SELBORNE Parish Council has resolved to challenge East Hampshire District Council’s (EHDC) decision to withdraw asset of community value status from The Queens Hotel.

Supported by the Save The Queens community interest group, the call to fight was almost unanimous as concern was voiced over the findings of EHDC’s review hearing which resulted in the lifting, on May 11, of community value status, paving the way for current owner Derek Warwick Developments (trading a 221 Holdings) to submit a revised application for housing.

Following a debate during last Wednesday’s annual meeting, Selborne Parish Council is to lodge a formal complaint with EHDC over the way the review was conducted and what councillors view as the “unsoundness” of the decision. In addition, it was agreed to seek independent legal advice, to seek advice and help from East Hampshire MP Damian Hinds and, in a clear act of defiance, to submit a new nomination for community value status addressing the issues raised by the review.

While EHDC was of the opinion that Save the Queens supporters had neither the funding nor the experience to ensure the pub could be used “to further the social wellbeing of the community” within the five-year duration of the community value status, the majority of councillors present at the meeting felt this decision was flawed.

Community group chairman Caroline Rye said that despite the fact that it was not compulsory to have such a group, business plan or funding in place in order to receive asset of community value status, the EHDC review appeared to have been based solely on the existence of the Save the Queens campaign group, while ignoring the possibility that others could come forward to buy and run the building as a pub.

She said: “Importantly, and contrary to the (EHDC) reviewer’s belief, The Queens’ planning status is as a pub and is not residential. That was made clear by Selborne Parish Council in its application, in its submission and at the hearing. While the owner may wish to have residential planning status, this has not been granted.

“The decision maker does not mention this and instead relies heavily on an erroneous assumption that the cost of the premises would be at the residential market rate or higher than that of a pub and there would be the added cost of converting it back to a pub. That assumption is deeply flawed. The current value of the premises is as a pub in its present condition and not as a going concern.”

Mrs Rye points out that, contrary to 221 Holding’s assertion, “there has been, and still is, interest in running the property as a pub”.

And she added: “Selborne is one of the major tourist attractions in this part of the South Downs National Park and the idea, suggested by 221 Holdings, that the community should mildly submit to the view, that it has limited potential to support the shops and leisure facilities that allow it to thrive and prosper is not only faulty but underestimates the investment that Selborne makes in its village assets.”

The decision to challenge the result of the review was fuelled not just by what campaigners viewed as an injustice but over the fear that the decision had set a dangerous precedent that would, said Mrs Rye, “make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to list any asset of community value in East Hampshire if it went unchallenged.”