A BID to replace a pub with a shop has been refused by Thurrock Council amid fears Corringham has become a ghost town.

Planning permission was granted to demolish The Old Pompadour in St Johns Way, Corringham, and replace it with flats in 2016.

However, the ground floor space should have been used to replace the pub but the space remains vacant and boarded up and an application to turn it into retail space was submitted.

The council received an objection citing concern about the loss of the potential use as a public house "given the adverse impact it could have upon Corringham town centre".

Lewis Seales, a director of Betty's Bits And Bobs - a general store on St John's Way - said: "From a business point of view I would like the building to return to a public house or some form of bar that would bring trade to the town centre because since covid, Corringham town centre has become a ghost town for small businesses.

"I'm not sure if anyone has done a footfall assessment of Corringham but there's nobody there which is why a lots of shops close on a Monday or Wednesday now. A pub may introduce some people hopefully.

The Old Pompadour was closed and boarded up for several years before being demolished

In what is almost a contradiction of supporting the retention of the premises as a pub, Mr Seales adds: "As an existing business in the town centre we are aware that we are not allowed to take delivery of goods in through the front of our shop. ie no pavement deliveries so all goods must be delivered to the back door of property.

"This building, as I'm aware, has no rear access so would have to take pavement deliveries which is not allowed."

The matter was decided by officer decision after ward councillors declined the opportunity to call in the application for a discussion in front of the planning committee.

Refusing the application, council officers said current council policy "seeks to ensure the delivery of community facilities within the borough in order to address needs and to maintain existing provision.

They said: "Community facilities, such as public houses, contribute towards meeting the varied needs of local people to interact with other members of the community.

"The applicant has not provided evidence to demonstrate that the public house was reasonably and robustly advertised and marketed and is no longer required in this location. The loss of this local amenity would be contrary to policy."

A report on the planned change of use was prepared by planning officer Nadia Houghton who drew comparisons with a long running situation in Grays, where applications to turn the derelict Bricklayers Arms site on Bridge Road into a residential development have been repeatedly refused. The council says it is backed by it corporate strategy policy CSTP10.

The council's decision not to allow that, because the pub retention option had not been pursued by the owners even went to a planning appeal.

However, the council backed the Planning Inspectorate in a decision delivered in July 2017.

The Bricklayers Arms has been closed and shuttered for a decade as Thurrock Council insists it is a viable community asset.

At the appeal and backing the council, the Inspector commented that "whilst the supporting text does not make specific reference to public houses as community facilities, the main parties agree that they could reasonably be said to fall into this category (CSTP10). Given that public houses provide a place for members of the community to interact with each other, I would concur with this view."

The Inspector went on to state that, 'given the general thrust of the Policy CSTP10 is to safeguard existing community facilities, I afford it moderate weight in the consideration of this appeal.'

The appeal was subsequently dismissed on the basis that the appellant had provided insufficient marketing evidence to demonstrate a lack of demand for a public house in the location and to indicate that its continued use as a public house would be unviable. Consequently, the Inspector concluded, the proposal would fail to safeguard and would result in the unnecessary loss of an important community facility.

The same argument has now been argued successfully in Corringham.