THE owners of a popular Eden Valley hostelry have decided to launch an appeal against the refusal of permission to retain a covered seating area which the consider 'vital for the continued viability of the pub'.

Anton and Penny Flaherty, owners of the Strickland Arms in Great Strickland, near Penrith, have said they are 'very disappointed' that the bid to retain the canopy at the front of their establishment was knocked back by Westmorland and Furness Council planners.

The appeal is the latest chapter in the couple's long-running effort to gain permission to retain the covered area for beer-garden users, having already reduced the proposed length of the canopy from 6.8 metres to four metres.

The refused application also proposed to cover the canopy in imitation slate rather than polycarbonate sheet in the wake of planning concerns about harmful visual impact.

The previous proposal for the retention of the larger canopy was the subject of an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, which was dismissed.

The delegated report explaining the council's decision says that even with the reduced size of the canopy, it would be ‘incongruous’ and 'overly dominate' the host property.

It says that it is 'unclear' whether the roof could take the weight of imitation slate, and also points out neighbours concerns about the noise from 'late night reveller'.

Regarding viability, it says: "There is no substantive evidence to suggest that removal of the covered area would directly impact on viability.

"It is also worth noting that the public house has an existing beer garden with tables and chairs to the rear of the property, therefore a reasonable and practicable alternative means of outside seating at the premises already exists."

Great Strickland Parish Council has maintained a stance of objection throughout the process.

Mr Flaherty pointed out to the council that he submitted 'highly sensitive' documentation relating to the pub's viability with the application.

He said that the patio area has been in existence for 'quite a few years', and therefore would not affect his neighbours' privacy, and intends to point these two factors out in their appeal.

Mr Flaherty concluded: "I will reiterate that the removal of the patio canopy would be detrimental to our customer expectations, the running and viability of the Strickland Arms."