# The New Inn, Main Road, Totton - **Decision:** allowed, 9 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Butcher - **Authority:** New Forest (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6003718 - **Application reference:** 25/10601 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Conversion of public house into 3 dwellings and erection of 2 semi-detached dwellings - **Homes:** 5 - **Site context:** inside-settlement - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HC6(1)(a), HC6(1)(c) - **Development plan policies:** New Forest Local Plan Part 2 2014 DM19, DM2, Local Plan Part 1 2016-2036 ENV1 - **Main issues:** loss of public house, habitats sites - **Tags:** pub-loss, hc6-alternative-provision, hc6-marketing-12-months, community-facility, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary Conversion of the New Inn pub in Totton into three dwellings, plus two new houses. The appeal was allowed. The marketing report covered only 9–10 months, so the inspector held HC6(1)(a) was not met. HC6(1)(c) was met instead, because other pubs and community halls lie within walking distance, and the scheme complied with local policy DM19. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "In the interests of fairness, I provided the main parties with an opportunity to provide comments on the new Framework" (DL ¶3). - **DM19: important local facility?** "public houses cannot be considered to automatically meet that description by default" (DL ¶9). The viability study and marketing showed the pub "has not attracted sufficient custom to enable it to be regarded as an important local facility for some time" (DL ¶10). - **HC6(1)(a): not met.** "given that the presented MR does not cover a twelve month period, I do not find conformity with the stipulation in part 1(a) of the policy" (DL ¶32). The inspector applied the 12 months strictly, to the evidence actually before her. - **HC6(1)(c): met.** "Part 1(c) of the policy provides an alternative route … there are sufficient alternative facilities in the area which ensure that access to such facilities is not diminished. The proposal therefore conforms with Policy HC6 of the Framework" (DL ¶33). ## Planning balance Accordance with the development plan as a whole, with HC6 met through limb (c) (DL ¶34). No S4 balance was set out. ## What made the difference The alternative-provision limb. Without nearby pubs and halls, the short marketing period would have failed HC6. This inspector treated the 12 months as a hard threshold on the evidence submitted. The York inspector (PINS-6011055) treated it as evidential. The difference did not matter here because limb (c) carried the case. ## Transferable points - HC6(1)(a) and (1)(c) are independent routes. Failing the 12-month marketing test is not fatal if alternative provision within walking distance is shown (DL ¶31-33). - Assertions that marketing continued beyond the period covered by the report do not count towards the 12 months (DL ¶32). - Local policies protecting only "important" local facilities let the decision-maker find that a failing pub is not important (DL ¶9-10). ## Policy findings - **HC6(1)(a): fail.** marketing report covered only 9-10 months; appellant's claim of 13+ months not evidenced in the report, so "I do not find conformity" (DL 31-32) - **HC6(1)(c): pass.** Peg and Parrott within reasonable walking distance, town-centre pubs, two community halls; access not diminished, so HC6 met overall (DL 11, 33) - **DM19 (New Forest LP2): accord.** Savills viability study (declining barrelage) plus marketing show the pub was not an "important local facility"; alternatives exist (DL 5-13) - **DM6: neutral.** PD rights not removed because there was no "clear justification" (DL 29) - **HE7: neutral.** pub is a council-identified non-designated heritage asset (rounded gables, window surrounds); minor external changes, no harm to significance (DL 23); code mapped by appeals-nongb - **N6: neutral.** appropriate assessment — UU contributions (air quality £560, recreation £4,995 + £4,535 + £34,110) and nutrient-credit condition accepted by Natural England; no adverse effect on integrity (DL 14-22); code mapped by appeals-nongb ## Key facts - Punch Partnerships pub; barrelage declining for years except 2021 - 12 enquiries, several viewings, no offers for pub or community use in 9-10 months of marketing - Over 100 objections to the loss of the pub - Recreational and air-quality mitigation contributions accepted by Natural England for European sites - Nutrient neutrality secured by condition, backed by a nutrient calculator and credit-provider email (DL 21) - Appellant applied for costs against the council; separate costs decision (DL 2) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6003718 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/875edce6-af4f-4c38-8be2-d64f88c1b043 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/5771dab1-d9d3-4bac-bf59-d1c49d048402 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6003718.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.