Cross Gaits Inn appeal wins after new viability evidence changes the case

The Cross Gaits Inn appeal has succeeded at the second attempt after the owner supplied the detailed viability evidence missing from the first case.

Inspector Sarah Manchester allowed planning and listed building appeals on 2nd October 2026, permitting the Grade II listed pub on Beverley Road, outside Blacko in Lancashire, to become one dwelling. Earlier appeals were dismissed on 2nd December 2025.

The change was substantial: a new marketing and viability assessment addressed the earlier evidential gap, while a proposed additional house on the car park was dropped. The Inspector still recognised harm from losing the pub’s historic community role, but found the conservation and reuse benefits outweighed it.

Why the first Cross Gaits Inn appeal failed

The pub stopped trading in January 2023 and was registered as an Asset of Community Value that month. John Kay bought it in March 2023 for £405,000.

Previously owned by Admiral Taverns, it had been operated by successive tenants paying below-market rent. Weak food and drink sales, insufficient returns and the investment needed were behind the brewery’s decision to sell.

The previous Inspector accepted that rural pub viability faces pressures from energy bills, rates, changing leisure habits, a restricted customer base and limited passing trade. But accepting that a pub might be unviable is different from having sufficient evidence to demonstrate it.

No detailed viability appraisal had adequately established that position. The earlier planning and listed building appeals, APP/E2340/W/25/3368853 and APP/E2340/Y/25/3368857, failed on 2nd December 2025. The latest decision describes them as November decisions, but the original decision gives the December date. Inadequate evidence of appropriate marketing was also part of that failure. They also included a new dwelling on the car park, which is not part of the scheme now allowed.

New evidence changed the viability case

The latest Cross Gaits Inn appeal decision, covering 6007704 and 6007757, considered a Brent Forbes marketing and viability report dated August 2025. It considered historic trading, competition, location, building condition, repairs, refurbishment, operating costs and likely income.

Its conclusion was that limited trade, an unsuitable layout and essential repair costs prevented viable pub trading.

Pendle initially questioned the valuation and whether the refurbishment specification exceeded what reopening required. It also considered that a more modest scheme or community ownership might work.

By the appeal, however, the council did not dispute the marketing and viability report or the refurbishment quote. It accepted that the existing use was no longer viable and could not reasonably be made viable for Policy DM35 of its adopted Local Plan.

That policy offers alternative routes to justify losing a community facility. Meeting its viability route was sufficient; the applicant did not also have to demonstrate an absence of demand. Community support clearly remained.

How marketing affected the Cross Gaits Inn appeal

The Inn was first marketed in November 2023 at £595,000. The Inspector noted that this exceeded the purchase price and that the basis for the higher valuation had not been demonstrated.

However, marketing had been nearly continuous, latterly inviting substantial or reasonable offers. Early restaurant or venue interest had not progressed because of remoteness and refurbishment costs.

The community group alleged that an anonymous prospective operator had been told offers below £500,000 would not be considered. The appellant disputed that account, and neither the agent nor the prospective operator confirmed it.

Pendle raised no concern about the marketing’s appropriateness, and the Inspector found no reason to disagree. For me, this illustrates why the full marketing record matters: asking prices, changes, enquiries, offers and reasons for lost interest all help test the claim.

The community bid in the Cross Gaits Inn appeal

Cross Gaits Community Pub Group supplied a RICS valuation, an updated May 2026 business plan, a community survey and spending analysis. Its funding proposal combined community shares, grants and a loan.

The Inspector acknowledged its work and desire to restore the facility. Community ownership was considered seriously, rather than dismissed because the existing commercial operation had struggled.

But the proposed £225,000 purchase price was below even the lowest RICS valuation of £295,000. That report suggested an achievable price might be nearer £350,000.

The group budgeted £430,000 for refurbishment. Without detailed quotes or costings, the Inspector was not satisfied that this was robust against the appellant’s £610,800 quote, which Pendle did not dispute.

Its projected £277,000 turnover fell within the survey’s estimated annual spending range, but there were inconsistencies between projections. The assumptions also included first-year rent and profitability despite the valuation report identifying a likely rent-free period and a business restarting from a nil base.

Funding was not secured, no tenant had been appointed and the experience of the proposed operator remained unclear. The suggested dog-walking income also lacked sufficient detail about setup costs, operation and planning permission.

Sarah Manchester found “considerable uncertainty around the capital requirement and funding”. The issue was whether this particular rescue proposal provided compelling evidence of a realistic alternative.

ACV status did not settle the appeal

The Cross Gaits Inn appeal shows that Asset of Community Value status and strong local demand remain relevant, but neither answered the viability question on these facts.

The Inspector recognised that community pubs succeed elsewhere. She found insufficient evidence that those examples were comparable in location, accessibility, condition and the costs of repairing this listed building.

For community groups, a credible acquisition price, costed works, deliverable funding and experienced operator can make the difference between an aspiration and an evidenced business case.

Losing the historic pub use still caused heritage harm

The eighteenth-century Grade II listed Inn carries an AD 1736 datestone. Its significance includes its coursed rubble construction, stone slate roof, historic fabric, vernacular form, surviving features and evidence of an earlier residential use.

Its long pub history and communal role also mattered. Keeping the building standing did not remove the harm caused by losing the ability to experience it as a historic public house.

The conversion would retain much of the building and its surviving features, with limited internal alterations and like-for-like repairs. Removing unsympathetic later extensions would better reveal the historic building.

Nevertheless, the loss of historic and communal value carried considerable importance and weight. The Inspector considered the statutory duties under sections 16(2) and 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

What the August 2026 NPPF changed

The revised Framework was published on 17th August 2026, after the hearing. The parties were invited to comment before the decision.

The superseded paragraph 215 referred to weighing less than substantial heritage harm against public benefits, including securing the optimum viable use where appropriate.

Policy HE6 now requires harm to be weighed against public benefits and expressly identifies long-term reuse of vacant or underused listed buildings as an important potential benefit. The express reference to optimum viable use has gone.

That wording change does not remove statutory heritage duties or make the suitability of a use irrelevant. HE4 still seeks a use consistent with conservation, while HE6 gives substantial weight to conservation and considerable importance and weight to harm.

Here, the Inn had been empty for well over three years and was deteriorating. Sensitive repair, long-term conservation, removal of later extensions, one dwelling, construction activity and future household spending collectively outweighed the harm.

The practical lesson from the Cross Gaits Inn appeal

The central lesson for a planning appeal is to fix the weakness identified in the earlier decision. A repeat appeal needs evidence capable of changing the assessment, not simply a more forceful repetition of the same argument.

In this case that meant testing both conventional pub viability and the community alternative, alongside a heritage assessment that recognised the significance of the historic use.

Both permissions are conditional. Detailed repair methods, windows and doors, building recording and protection of surviving historic features must be addressed. Success on change of use is not unrestricted approval for alterations.

A separate costs decision awarded only the planning appeal costs attributable to marketing and viability. The listed building costs application failed: the council was entitled to assess heritage harm and the weight of benefits differently.

We can help with the planning strategy and coordinate the appropriate heritage and viability specialists. The Cross Gaits Inn appeal is a useful reminder that a convincing case connects the policy tests to evidence that can withstand scrutiny.