A GRADE II listed pub which had plans to renovate and extend its site rejected has lost a bid to have the decision overturned. 

The Crown, in Main Road, Wormingford, was looking to improve and develop the restaurant and general facilities along with increased hospitality accommodation.

Plans outlined a new reception area, kitchen, dining room, improved toilets and guest accommodation.

The Crown was once part of Greene King but was sold and purchased by the present tenants, Paul Baker, who runs the pub with partner Sarah, in 2017.

A planning statement said the pub needs “significant investment, which can only be justified if it is allowed to expand, to secure its future”.

It added: “Without significant investment, one of the last remaining community facilities could be lost to the village.”

Last year the pub said it was set to lose a “large proportion” of its income after being told by the council it must tear down a marquee in its grounds.

Gazette: Popular - the marquee was with people wanting to book functionsPopular - the marquee was with people wanting to book functions (Image: The Crown)

Colchester Council rejected the bid due to fears about damage to the historic building.

The expansion plans would have seen an extension to the rear and side with an existing 1950s structure to the west currently housing toilet facilities and garage removed.

Plans also outlined six guest bedrooms in the garden area to the east as well as a new access route into the building via the car park being created.

The council once again rejected the plans due to the extension resulting in “less than substantial harm to the significance of the heritage asset”.

It also said, “insufficient information” was been provided to demonstrate the proposed development would “conserve or enhance the character of the landscape”.

The pub submitted two appeals relating to the planning application and listed building consent.

However, both have been dismissed following the conclusion of the hearing last week.

The inspector concluded the “harm to the heritage asset would not be outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal”.

They added: “In addition, the public benefits would not be of sufficient magnitude to outweigh the harm identified to the character and appearance of the area.”