I have based this statement around the recent refusal by CDC and the subsequent Inspectors decision of 4th July 2018
Inspectors Comments:The main issue is whether it is demonstrated that the public house, as an Asset of Community Value (ACV), cannot be financially viable in the long term, and if the change of use accords with the provisions of the development plan and national guidance. Saved Policy S29 of the 1996 LP specifies that the loss of existing services which serve the basic needs of the local community will not normally be permitted. This is broadly consistent with the Framework which advises in paragraph 70 in the context of Promoting Healthy Communities, that planning decisions should ‘guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services particularly where this would reduce the community’s ability to meet its day-to-day needs.’ The saved policy should therefore be given significant weight. Nevertheless, in the reasoned justification which accompanies Policy S29 (paragraph 4.72) the Council generally accepts that it will be difficult to resist the loss of such a facility if it is proven to be no longer financially viable in the long term.  ‘Viability’ is not a test put forward in the Framework
The villages basic needs are more than met by the Wykham Arms and the recenty refubished Village Hall.   Although Viability is not a test put forward in the Framework, given the directive by the Planning Inspector the village will have considored their position carefully and we can only assume that they did not trigger the moritorium right to bid  because they did not see the business as viable after all.  The Wkham Arms will benefit in the long term from not having direct competition.  The villagers do not frequent the business premises so there woud be no reduction in the commuities abiity to meet their day to day needs. 
Planning Balance - Inspectors comments
In bringing this conclusion on the main issue into the wider planning balance, the conflict with the development plan suggests that the appeal should not be allowed. However, I have to say that the balance of considerations in favour of the development plan policy is marginal. I have serious concerns about whether there is enough adult population in ‘the Sibfords’ to sustain another pub and also that a move towards a ‘gastro-pub’ may put the appeal site premises in direct competition with the Wykham Arms in Sibford Gower. However, to my mind a critical event in the overall judgement is the designation of the building as an ACV. The appellant recognises that the main purpose of such designation is to allow the community to make a reasonable bid to buy the property if and when it comes onto the market. 
The ACV intention to dispose was notified to CDC on 5th July 2018  ths gave a community interest group,  a Charity or the Parish Council 6 weeks to state their interest, they would then have had further time (up to 6 Months) in which to form a steering group, prepare a business plan, obtain independantvaluations, raise funds and make a bid to acquire the Asset.   See letter of 19th August from CDC stating no such group came forward.

More Inspectors comments
 The representations  indicate clear local tensions between the appellant and his wife and many others in the local community. The allegation that the premises have been boycotted by the locals in the past will not help secure the reinstatement of the pub. Notwithstanding this, I consider that the onus now lies with the local community to demonstrate that the pub can be viable in the long term and make a considered offer to purchase. Further, the scope for such a solution should not be open-ended and the local community should in my view be able to complete this activity within a reasonably short period.
We have dealt with this by notifying CDC of our intention to dispose - there is no question that we complied with legislation in regard to the disposal of an ACV.  The time frame set out by the localism act should be applied and adhered too in this instance.
 
Excerpts from  CDC Officer Report November 2017
The Officer relies on various policies including this one.
Policy BSC 12: Indoor Sport, Recreation and Community Facilities
Policy BSC12 of the CLP 2031 Part 1 does not specifically refer to public houses, however the policy does cover the provision of community facilities and states that the Council will encourage the provision of community facilities to enhance the sustainability of communities and will seek to protect and enhance the quality of existing facilities Improving access to existing facilities. Ensuring that development proposals contribute towards the provision of new or improved facilities where the development would generate a need for sport, recreation and community facilities which cannot be met by existing provision
and 
Policy S29 of the 1996 LP and  Government guidance contained within the NPPF explains that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. This is defined as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.  
and
Paragraph 6 of the Framework sets out the Government’s view of what sustainable development means in practice for the planning system. It is clear from this that sustainability concerns more than just proximity to facilities, it clearly also relates to ensuring the physical and natural environment is conserved and enhanced as well as contributing to building a strong economy and sustainable communities.

Community facilities are more than met elsewhere in the village, apart from the earlier mention of the Wykham Arms,  The Village Hall and its committee are very proactive, they   hosts quizes at least  twice a year.  There is a big screen facility which shows films monthly  along with any high profile sports events.  The Sibford Players put on regular productions .    There is a Mens Breakfast club a Ladies coffee club and a Seniors lunch club.  Both Churches hold social events.  We also have the Millenium Field, a lovely peaceful space in the centre of the village and the large field behind the village Hall for ball games.  Further faciities include an outdoor gym, swimming pool complex offering swimming lessons and a basketball court available at specified times for public use.  A visit to the Sibfords website identifies more than 30 clubs and organisations operating within the Sibfords at exisiting venues.  Ther is also revenue from private hire of the Village Hall contributing to its upkeep.
Paragraph 12 of the NPPF notes that the development plan is the starting point of decision making. Proposed development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved, and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. Cherwell District Council has an up-to-date Local Plan which was adopted on 20th July 2015.
Paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that a presumption of sustainable development should be seen as a golden thread running through decision taking. There are three dimensions to sustainable development, as defined in the NPPF, which require the planning system to perform economic, social and environmental roles. These roles should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system.
The principle of development in this case is clearly dependent on two distinct elements; the principle of residential development on the site and the loss of the public house facilities. The principle of residential development on the site shall be dealt with first.
Cherwell District Council can demonstrate 5.6 years supply of deliverable housing sites, therefore the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as advised by the NPPF, will need to be applied in this context.
I cant really address this apart from to add that, subject to planning permission it provides one or more family homes for the village . 
The principle of residential development in Burdrop is assessed against Policy Villages 1 in the CLP 2031. Burdrop is recognised as a Category A village in the Cherwell Local Plan 2011 – 2031 Part 1, by virtue of its close association Sibford Ferris and Sibford Gower. Within Category A villages residential development is restricted to minor development, infilling and conversions.
There is NO development proposed and we do not seek any changes at all to the visual ammenity.   Burdrop is classified as part of Sibford Gower as in Burdrop with Sibford Gower.
 Saved Policy H21 of the CLP 1996 states that within settlements the conversion of suitable buildings to dwellings will be favourably considered unless conversion to a residential use would be detrimental to the special character and interest of a building of architectural and historic significance. In all instances proposals will be subject to the other policies in this plan.
It was established in September 2011 by British Heritage that the building had  no architectural value.
Whilst the site currently contains ancillary residential accommodation associated with the public house, the proposed development would involve the conversion of the entire public house (A4) (the ground floor) to a private dwelling house (C3). The Pheasant Pluckers Inn is located within the built up limits of Burdrop and therefore in this respect the proposed development is considered to comply with the housing policies of the development plan and is acceptable in this regard, subject to the loss of thevillage service and its acceptability in terms of other material planning considerations.
Turning now to the loss of the public house. Within the NPPF the Government demonstrates the need for supporting both existing and new community facilities within rural areas. It advises that polices should look to support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development; and that there should be support for sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments that benefit businesses in rural areas, communities and visitors, and which respect the character of the countryside. This should also include promotion of the retention and development of local services and community facilities in villages, such as local shops, meeting places, sports venues, cultural buildings, public houses and places of worship (NPPF, Para. 28).
 Further at paragraph 70 of the NPPF that:
To deliver the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services the community needs, planning policies and decisions should:
· plan positively for the provision and use of shared space, community facilities (such as local shops, meeting places, sports venues, cultural buildings, public houses and places of worship) and other local services to enhance the sustainability of communities and residential environments;
· guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services, particularly where this would reduce the community’s ability to meet its dayto-day needs;
· ensure that established shops, facilities and services are able to develop and modernise in a way that is sustainable, and retained for the benefit of the community; and
· ensure an integrated approach to considering the location of housing, economic uses and community facilities and services.
The Government appears to further acknowledge that the loss of public houses/drinking establishments is a growing issue, with recent amendments to the permitted development regime (The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2017) with regard to A4 (Drinking Establishments) and permitted changes under the GPDO; with the only permitted changes of A4 uses, now currently being restricted to A3 (Restaurants and Cafes) or AA (Drinking Establishments with expanded food provision); where previously changes to A1 (Retail) and A2 (Professional and Financial Services) had been considered permitted development, subject to conditions, including that the building was not an ACV.
Policy SLE 3 further looks to support development which enhances tourism opportunities within the district.  
Subject to Planning permission the tourism aspect associated with this property could remain, continuing to bring tourists to the area and the local  facilites would meet their basic needs too.  
Saved Policy S29 of the CLP 1996 covers the loss of existing village services. The policy states that proposals that will involve the loss of existing village services which serve the basic needs of the local community will not normally be permitted. The policy does go on to state, however, that it is also recognised that it will be difficult to resist the loss of such facilities when they are proven to be no longer financially viable in the long term
These Policys however should be disregarded as the village did not take up their option to bid.  I reiterate my earlier point that this may have come about as they were doubtful of the future viability of the Asset and possible affects on the viability of The Wykham Arms and the Villlge Hall.  As previouly addressed all basic day to day needs are met elsewhere within the village.