THE battle to save the Silver Birch Inn from demolition has been lost after a planning inspector granted permission for its destruction and the building of homes in its place.
Despite a campaign in Greatham against the development, independent planning inspector Isobel McCretton decided that there was no justification to prevent the proposals from going ahead - especially as the result of the development would be the reopening of the village's other redundant pub.
As previously reported by The Herald, developers and the brewery which owns the closed pubs sought permission to demolish the Silver Birch and replace it with either 16 or 14 new homes.
Linked to these plans were proposals to build either two or four homes on half of the car park of The Queens.
In return for allowing these applications, the applicants promised to spend up to £175,000 to bring The Queens up to scratch and then reopen it for at least a year, after which its survival will depend on whether it is a commercial success.
Permission to change the use of The Queens into something other than a pub would also not be granted for a five-year period.
However, East Hampshire District Council threw out the applications arguing that the proposed housing was out of keeping with Greatham and expressing the desire that it be the Silver Birch which is reopened instead of The Queens.
This prompted an appeal, meaning that the final decision rested with the planning inspector.
The application for two homes at The Queens was withdrawn but, after a formal two-day planning inquiry, the application for four homes on the site was approved.
This is despite the fact that the four homes constitute a development of 80 dwellings per hectare (dph) - far higher than the 30-50 dph recommended by government guidance.
The inspector also said that the 14-home scheme at the Silver Birch was appropriate but turned down the appeal for 16 homes, including three oast house style buildings as they would "appear incongruous in the street scene and harm the character and appearance of the area".
Her report said: "(The 14-home plans) has a simpler layout reducing the number of building groups to three and there would be only one oast house style building towards the rear of the site.
"Although it is claimed that three-storey development is out of keeping with the area, to me these units are clearly two to two-and-a-half storeys with the upper floor accommodation in the roof space which I consider would not be an obtrusive feature."
She also rejected claims from residents that the four homes at The Queens would be detrimental to Greatham's character and that the pub would lose its viability with reduced car parking provision.
One of the main arguments put forward by residents, councillors and both EHDC and Greatham Parish Council was that the year given to get The Queens going was not enough.
But the inspector again rejected these claims and pointed out that there was also no evidence to suggest that the Silver Birch Inn would be more commercially successful than The Queenss.
"I appreciate that The Queens does not have the potential for the range of facilities or employment opportunities which could, in theory, be offered at the Silver Birch," the inspector said.
"However, the fact is that both premises have now been closed for some time and the proposals before me, in my view, give a realistic possibility of one pub being reopened in the village that would provide a focus for the community.
"Furthermore, even if the Silver Birch were to reopen there is no guarantee that a future operator would provide the facilities sought by local residents."
District and parish councillor Judy Onslow told The Herald that she was "very disappointed" with the inspector's decision, which she pointed out took no account of the fact the Silver Birch had not been comprehensively marketed.
She said:"I felt that it was disappointing and upsetting to hear that the inspector thought the loss of the Silver Birch would not damage the overall character of a small rural village
"It was most unfortunate that she felt that the Queenss development at 80 dwelling per hectare was 'acceptable'
"Equally disappointing is that the lack of marketing of the Silver Birch was not taken into account as it was not 'a going' concern'?"