Once again the developer has that submitted plans which will see the listed Royal Oak pub in Frindsbury partially demolished and new houses cramped round it. They give no detail of how the conversion will protect the beams from HMS Royal Oak or other historical features. “The campaign has had several people approach it looking to reopen the pub, but reopening has no chance while the developer wants over £500,000 plus VAT for a site he paid half that for. The application doesn't event attempt to say that this asset of community value isn't viable. It is very important that as many people as possible object so that these plans are rejected and the developer will consider selling to the community at a reasonable price. So far only nine of you have objected so we desperately need you to object to both the planning application ref No: MC/17/0278 and the listed building consent ref Ref. No: MC/17/0193. You can say you're objecting to both in one response. A great quote to use is from a planning inspector in Appeals A: APP/X0415/C/15/3130705 & 3131920 The White Lion, Jenkins Lane, St Leonards, Buckinghamshire HP23 6NW: The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development to which, the NPPF says, there are three dimensions: economic, social and environmental. Taking the environmental role first, the proposed use as a dwellinghouse would fail to preserve the special interest of the listed building; a designated heritage asset. In terms of the social role the loss of the valued community facility provided by the public house or, in the alternative, another community use would not foster social interaction or promote a healthy inclusive community.The loss would result in some loss of local employment which would not support the local economy but that loss would be likely to be minimal The loss of the property in providing a community facility for the area is contrary to the provisions of the Development Plan and the NPPF in the absence of a clear finding that the existing use is not viable and in the absence of evidence to demonstrate that the building is not required for any alternative community use. In these circumstances there are no public benefits to outweigh the harm to the designated heritage asset. I will share my full objection shortly. Thanks as ever Joe.