy focuses on cultural and community facilities, noting an additional requirement to demonstrate there is no need for another community use. Pubs are identified in the supporting text as such facilities and in acknowledgement of the appeal building’s status as an Asset of [name], it is reasonable to consider both parts of the policy in this instance. That said, the submitted evidence demonstrates that contact with cultural and community organisations has been made, and the Council did not refuse the proposal on this ground.

The support and desire to retain a pub that has been part of the community for generations is well understood. Nevertheless, the supporting text to COM14 says, amongst other things, that to demonstrate the loss is justifiable, evidence should be provided of attempts to market the property for its current and alternative uses for a 6-month period in appropriate publications at an appropriate value. Although not having the force of policy, this text provides a quantifiable basis to demonstrate that the community facility is no longer needed.

There is no dispute that the appeal property has been marketed for 6 months. The Council is however concerned that the efforts made do not provide sufficient justification for the loss of the pub.

Publications - Within the evidence and as further explained at the hearing, the Council’s external valuation representative (Colliers) advised that the sale of such public house assets is best facilitated by the use of a specialist agency. While this may be an optimal marketing preference, the appellant nevertheless used a combination of a local estate agent and commonly known national online website, where there was prolonged exposure to the market within what is said to be a dedicated section for public houses and hospitality.

The appellant’s estate agent explained that their company and family had decades of experience in the industry and would have the same access to databases and regional pub operators as specialist agents. Contact with national operators was limited to one group, and it is not clear why others could not have been approached. In discussion, it was however undisputed that it is not unusual for such national operators to carry out drive around viewings to search for potential investment opportunities.

Furthermore, as well as a presence in local newspapers, publications, and on social media, efforts were said to be made to contact local pub owners and restauranteurs within the Nepalese community. I agree with the Council that it would have been more useful if all of these local marketing efforts had been comprehensively articulated during the application process. However, in these particular circumstances, even in the absence of a specialist agent, the marketing provided a reasonable opportunity for interested parties to come forward. Therefore, the argument that the publications used were inappropriate is not compelling.

Pricing – The appellant undertook a specialised registered valuation by [name] based on the property being a closed public house. This was informed by a range of comparable properties with sales notes relating to their broad characteristics. Interested parties submitted a lower valuation by Dabro and Associates (Dabro) who are a specialist in leisure and licensed property. This was also informed by a range of comparable pub sales, though additional supporting information in this regard is basic. Colliers reviewed both submissions and advised that neither report provided a sufficiently clear explanation or robust rationale linking the valuations to the comparables and supporting evidence. I broadly agree with that assessment, as both reports exhibit shortcomings in this respect.

Nevertheless, during the hearing, further discussions took place regarding how the [name] valuation had been derived. These included explanations for price variations, such as the higher-valued example benefitting from 10 acres of land, while those at the lower end of the range were in significantly poorer condition than the appeal property. In this context, the appellant’s valuer acknowledged that each public house is unique and that direct comparisons can therefore be challenging in a fluid market. It was emphasised that their day-to-day understanding of the local market forms part of the overall picture when arriving at such valuations.

While limited, the evidence provided does not clearly show that the appeal property’s valuation is an anomaly within the overall comparable range of prices identified by [name] or Dabro. As such, notwithstanding the identified shortcomings in the valuation evidence, the pricing does not appear to be unreasonable.

The Colliers report does not amount to a formal valuation, and they were not able to provide a figure at the hearing. They do advise though that the current guide price may sit slightly above a reasonable range. Nevertheless, it has been suggested that a guide price at the valuation level would not necessarily deter offers and interested parties could submit lower bids for consideration. This is a reasonable assumption. In this regard, even where the property has been marketed at its current price point, there is nothing to indicate that offers at a level more closely aligned with the Dabro valuation could not have been made and considered.

Additionally, given the amount of time the appeal property has been on the market, albeit at a previously higher price, where knowledge of its ongoing availability by interested parties is likely, I agree that its guide price has not been fundamental to the marketing success or otherwise. As a point of note, it was clarified that a much higher listing price online was an archive from 2022, which is unlikely to have affected proceedings.

The pricing strategy appears to have remained unchanged for some time, which weighs against the proposal. Additionally, it is claimed the appellant has shown little willingness to sell to the local community. Moreover, press articles are said to focus on the more negative historic struggles of the business. This, together with social media statements from the appellant relating to the unlikely future opening of the pub, could, to some modest extent, have discouraged prospective purchasers. There is however little substantive evidence that the marketing campaign has been disingenuous or that these matters have directly resulted in a lack of sale. In any event, and crucially, no firm offers have been made for the property, including from the Shipton Community Pub Limited group, despite their pledges and stated long-term interest.

I am mindful of the support provided within the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) for valued social and community facilities, which guards against their unnecessary loss, particularly where this would reduce the community’s ability to meet its day-to-day needs. The loss of the pub would undoubtedly have an impact on the community. That said, although the nearby social club does not provide an identical service, the evidence shows that it has long been a part of the local community, and appears to offer a welcoming alternative to the pub. This, together with a village centre building and its advertised community events, adds to my view that this aspect of the community’s day-to-day needs and rural sustainability would largely remain in the event the appeal is allowed. Moreover, my conclusions above mean that the loss would not be regarded as ‘unnecessary in the terms set out in the Framework.

Drawing these matters together, while the level of local support for its retention may be extensive and heartfelt, the marketing efforts, taken together with the absence of firm offers reasonably demonstrates that the pub is no longer required as a community facility. I therefore conclude that the loss of the public house would be acceptable having regard to the development plan. As such, there would be no conflict with LP Policy COM14.

Interested parties - I have paid very careful regard to the submitted comments and those presented at the hearing, including the contribution the pub is said to have made to the social and architectural cohesion of the village. While the permanent loss of a long-established facility may be upsetting for some local residents, having had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty set out under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, I have not been provided with any credible evidence that their mental health would be so affected. As such, I am satisfied that the impact of allowing the appeal is proportionate and necessary.

Reference is made to the [name] and [name] which is said to further emphasise the importance of safeguarding valued community assets and enabling community ownership. There is however little to show this would prevent the appeal from being allowed.

Comments made in respect of a precedent for other pub closures or what may become of the adjacent land are noted. However, this has no bearing on the appeal outcome which is based on its individual merits.

There are concerns that the existing water system cannot cope, though the proposal would result in a less intensive use of the site and the Council raises no objection in respect of drainage matters. There is no substantive reason to disagree with the Council here.

Habitats - The proposal falls within the catchment of the [name] sites, namely the [name]; Solent and [name] and Ramsar site; [name] and Ramsar site; and the Solent and [name]. These sites are sensitive to increased nutrient inputs, particularly nitrates arising from wastewater associated with residential development.

Under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, I am required to consider whether the proposal, either alone or in combination with other plans and projects, would be likely to have a significant effect on these designated sites.

The proposal would not result in a net increase in overnight accommodation, as it involves the replacement of an existing residential unit and more intensive public house use within the building to a single dwelling. As such, it would not increase foul water generation or nutrient loading to the Solent catchment.

In the absence of any increase in wastewater flows or credible evidence to the contrary, I am satisfied that the proposal would not give rise to a likely significant effect on the integrity of the aforementioned European sites, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects. Accordingly, an Appropriate Assessment is not required in this case.

Heritage - There are a number of nearby listed buildings including the Church of [name], with its closely associated wall, tombs, and war memorial; as well as The Old School Room built in the 1800’s and [address] dating to the 17th century, opposite the appeal site. All have a significance that is derived from their historic function and architectural detailing. Consequently, there is a statutory duty to pay special regard to the desirability of preserving their setting.

The appeal proposal is separated from some of these church centred buildings by established vegetation. The intervening road, and residential use of the listed buildings opposite means that the overall effect of the scheme, which would make some architectural gains beyond signage losses, would be neutral, and thus preserving. Furthermore, the Council has not raised concerns in this respect. Accordingly, I am satisfied the proposal meets the requirements set out in s.66 (1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (The Act).

The appeal property is a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA) where paragraph 216 of the Framework says the effect of an application on its significance should be taken into account. The loss of the community use and signage weighs against the proposal, though this would be outweighed by the removal of some extensions and provision of timber windows, leading to a more traditional appearance. Overall, the scheme would have a preserving effect on the NDHA.

I have made some amendments and omissions to the Council’s suggested conditions in the interests of clarity, to avoid duplication, and to ensure compliance with the Framework.

In the interests of certainty, I have included a plans condition.

For heritage reasons, a pre-commencement condition requiring a programme of building recording is required, as well as conditions seeking details in respect of external materials, windows, and doors.

The Council’s ecologist and appellant’s EIA recommend biodiversity enhancements in accordance with the Framework. These include the provision of bird boxes/bat tiles which are shown on the plans, and seed planting. Given LP Policy E5 supports biodiversity enhancements where possible, it is reasonable to secure such enhancements by way of conditions. A landscaping condition would be able to secure seeding and any other boundary planting within the appeal site’s red line area. At the hearing, the appellant raised no concerns in respect of this approach. A biodiversity compliance condition for the construction phase and for possible future lighting is also necessary.

To ensure appropriate parking is provided, a condition reserving space for vehicles within and outside the property is reasonably necessary. I have not imposed the suggested condition removing certain permitted development rights as this is repetitious.

In the interests of flood risk, it is necessary to set finished floor levels and ensure compliance with the submitted evacuation plan and risk assessment.

For the reasons given, the appeal is allowed.

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

The development hereby approved shall be implemented in accordance with the following plans: 00-002 Rev P3; 10-001 Rev P6; 10-200 Rev P5; 10-100 Rev P3; and 10-101 Rev P3.

Prior to the commencement of development, a programme of archaeological building recording to be carried out by an appropriate specialist shall be submitted to the local planning authority and approved in writing. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved programme, which shall include timescales for a copy of the record to be deposited with the [name], and a copy provided to the local planning authority.

No development above ground level shall take place until samples and details of the materials to be used in the construction of all external surfaces hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details/samples.

Prior to the installation of the new and replacement external windows and doors hereby permitted, full details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Details to include drawings submitted at a scale of 1:20/1:50. The doors and windows shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the approved details thereafter.

Development shall proceed in accordance with the measures set out in Section 7 'Avoidance, [name] and Mitigation' of the Ecological Impact Assessment ([name], August 2025). No external lighting shall be installed unless details of such lighting have first been submitted to the local planning authority and approved in writing. Any such scheme shall be permanently maintained and retained in accordance with the approved details.

Prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted, a scheme of landscaping shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the dwelling or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species.

Prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted, the bird boxes and bat tiles shown on the submitted plans shall be installed and maintained as such thereafter.

Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted, parking shall be provided for three vehicles in accordance with drawing number 10-100 REV P3, and these spaces shall thereafter be reserved for such purposes at all times.

Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted, the finished floor levels shall be set to no lower than 99.99m AOD. The development shall also proceed in accordance with measures detailed in Section 6 ‘Flood Risk Evacuation Plan’ of the Flood Risk Assessment and Flood Evacuation Plan by Aegaea referenced AEG0490_SP9_Tidworth_07 and dated 06.08.25.