UPDATE 16th November 2025

​

1. Asset of Community Value.

​

After consideration of the evidence submitted with the community nomination, internal and external consultation responses and the statutory criteria, the Council has determined to accept the community nomination and re-list the Villagers on the Council’s List of Assets of Community Value. The effect of this decision means the Villagers will be re-listed as an asset of community value for five years with effect from 5 November 2025 (expiry date of the current listing). 

 

The Council considers the Villagers continues to satisfy the statutory definition of “land of community value” as set out under section 88(2) of the Localism Act 2011, and the statutory criteria for re-listing. We note the plan submitted with the previous ACV Nomination is incorrect and does not extend to the garden. For the avoidance of doubt the Council’s decision applies to the entire title, which includes the garden. 

 

 

Over the past decade the building has remained unused and has not operated as a public house. Since the pandemic, the needs and preferences of the local community have evolved. There is now a strong and clearly expressed desire for the premises to return to active use as a licensed café, wine bar, community hub, or similar venue, rather than a traditional public house in the historic sense.

We wish to clarify a key point regarding the ACV designation: The purpose of an ACV listing is to preserve the ability of the community to make use of a building or land for community benefit. It does not require that the building must remain in exactly the same use as when it was originally listed. The Localism Act 2011 requires that the asset’s community value is protected, not that a specific, rigid use class (e.g. “a pub and only a pub”) is permanently imposed.

In this case, the continued viability and community benefit of the building would be best served by allowing a modern, flexible hospitality and community use, such as a pub-style licensed café, a wine or coffee bar with food, a mixed-use community hub, or other comparable uses that deliver the same or greater community value.

This flexibility will also ensure that the building becomes a much more viable and sustainable community asset. By allowing a broader range of uses that reflect contemporary community needs and commercial realities, the property stands a far greater chance of returning to active use and thriving long-term, rather than remaining vacant and deteriorating.

​

1. The community’s current and clearly expressed preference for a modern, viable mixed hospitality/community facility;

​

2. The flexibility inherent in the ACV designation, which protects community value rather than enforcing a single historic business model;

​

3. The importance of enabling the building to return to active use after many years of vacancy.

​

_________________________________________________________________________

 

2. Renewed application WA/2024/00149:

a) The High Court has quashed change of use.

The High Court quashed the Council’s earlier decision to permit the same change of use, following a judicial review that found material planning errors on the grounds of the erroneous treatment of Local Plan Policy ICS1.

 

The original Judicial Review was won on the grounds that the Council accepts the allegation in Ground 2(c) of the Claimant’s pre-action letter that the reasoning in the report was not legally adequate in terms of setting out how the applicant consulted with an appropriate range of service providers and the community, where relevant in accordance with Local Plan Policy ICS1. Accordingly, the Council proposes to consent to judgment on that basis so that the matter can be redetermined in a legally compliant way. Costs were awarded against the Council due to their negligence.

There are two other grounds that were argued by the BVS at the High Court and the Council conceded on the second ground:

a) Erroneous Basis for Assessment of Viability.

b) Erroneous treatment of Local Plan Policy ICS1.

 

The renewed application WA/2024/00149 for change of use of The Villagers Public House to residential use and the BVS is still committed to purchasing and operating the premises as a pub/cafe.

This re-application must be assessed in the context of the Council’s previous refusal, the outcome of the High Court’s judicial review, the applicant’s continuing failure to meet enforcement conditions, and the strong local interest in restoring the pub to community use.

Residential development on this site was only permitted on the condition that a functioning public house be delivered, fully fitted out, and operational within six months of works commencing. This has not occurred. No lawful discharge of this condition has been confirmed, and no enforcement has taken place despite repeated calls to do so. To grant change of use now would reward deliberate non-compliance and create a damaging precedent.

 

b) There has been no genuine marketing of the pub/cafe.

The assertion that there has been no interest in running the site as a pub is incorrect. The Blackheath Village Society attempted to purchase the property in 2019 and commissioned both a professional valuation and design work with the full intention of operating it. We were refused any meaningful opportunity to engage, and the site has never been properly or independently marketed as a public house at a fair commercial value.

The Blackheath Village Society has also made clear its interest in purchasing and restoring the premises for genuine community use. To suggest there is no demand is misleading when credible offers have been blocked and no open bidding process has taken place.

 

c) Survey evidence lacks credibility and independence.

The “Statement of Community Involvement” prepared by Cratus and the associated SurveyMonkey questionnaire are not reliable indicators of community sentiment. The survey was designed, distributed and analysed by the applicant or their agents, with no independent oversight, randomisation, or audit trail. The sample size was small (just 40 responses), the recipients were hand-picked by the applicant, and the questions were framed without neutrality.

A survey conducted in this manner—by a party with a clear financial interest in the outcome—should be given little weight in a statutory planning process. If such evidence is to be relied upon, it should be commissioned by a neutral and trusted body such as Waverley Borough Council, the Parish Council, or an external agency agreed upon by all stakeholders.

It is therefore deeply troubling that the Council now appears to be treating this same online poll as valid evidence of consultation. A number of villagers refrained from completing the survey in good faith, having been told it would not be accepted as legitimate. This inconsistency has directly undermined public confidence in both the process and the Council’s impartiality.

SurveyMonkey surveys are inherently open to manipulation and abuse. They can be completed anonymously, multiple times, and even by individuals outside the village or using AI-generated responses. Of the 40 responses (which represents 18% the residents on the electoral roll in Blackheath), 42% were anonymous.  Of the 23 residents who provide their names and filled out the form answered the question “How did the pub in Blackheath effect you day to day life” negatively was 30%. Therefore less than three households in Blackheath feel negatively about having a pub in the village.

They provide no assurance of authenticity, provenance, or representativeness. As such, they cannot reasonably be relied upon as evidence of genuine community consultation or engagement.

The planning condition in question required a consultation with the village — not a casual, unverifiable online poll. For this reason, the use of a SurveyMonkey form should be formally rejected as non-compliant and not accepted as having satisfied the condition.

 

d) Viability claims are overstated and dismissive.

The report by Morgan & Clarke dated 2 September 2025 still refers to the Villagers as a destination pub with no car parking facilities. This does not represent the truth as the project has evolved into a licensed cafe/pub with parking and illustrated in the "vision” distributed to residents.

 

The viability rebuttal also raises concerns around objectivity. It does not fully consider realistic alternative business models—such as a café‑led community hub, limited‑hours operation, or a mixed‑use approach—despite these being viable in many comparable rural villages. Its conclusions regarding parking, trade space and local demographics appear overstated and fail to acknowledge the creativity and resilience demonstrated by numerous successful community‑run pubs across Surrey and beyond.

Likewise, the anecdotal letter from a coffee shop operator claiming the site is not viable is of little planning relevance. The viability test is not whether one operator finds it viable—it is whether the use is broadly viable for any reasonably competent operator. In this case, it clearly is.

​

e) The communities ability to purchase and operate the pub/cafe.

There is a willingness to purchase and operate the site as a functioning pub or café-led venue. The community has experience in hospitality, combined with genuine backing, makes this a realistic and deliverable proposal. We have all invested our time and money in a commercial valuation and layout design, and remain open to collaborating with the community to ensure the operation is successful.

This application is a transparent attempt to reverse consent that has already been rightly quashed. The original planning conditions remains unmet. There is no credible evidence that the pub is unviable or unwanted. The applicant’s submissions—whether viability reports or selective surveys—are not neutral or comprehensive. Meanwhile, genuine interest in community-led ownership and operation remains strong.

​

UPDATE 28th May 2025

A decision was made during the Eastern Planning Division Planning Committee meeting on 21 August 2024 to approve Application WA/2024/00149 to allow the Villagers Public House to be converted into a residential unit as part of Queen Victoria Cottage to form one house. This was subsequently overturned at a Judicial Review by the High Court of Justice on 13 February 2025.

 

A recording of the Planning Committee Meeting can be heard on this Youtube link: https://www.youtube.com/live/oHgEyZoLsg0?si=sXZcgeNsBs5bmz3b. Agenda Item 10 (46 minutes into the meeting).

 

During the Planning Committee meeting on 21 August 2024 Councillor Julian Spence stated in connection to Policy ICS1 (second part) “ a developer must provide evidence that they have consulted with an appropriate range of service providers and the community where relevant. Now I can see nothing in your (the planning officers) report or the Morgan & Clarke report, which I read carefully, indicating that there had been that sort of consultation with the community and here in the documents that has not been done and that lack of consultation is the reason I will be rejecting this application”.

 

The many residents in Blackheath Village have been asking for an explanation why Application WA/2024/00149 is being determined for a second time by Waverley Borough Council following the Judicial Review and what quashing of the original decision means. The Blackheath Village Society (BVS) have discussed this with the planning department at Waverley Borough Council (WBC), and can provide the following overview.

 

Following the completion of the Judicial Review, the Planning Consent agreed by WBC to turn the pub/cafe into a residential unit was quashed, which means that the planning permission that was awarded by the Planning Committee no longer applies.

The applicant now has the choice of either withdrawing his application or complying with Policy ICS1, as detailed in the Local Plan. This essentially means that the applicant needs to carry out a detailed survey with the residents of Blackheath Village (including the houses in the woods), to establish if there is any support of not refurbishing the pub/cafe as a community facility and complying with all of the conditions outlined in the original Planning Consent in 2017 (WA/2017/1853).

The deadline for the applicant to provide the information is Sunday 8 June 2025, but this may be extended to give the applicant more time to comply with the requirements of the planning department - https://www.waverley.gov.uk/planning

Any submissions or comments when the original application ( WA/2024/00149) was lodged with Waverley Borough Council will still be taken into consideration if the matter proceeds to the Planning Committee again. The local residents and general public are still entitled to lodge further comments on the planning portal and the BVS will be submitting its comments for the planning officer (Sam Wallis) to consider.  

 

The BVS recognises that this matter has been a protracted process and the change of ownership during this period has hindered progress. We have witnessed small licensed premises/cafes opening up in the local area are operating very successfully, including our own “Pull and Pour” coffee/tea and cake facility in the car park.  We do not want to lose the opportunity of re-opening the Villagers (Volunteer) as this Asset of Community Value, which could be lost forever. We hope that both the community and the owner of the building can accommodate each other for mutual benefit to achieve this goal.

​​​

UPDATE 19th November 2024

​Once the judge grants this formal Order, the planning application can be brought before to the Planning Committee again. We will re-state our objections on a number of additional planning grounds, in particular non-compliance of Condition 2 of the original planning permission (WA/2017/1853), which is subject to a Breach of Condition Notice. 
We still need to raise additional funding for professional fees for a proposed Compulsory Purchase Order and anticipate claiming the balance of our initial fees from Waverley Borough Council, which will be included in the Consent Order. An update is available on the Crowd Funding Page above.
We now have a real prospect to “save our pub/cafe” (which is still listed as an ACV) and remain hopeful that one day The Villagers will re-open for local residents and the wider neighbourhood to enjoy in the future.

​

UPDATE 28th September 2024

The Villagers (Volunteer) Pub/Cafe - Judicial Review Update:

It has now been accepted that Waverley Borough Council committed a legal error when granting the planning permission and so will not oppose the application for a Judicial Review. The next step will be to draw up a Consent Order, which is a precursor for the judge to grant the quashing of the recent grant of planning permission (WA/2024/00149). Thereafter, the issue will be sent back to the Council Planning Department to reconsider their original decision to allow change of use.

The BVS have been encouraged by the level of support we have received since our last update to the Village and particularly to those who have made personal pledges outside of the Crowd Funding initiative. We are continuing with our funding drive until 3 October 2024, as we now have a real prospect to “save our pub/cafe” and we will also be looking into a Compulsory Purchase Order with the Council

​​​​​​

UPDATE 19th September 2024

Planning Permission to convert the public House into residential (WA/2024/00149) has already been issued by the Council and it may only be reconsidered by its planning committee if quashed by the High Court.

 

The Blackheath Village Society have issued a pre-action protocol letter to Waverley Borough Council for judicial review claims. The protocol requires the letter to contain, amongst other things, the date and details of the decision, act or omission being challenged, a clear summary of the facts, the legal basis for the claim and the details of any information that the claimant is seeking and an explanation of why this is considered relevant. 

 

The initial stage of this process, including a pre-action letter will cost £9,000 to cover legal costs and we have instructed Keystone Law to act on our behalf. You can help us by contributing to our dedicated Crowdfunding Page

​

​​​Our main argument is in respect to the non-compliance of strict planning conditions attached to Planning Consent WA/2017/1853, which required the pub/cafe to be renovated in accordance with the proposed plans. Even though a Breach of Condition Notice was issued on 7 November 2021, this was never enforced by the Council. Other concerns include the applicant’s failure to comply with Policy ICS1(3) of the Waverley Local Plan, which mandates consultation with the community and service providers. The attached letter to Waverley Borough Council provides detailed information of the pre-action protocol letter:​​​​​

​

The cost of a Judicial Review to “save our pub”.

 

“Judicial Review (JR) costs are significant and the risks are high.  It is a front-loaded process so the initial stage of assessing the case in forensic detail and developing detailed grounds is absolutely vital.  

 

£4,000-5,000 + VAT is the ball-park sort of cost for this part of the process rising to £7,500 + VAT to include a pre-action letter.  There is no adverse costs risk other than one’s own costs if a claim is not ultimately issued in court.

 

Whole costs for a JR are not insignificant.  Costs would be about £17,500 + VAT up to the point of issuing proceedings, and taking it to the stage of the judge’s order on “permission” (one needs permission from a judge – only an ‘arguable’ case will proceed).  As a guide it would probably cost around £30-40,000 +VAT to take a case all the way through to a court hearing, depending on the seniority of the barrister used.  The court may make a costs award against the losing party too.  This is uncertain but the sums are usually lower than claimant costs because 1) public authority defendant; 2) only one set of costs awarded even if the applicant/ developer is an active ‘interested party’ to proceedings and 2) claimants make most of the running. 

 

Strong cases can end early with a consent order, and substantial costs recovery, but as a general rule of thumb successful parties should never expect to make more than a 50% return on outlay.  Weak cases may end early at permission stage because the judge refuses to grant permission for a full hearing – the total cost of that failure would be nearer £22,500 + VAT, including costs of the other side.”