Pub demolition plans refused
Plans to demolish a village pub for housing have been refused.
Developers wanted to knock down the Plough Inn, in Weston Rhyn, and build four terraced homes in its place.
But Shropshire Council planners have now ruled that the loss of the pub to the community cannot be justified.
They also said there was no need for extra housing in the village, and that the building itself was considered a heritage asset which should be preserved.
A report by planning officer Sara Robinson says four members of the public objected to the plans, describing the pub as a “second home”.
Conservation officers also objected, highlighting council policies which stipulate that proposals which “are likely to have an adverse effect on the significance of non-designated heritage assets” should only be approved if it can be “clearly demonstrated that the public benefits of the proposal outweigh the adverse impact”. They added that “in this case that harm would be substantial as it will lead to total loss”.
While the parish council did not formally object, it said it “does regret the loss of such a community asset”.
Ms Robinson’s report says: “Concerns have been raised by members of the public regarding the loss of a community facility where very few public amenities and facilities remain.
“No supporting information has been provided to demonstrate whether the existing facility, service or amenity is not viable over the long term.
“It is considered that the proposed development would result in the loss of the last remaining public house within Weston Rhyn and the proposal would therefore be contrary to policy.”
The report says there has been no evidence provided as to why, if it was no longer viable as a pub, the building could not be converted instead of demolished.
It also says that local housing targets have been “surpassed” and there is therefore “no expectation that there would be a need to allow new housing development to meet the housing guidelines”.
Ms Robinson adds: “It is also considered that the proposed development would be contrary to policy in that the proposed development would result in the loss of a community facility without sufficient justification.”
