A MULTI-millionaire internet pioneer looks set to win a long-running battle with villagers over his plan to permanently close a historic pub, despite it having been recognised as an asset of community value.

North York Moors National Park Authority’s planning committee has been warned by planning officers it would be difficult to justify rejecting the latest proposals for the 238-year-old Plough Inn, at Fadmoor, near Helmsley, which is owned by Peter Wilkinson, who has a reported £390m fortune.

Since Mr Wilkinson closed the pub, which featured in the Michelin Guide, in 2011 citing a lack of trade, he has faced vociferous local opposition to schemes to find new uses for the building, including the proposal to convert and extend the premises and outbuildings to create two local occupancy homes and four holiday lets being considered next week.

But a group of local residents insist the pub could be turned into a thriving community-run venture, a claim that has been backed by those behind a successful such scheme in Hudswell, near Richmond.

Documents submitted by campaigners opposing the latest plans state that nine years ago the Plough Inn had a waiting list of up to six months for evening dining.

They also highlight that the inn was re-registered as an asset of community value by Ryedale District Council last year.

O

bjectors, Fadmoor residents Jarvis and Dorothy Browning, said they would “like to have our village back as to what it was before and everyone would benefit from it”, and the proposals represented “just another nail in the coffin” for the village.

However, Margaret Smyth, manager of the Royal Oak in nearby Gillamoor, which is also owned by Mr Wilkinson, said it was very unlikely the two villages could support two pubs, and the holiday let and local occupancy homes plan would bring jobs and housing to the local economy.

In their report to next week’s meeting, planning officers said the pub’s closure of the pub may have affected other businesses in the village, but the proposal would provide much-needed local occupancy housing and contribute to the local economy through the holiday lets.

The report concludes with “strong advice” from officers that “a refusal of this application would be difficult to justify”.