Victory in campaign to stop historic pub becoming house

Published on Tuesday 28 July 2009 21:49

PEOPLE in a scattered rural community are celebrating after winning a vital planning battle in their long campaign to buy a historic pub.

The campaigners in Midmar, Aberdeenshire, were toasting their success after a Scottish Government planning reporter ruled that the century-old hostelry at the heart of their community cannot be developed as a private home.

But they must now wait to find out whether David Cooper, the landlord of the Midmar Inn, near Echt, will put the pub on the open market. He has previously vowed that the inn will never be put up for sale as long as he is alive.

The ruling marks the latest chapter in a bitter feud between the residents of Midmar and Mr Cooper that began when he shut the doors of the pub two years ago.

Last July an action group, the Friends of Midmar Inn, secured the right to buy the inn should it come on to the open market, under the Scottish Government's right-to-buy legislation.

Mr Cooper then submitted a planning application to Aberdeenshire Council to turn the pub into his family home.

The application was refused because it would lead to the loss of an employment site. And Mr Cooper's appeal against the decision has now been rejected by Michael Shiel, a Scottish Government planning reporter.

Margot Kennedy, a spokeswoman for the action group, said yesterday: "This is a significant victory for the group. What this means is that the owners cannot remove the status of pub from the property and can't take the pub buildings and incorporate them into one very large house.

"But what it doesn't do is make them sell the pub to us. The next move lies with them."

In the appeal, Mr Cooper's agents said it had proved "impossible" to run the inn as a viable business. The appeal continued: "It must also be emphasised that, had the appellants taken a proper wage from the business, the losses would have been significantly greater.

"In this context, it has simply not been possible to justify the expenditure necessary to bring the property up to an acceptable standard.

"As a consequence, the appellants had little alternative but to close the business in September 2007.

"The appellants are not responsible for providing a public service and receive no subsidy to justify doing so."