THE future of much-loved village pub is safe for now following a campaign to save it from a housing developer.

The Plough Inn closed in 2016 and was bought by Patrick Langdown, director of Dorset Flint and Stone Blocks Limited, with plans to renovate the pub into a five-bedroom home.

Mr Langdown says that the pub had been on the market for over 11 months without any interest in continuing with its current use, and his offer was agreed “with the intention of establishing an alternate use”, but campaign group Plough Ahead felt there is a need for the facility and have drawn up a business plan to save it.

Test Valley Borough Council refused the planning application saying it would “erode the character of this historic village by virtue of the loss of an historic community facility”, and Mr Langdown took his fight to the Planning Inspectorate.

Today (Friday) following a meeting in September inspector Sophie Edward dismissed the case, to the delight of the campaign group.

Chairman of the Longparish Community Association, Andy Joliffe, said: “We are delighted because it is an important and necessary step to keep our hopes. Clearly what happens next will depend on conversations with current owner Mr Langdown.

“The hard work starts now.”

Mr Joliffe added that it was a “comprehensive decision” by Ms Edwards, who said: “…there is no doubt that the Plough Inn is valued by the local community.

“Interested parties have described the use of the premises as being linked to social activities within the village, thereby providing a significant community facility.”

She continued: “There is strong interest locally to retain the appeal property as a community facility. The residents aim to run the premises as a community owned public house with a view to possibly diversify its activities to cater for the specific needs of the inhabitants of Longparish.”

Mr Langdown’s representatives argued that the pub was no longer commercially viable, but Ms Edwards said that “submitted evidence does not adequately show that it is no longer or cannot be made commercially viable”.

“Additionally, no substantial information has been brought to my attention to demonstrate that the property has been marketed for alternative uses,” she added.