Marketing evidence for the loss of a public house

A pub is sui generis, so any change of use needs planning permission and so does demolition. That means the public house marketing evidence you assemble is the application, in practice, because most local plan policies will only allow the loss of a pub where you can show it is no longer viable and that it has been properly marketed as a pub. Weak marketing evidence is the single most common reason these applications are refused.

Why pubs attract specific policy protection

Permitted development rights for the change of use and demolition of drinking establishments were removed in 2017, and from 1 September 2020 drinking establishments sit outside the use classes altogether as sui generis. Anything you want to do with the building, other than continue using it as a pub, needs an application.

The national position supports retaining community facilities, and the current National Planning Policy Framework, the August 2026 edition, expects decisions to guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services. Local plans then add the detail, and that detail is where the real tests sit. Most policies require evidence on three fronts: that the pub is not viable, that it has been marketed for a stated period on reasonable terms, and that there is no realistic prospect of a community or alternative operator taking it on.

Read your own local plan policy and any supplementary guidance before spending money on marketing, because the period and the terms required vary between authorities and marketing done on the wrong basis cannot be retrofitted.

Marketing period, price and terms expected

Local policies commonly specify a continuous marketing period of somewhere between six and 24 months. Twelve months is the most common figure, and some authorities require the marketing to have taken place while the pub was trading rather than after closure.

What makes marketing evidence credible is that the terms would attract a pub operator.

• The asking price or rent reflects the property's value as a public house, not its value as a residential development site.
• The property is offered both freehold and leasehold, because many operators take leases rather than buy.
• A specialist licensed trade agent is instructed, in addition to any local commercial agent.
• Advertising reaches the licensed trade press and the trade websites, not only a local board and a high street window.
• The premises are presented in a lettable condition, with the fixtures in place.
• The marketing is continuous, with no gaps, and the gaps are explained where they exist.

Keep the evidence as it accrues. The agent's report at the end should include the particulars as issued, the advertising schedule with dates, a log of every enquiry and viewing, and a note of why each enquiry did not proceed. A closing summary saying there was limited interest, with no underlying record, carries very little weight at appeal.

Trading accounts and the viability case

The viability case needs three years of accounts, and officers who deal with pub applications regularly know how to read them.

Set out turnover split between wet sales, food and accommodation, the gross margin on each, staff costs, rent or mortgage service, repairs and the barrelage. Then explain the trend. A pub losing money because of a general decline in trade is a different case from one losing money because it has been run badly, closed for eighteen months, or burdened with rent set when the market was stronger.

The tie is the point most applicants fail to address. Where the pub has operated under a tied tenancy, the wholesale prices paid for beer and the rent payable are not the prices a free-of-tie operator would pay, so trading losses under a tie are not evidence that the pub itself is unviable. The Pubs Code regime and the market rent only option exist precisely because that distinction matters. An officer or an inspector who spots an untied comparison missing from the accounts will treat the whole viability case as incomplete.

Where the case moves into land value and alternative use value, the method matters. A residual appraisal comparing the pub's existing use value with its value as housing is a legitimate exercise, and the approach set out in residual valuation against comparable land transactions applies. But existing use value is not the test on its own: the policy test is viability as a pub, and a higher alternative use value is not a reason to permit the loss. Where a formal Viability Assessment is submitted, say clearly which question it answers.

Community interest and asset registration

Registration as an asset of community value under Part 5 of the Localism Act 2011 changes the process and is a material consideration in the planning decision.

Listing does not prevent a sale or a change of use. What it does is trigger a moratorium when the owner wants to dispose of the asset, giving a community group an initial window to express interest and then a longer window to prepare a bid, within an overall protected period. The group has no right to buy at the end of it, and the owner is free to sell to anyone once the moratorium expires.

For a planning application, two consequences follow. A listed pub signals an active community interest that the officer will test against your marketing evidence. And a community group that made an offer which you declined, on price or on terms, puts your marketing case under real scrutiny.

Engage early. A Statement of Community Involvement that records genuine engagement, including any approach from a community group and what happened to it, is better than being presented with that history by an objector.

Alternative community uses

Where straight retention as a pub cannot be shown to work, the next question is whether a modified or mixed use can.

Enabling development is the pragmatic answer on many sites. Converting the car park or the upper floors, with a tied obligation keeping the ground floor in pub use for a defined period, gives the authority the retention it wants and gives you a return. Expect the obligation to run for a long period and to restrict the use tightly.

Evidence that fails

Five patterns recur in refusals and dismissed appeals.

Marketing at a price set by reference to residential development value, which no operator will pay.

A short marketing period, or one that started after the pub had already been closed and stripped out, so a buyer would face a full refit.

Accounts covering a period of closure or mismanagement, presented as evidence of structural unviability.

No specialist trade agent and no trade press advertising, so the marketing never reached the market that matters.

Declining a community offer and then relying on an absence of interest.

Structuring the submission

Put the marketing and viability evidence at the front, not in an appendix, because that is what the application turns on.

1. A Planning Statement setting out the local plan policy tests and answering each in turn.
2. A marketing report from the instructed agents, with particulars, dates, enquiry log and outcomes.
3. Three years of trading accounts with an untied comparison where the pub has been tied.
4. A note on the building's condition and the cost of returning it to trading use.
5. A record of community engagement, including any approach from a community group.
6. Where enabling development is proposed, the heads of terms for the obligation retaining the pub use.

The honest uncertainty is how much marketing is enough. Policies set periods, but inspectors look at quality as much as duration, and a thorough six months on correct terms can read better than a nominal two years on the wrong ones.

This is general guidance, not legal advice. Check your local plan policy and take advice from a qualified professional and your local planning authority before relying on it. PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.