THE last stage of the bitter battle between Lord Suffolk and regulars over the future of the Suffolk Arms at Malmesbury comes to a head next week.
On Tuesday, the Government's planning inspector will decide whether an application by Lord Suffolk to build ten houses can go ahead.
Two subsequent applications from developers Crest Nicholson to build first 15 then 19 two-and-half-storey homes on the pub site, will also be considered.
All the plans have been thrown out by North Wiltshire district councillors, against the advice of their planning officers.
Councillors on the planning committee said the pub was a valued local amenity and should be retained.
But Lord Suffolk and Crest Nicholson appealed against refusal of planning permission.
The pub has been closed and boarded up for almost a year after Lord Suffolk decided the pub was no longer profitable. But angry regulars say the pub was once very popular and blame Lord Suffolk's bad management for its decline over the last five years.
Town councillor Ray Sanderson said: "We will fight to the bitter end to get the pub reopened.
"I am totally against the proposals, we have got to stop what they have done to the town at large."
The pub is the only one to serve the Filands and Reeds Farm areas of Malmesbury.
The nearest other watering hole is a mile trek toward the town centre.
A group of regulars dubbed The Suffolk Arms Freedom Fighters were formed to fight the proposals.
One of the group's founders Mark Jenner said he was confident Lord Suffolk's appeal would be thrown out.
He said: "We are always confident of winning.
"The council has opposed the plans and everybody in the town is against it.
"I think he is confident of it all going through; he has started taking down the signs and everything else but we will push forward as best we can."
It will be a tough decision for the planning inspector.
District council officers have told councillors that there were no planning laws preventing Lord Suffolk from developing the site.
They said the fact it was a popular local amenity was not enough as a reason for refusal.
But neighbours near the site are also worried the development will be too overwhelming for the surrounding area.
Gerry Jones, 75, of William Stumpe's Close, said an independent planning consultant had offered to represent the residents at the appeal hearing.
He said the homes are too high and will look over the gardens and homes in Hanks Close at Reeds Farm.
He said: "We regard the demolition of the pub as little short of vandalism. The plans we regard as excessive and too dense for a dangerous part of
Tetbury Hill.
The plans did not have enough provision for parking and the extra traffic could increase the danger to children walking to Malmesbury Primary School at the bottom of Tetbury Hill.
Apart from Malmesbury Town Council's decision, later overturned, to support the 19-home scheme after objecting to the 15-house plan, there has been concerted opposition to the proposals.
The district council confirmed last week that it had voted to keep the site off the list of areas in Malmesbury likely to be developed in the future.
Planning consultant David Ashley, who has 40 years experience will be representing residents at the planning hearing. He said the three applications had a good chance of being refused.
"I wouldn't do it if I did not think it was a wrong planning appeal. I think there is a strong case for refusal, it is a fairly low medium density building area and this is a very dense scheme," he said.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article