THE CHEQUERS

EVERSLEY CROSS, HAMPSHIRE, RG27 0NS

Design, Access, Planning and Sustainability Statement incorporating a Heritage Statement

May 2021

Ref: 558/1000DA rev A

Contents:

1.0 Introduction

2.0 The site and location

3.0 The Existing building, noting listing building and heritage

4.0 The Design Brief & Proposals, noting listed building and heritage

4.1 Amount 4.2 Layout 4.3 Scale 4.4 Landscaping 4.5 Appearance 4.6 Conclusion

5.0 Planning History

6.0 Access Statement

7.0 Planning policy (referenced)

7.1 National Planning Policy Framework 7.2 Hart Borough Council – Local Policies

8.0 Heritage statement of significance.

9.0 Sustainability

1.0 Introduction

This report has been prepared by Keen as Mustard Design Studio in support of an application for listed building and planning permission for the following works:

1. Alterations to existing car park access from Chequers Lane into front car park 2. Extension to the existing paved patio to the main frontage (north elevation)

This statement should be read in conjunction with the following documents:

• 558-1001 Existing Block Plan • 558-1002 Proposed Block Plan

2.0 The Site & location

fig 1

Supplied by Google Earth

CENTRE COORDINATES: 479500,161643

fig 2

Supplied by Streetwise Maps Ltd www.streetwise.net - Licence No: 100047474 The Chequers p/h is located in the vicinity of Gawthorpes Tackshop, and numerous residential dwellings which accommodate separate outhouses and various other ‘storage’ buildings. These all form a group of buildings within a conservation area within Eversley Cross close to the main road B3272 Reading Road. Situated approximately 13miles to the south east of Reading, 9 miles north west of Farnborough and 2 miles to the east of Eversley. Eversley Cross is a village in the eastern corner of the Eversley parish in district of Hart District in Hampshire, England. It is in the civil parish of Eversley. Its nearest town is Yateley, approximately 2 miles south east of the village.

3.0 Existing Building

The Chequers is a Grade II listed building, listed on 26th June 1987, list entry 1092344

The existing public house is circa C17, early C19, and modern. Board-fronted 2-storeyed building of many periods, with an early timber-framed core and a later eastern extension; a long single storeyed stable block has further to the east fig 4 (turning south) and modern flat roofed extensions has been added to the front (north). Red tile roof fig 1. Walling in painted brickwork fig 3, tile-hanging above modern block fig 1, at the rear a small area of timber framing is exposed. The early C19 section shows cambered openings (some blocked).

Fig 1 – north elevation main frontage, existing car park entrance from Eversley direction

Fig 2 – north elevation main frontage showing full extent of existing frontage

Fig 3 – north elevation main frontage taken from Chequers Lane, existing car park entrance from Chequers lane

(supplied by google earth)

Fig 4 – east elevation, existing stable block

(supplied by google earth)

Fig 5 – east elevation, rear car access off Chequers Lanes

(supplied by google earth)

At the rear a small area of timber framing is exposed. The early C19 section shows cambered openings (some blocked). Windows are a mixture of side and top hung timber frames with glazing bar detail. At rear of building is a faceted dark stained timber and glass roof conservatory. Interior has surviving elements of the old timber framework. A relatively modern porch has been added.

The use of the space as a whole will continue to be a public house. The proposed alteration scheme has been designed to improve

4.0 The Design Brief and proposals

The Chequers is a thriving eatery and public house with limited internal and external space. The proposal is to utilise and extend the current paved patio area to the frontage. The use of the space as a whole will continue to be a public house.

4.1 Amount

The hospitality sector has been hit hard over the last 18months with COVID and the restrictions placed. Under current restrictions the premises are currently trading existing external terraces only with internal trade spaces being used towards the end of June albeit at social distanced layouts. As previously mentioned, The Chequers is a quaint traditional public house, with low beams, timber supporting posts and tight trading areas. With reduced covers due to social distancing, the premises will be trading at 35% from its pre-COVID occupancy levels and thus making a very successful pre- COVID business into an unviable business. To kick start the business back to pe-COVID levels and to utilise a section of the car park that is being heavily used as a turning circle, it is proposed to extend the current paved patio area to the frontage and extend this across to the existing grassed beer garden to is adjacent to the main Reading Road.

The amount of new build items/materials that is outlined for the scheme has been kept to a minimal to ensure there is as little impact as possible on the existing layout.

4.2 Layout

The layout of the additional patio is to create a safe link between the current paved patio area and to the existing grassed beer garden. This in turn will block off one of the two front car park access points and stop no customer cars utilising this as a cut through and turning around point.

The Chequers has limited external patio areas, with the main car park be sited to the rear of the site, the majority of customers utilise the small paved patio (fig 7 denoted in blue) and the grassed verge to the frontage albeit navigating across a car park. The proposal is to extend the current formal paved patio area (fig 8 extent of patio extension denoted in green) and create a safe access to the grassed verge to the front of the site without the need to access through the car park.

4.3 Scale

The size and scale of the works to the outside of the property have been carefully taken into consideration. Having been designed to integrate within the existing patio area in finishes with matching paving it is also low level, thus not encroaching on the visual aspect of the existing listed building.

4.4 Landscape

This forms the main proposal of the application. The works proposed are low level patio slabbing to match and extend the existing patio to the frontage. The proposal is to use random sized paving to match the existing hardstanding with a formed kerb edge to also match the existing. The continuation of the finishes along with the gravel verge is very ‘low key’ and will blend within its current setting. The existing car park access will be via Reading Road for the frontage and Chequer’s lane to access the rear car park. The proposals will result in a loss of 5no. car parking spaces, 3no. adjacent to the existing paved patio area (fig 9)

4.5 Appearance

The appearance of the proposed external works is to ‘tie in’ to the existing finishes of similar elements on site. Materials will be carefully chosen to match as near as possible those already used. One of the main factors taken into consideration from the start is that of integrating ‘new’ with ‘existing’ to create unity between items ensuring the overall aesthetics of the building are not lost.

Fig 6 – main front elevation, shows extent of existing paved patio area

Fig 7 – existing site block plan, indicates extent of existing patio area

Fig 8 – proposed site block plan, indicates extent of proposed patio area

Fig 9 – existing car park access to Chequers Lane and 3no. existing car park spaces to be turned into additional patio space

Fig 10 – existing car park access to Chequers Lane and 3no. existing car park spaces to be turned into additional patio space in the background and 2no. spaces to the lost (LHS of white van) in the foreground

Fig 11 – existing Reading Road access from front car park area – view to the West - (supplied by google earth)

Fig 12 – existing Reading Road access from front car park area – view to the East - (supplied by google earth)

Fig 13 – existing Reading Road access from front car park area – general photograph - (supplied by google earth

4.6 Conclusion

The proposal will stop any through traffic to the front of the premises where currently customers have to cross to gain access to the grassed beer garden adjacent to the Reading Road. The creation of an additional seating to external areas gains vital covers to be able to sustain the business and to achieve pre-COVID levels of trade to make this business a viable business. The proposals are sympathetic to the existing listed building and its surrounding landscape. All works proposed have been carefully considered in terms of practicality and aesthetics, enabling the special interest and historical elements of the building to be upheld.

5.0 Planning History

Previous Planning applications as below:

▪ THE CHEQUERS P.H.,READING ROAD,EVERSLEY CROSS FRONT PORCH, REAR SINGLE STOREY EXTENSIONS AND INTERNAL ALTERATIONS

Ref. No: 86/14349/FUL | Status: Refuse Permission

▪ THE CHEQUERS P.H., EVERSLEY CROSS, EVERSLEY. FRONT AND REAR EXTENSION WITH INTERNAL ALTERATIONS.

Ref. No: 87/00437/LBC | Status: GrantPermission

▪ CHEQUERS P.H., EVERSLEY CROSS. FRONT AND REAR EXTENSION WITH INTERNAL ALTERATIONS.

Ref. No: 87/00466/LBC | Status: Refuse Permission

▪ THE CHEQUERS P.H. EVERSLEY CROSS, EVERSLEY ERECTION OF PORCH AND EXTENSION

Ref. No: 87/15458/FUL | Status: GrantPermission

▪ THE CHEQUERS PH READING ROAD EVERSLEY CROSS 10 STATICALLY ILLUMINATED ADVERTISEMENTS AND 1 NON ILLUMINATED FREE STANDING SIGN

Ref. No: 88/16651/ADV | Status: GrantPermission

▪ THE CHEQUERS PUBLIC HOUSE, READING ROAD, EVERSLEY CROSS TWO REPLACEMENT MENU BOXES AND ONE REPLACEMENT LOGO SIGN

Ref. No: 92/00918/LBC | Status: PERLB

▪ THE CHEQUERS P H, EVERSLEY CROSS, EVERSLEY DISPLAY OF ILLUMINATED SIGN BOARDS

Ref. No: 92/22113/ADV | Status: GrantPermission

▪ Marking out of 5 accessible parking places and appropriate signage. Partial resurfacing of car park and formation of drop kerb and access up onto paving at front of property together with internal alterations to provide disability access/faciities to the premises under the Disability Discrimination Act.

Ref. No: 05/02438/FUL | Status: GrantPermission

▪ Marking out five accessible parking places and the appropriate signage. Partial resurfacing of car park and formation of drop kerb and access up onto paving at front of property. Insertion of new door in porch to restaurant area and access ramp up to it. Widening of doorway from porch to restaurant. Formation of accessible toilet in existing toilet area to restaurant. Removal of wooden threshold to entrance door to bar on right hand end of front elevation. Formation of accessible toilet in drinks store and access door from lobby. Ref. No: 05/02441/LBC | Status: PERLB

▪ Erection of shelter with internal heater and lights.

Ref. No: 07/01216/LBC | Status: APPRET

▪ Erection of shelter with internal heater and lights.

Ref. No: 07/01218/FUL | Status: Application Withdrawn

▪ Erection of rear shelter with internal heater and lights.

Ref. No: 07/01690/FUL | Status: APPRET

▪ Erection of rear shelter with internal heater and lights.

Ref. No: 07/01691/LBC | Status: APPRET

▪ Display of: 1 no. internally & externally illuminated post sign 3 no. externally illuminated signs 3 no. non-illuminated post signs 2 no. internally illuminated menu cases 1 no. Lantern.

Ref. No: 11/02476/ADV | Status: GrantPermission

▪ Removal of old signs & display of: 1 no. internally & externally illuminated post sign 3 no. externally illuminated signs 3 no. non-illuminated post signs 2 no. internally illuminated menu cases 1 no. Lantern.

Ref. No: 11/02477/LBC | Status: PERLB

▪ Erection of new 'post and rope' fencing around the patio area to front of building.

Ref. No: 11/02559/FUL | Status: GrantPermission

▪ Re-instate existing internal window openings. Formation of new staff facilities.

Ref. No: 11/02560/LBC | Status: PERLB

▪ Repair work to existing outside brick boundary walls. Installation of new timber gates within area of existing timber fencing. Construction of new external cold store. New high timber fencing. New timber entrance canopy and stone paved walkway to existing rear entrance. Installation of two new interior doors.

Ref. No: 12/01605/FUL | Status: GrantPermission

▪ Repair work to existing outside brick boundary walls. Installation of new timber gates within area of existing timber fencing. Construction of new external cold store. New high timber fencing. New timber entrance canopy and stone paved walkway to existing rear entrance. Installation of two new interior doors. New signs to rear door.

Ref. No: 12/01606/LBC | Status: PERLB ▪ STATIONING A CARAVAN

Ref. No: 65/05675/H | Status: GrantPermission

▪ ERECTION OF ILLUMINATED BARREL SIGN IN PLACE OF EXISTING BARREL SIGN

Ref. No: 57/02502/HA | Status: GrantPermission

▪ ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO CHEQUERS INN

Ref. No: 55/01922/H | Status: GrantPermission

6.0 Access Statement

Existing car parking access to the rear will not be affected. The frontage access still retains and retains within standards correct turning widths for cars to access and egress the front car park via the Reading Road access. As noted earlier in the report, fig 1, shows the existing carpark access has appropriate and within standards visibility splays required (fig 11 view up the west part of Reading Road leading to Bramshill and Fig 12 facing the east direction on Reading Road). The existing disabled car parking spaces will be relabelled to new spaces inline with DDA spacing and requirements. New patio will be laid flush with the existing to form a level access to comply with DDA regulations.

Due to the nature of the works all current internal spaces are retained, the new patio area formed will have a drop kerb access proposed to be designed inline with Building regulations approved Document M.

7.0 Planning policy (referenced)

The Chequers is within the planning administrative area of Hart District Council. In submitting the application, regard has been paid to general policies of the local plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) relating to the development. The following policies have been considered:

It is noted the site is located within the ‘existing settlement boundary’ and within ‘Eversley Cross conservation area’.

Fig 14 – Hart Local Plan: Strategy and site 2016-2032 – sourced from Hart District Council

7.1 National Planning Policy framework (NPPF)

• Proposals affecting the Green Belt – Paragraph 145 sub section B - the provision of appropriate facilities (in connection with the existing use of land or a change of use) for outdoor sport, outdoor recreation, cemeteries and burial grounds and allotments; as long as the facilities preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it; • Proposals affecting the Green Belt – Paragraph 145 sub section C – ‘the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building’ The National Planning Policy Framework Heritage assets and heritage significance Heritage assets comprise ‘a building, monument, site, place, area or landscape identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions, because of its heritage interest’ (the NPPF (2019), Annex 2). Designated heritage assets include World Heritage Sites, Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings, Protected Wreck Sites, Registered Parks and Gardens, Registered Battlefields and Conservation Areas (designated under the relevant legislation; NPPF (2019), Annex 2). The NPPF (2019), Annex 2, states that the significance of a heritage asset may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic. Historic England’s ‘Conservation Principles’ looks at significance as a series of ‘values’ which include ‘evidential’. ‘historical’, ‘aesthetic’ and ‘communal’.

The setting of heritage assets

The ‘setting’ of a heritage asset comprises ‘the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral’ (NPPF (2019), Annex 2). Thus, it is important to note that ‘setting’ is not a heritage asset: it may contribute to the value of a heritage asset.

Guidance on assessing the effects of change upon the setting and significance of heritage assets is provided in ‘Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets’, which has been utilised for the present assessment (see below).

Levels of information to support planning applications

Paragraph 189 of the NPPF (2019) identifies that ‘In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance’.

Designated heritage assets

Paragraph 184 of the NPPF (2019) explains that heritage assets ‘are an irreplaceable resource and should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance’. Paragraph 193 notes that ‘when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance’. Paragraph 194 goes on to note that ‘substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building…should be exceptional and substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance (notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, registered battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites) …should be wholly exceptional’.

Paragraph 196 clarifies that ‘Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use’.

Good Practice Advice 1-3

Historic England has issued three Good Practice Advice notes (‘GPA1-3’) which support the NPPF. The GPAs note that they do not constitute a statement of Government policy, nor do they seek to prescribe a single methodology: their purpose is to assist local authorities, planners, heritage consultants, and other stakeholders in the implementation of policy set out in the NPPF. This report has been produced in the context of this advice, particularly ‘GPA2 – Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment’ and ‘GPA3 – The Setting of Heritage Assets’.

GPA2 - Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment

GPA2 sets out the requirement for assessing ‘heritage significance’ as part of the application process. Paragraph 8 notes ‘understanding the nature of the significance is important to understanding the need for and best means of conservation.’ This includes assessing the extent and level of significance, including the contribution made by its ‘setting’ (see GPA3 below). GPA2 notes that ‘a desk-based assessment will determine, as far as is reasonably possible from existing records, the nature, extent and significance of the historic environment within a specified area, and the impact of the proposed development on the significance of the historic environment, or will identify the need for further evaluation to do so’ (Page 3).

GPA3 – The Setting of Heritage Assets

The NPPF (Annex 2: Glossary) defines the setting of a heritage asset as ‘the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced…’. Step 1 of the settings assessment requires heritage assets which may be affected by development to be identified. Historic England notes that for the purposes of Step 1 this process will comprise heritage assets ‘where that experience is capable of being affected by a proposed development (in any way) …’.

Step 2 of the settings process ‘assess[es] the degree to which these settings and views make a contribution to the significance of the heritage asset(s) or allow significance to be appreciated’, with regard to its physical surrounds; relationship with its surroundings and patterns of use; experiential effects such as noises or smells; and the way views allow the significance of the asset to be appreciated. Step 3 requires ‘assessing the effect of the proposed development on the significance of the asset(s)’ – specifically to ‘assess the effects of the proposed development, whether beneficial or harmful, on the significance or on the ability to appreciate it’, with regard to the location and siting of the development, its form and appearance, its permanence, and wider effects.

Step 4 of GPA3 provides commentary on ‘ways to maximise enhancement and avoid or minimise harm’. It notes (Paragraph 37) that ‘Maximum advantage can be secured if any effects on the significance of a heritage asset arising from development liable to affect its setting are considered from the project’s inception.’ It goes on to note (Paragraph 39) that ‘good design may reduce or remove the harm, or provide enhancement’.

7.2 Hart Borough Council – Local Policies

GEN 1 General Policy for Development

GEN 1 - PROPOSALS FOR DEVELOPMENT WHICH ACCORD WITH OTHER PROPOSALS OF THIS PLAN WILL BE PERMITTED WHERE THEY: (i) Are in keeping with the local character by virtue of their scale, design, massing, height, prominence, materials, layout, landscaping, siting and density;

(vi) Where the public would reasonably expect to use the building, provide suitable access for people with impaired mobility, including those confined to wheelchairs;

(vii) Have adequate arrangements on site for access, servicing or the parking of vehicles;

(viii) Do not give rise to traffic flows on the surrounding road network, which would cause material detriment to the amenities of nearby properties and settlements or to highway safety;

(ix) Do not create the need for highway improvements which would be detrimental to the character and setting of roads within the conservation areas or rural lanes in the District;

(x) Do not lead to problems further afield by causing heavy traffic to pass through residential areas or settlements, or use unsuitable roads;

GEN 4 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS WILL BE PERMITTED WHERE THEY SUSTAIN OR IMPROVE THE URBAN DESIGN QUALITIES OF TOWNS, VILLAGES AND OTHER SETTLEMENTS WHICH DERIVE FROM THEIR LAYOUT AND FORM, SCALE, CHARACTER OR APPEARANCE, SPECIAL FEATURES, OR THE ARRANGEMENT, SCALE AND DESIGN OF BUILDINGS AND SPACES.

CON 13 Conservation Areas – general policy

CON 13 PROPOSALS FOR DEVELOPMENT WHICH FAIL TO MEET THE OBJECTIVES OF CONSERVING OR ENHANCING THE CHARACTER OR APPEARANCE OF A DESIGNATED CONSERVATION AREA WILL NOT BE PERMITTED.

(i) The use of the local building style, traditional scale and materials and special architectural detailing appropriate to the setting of the site;

ii) The retention and management of beneficial landscape and townscape features including the protection and retention of buildings of local architectural or historic merit, important gaps, views, trees, boundary treatments and open spaces;

v) The use of boundary treatments which in terms of materials, colour, massing and species are sympathetic to the character and appearance of the conservation area;

CON 17 Listed Buildings and Buildings of Local Interest – extension or alteration

CON 17 PROPOSALS FOR THE EXTENSION OR ALTERATION OF LISTED BUILDINGS OR BUILDINGS OF LOCAL INTEREST, WILL NOT BE PERMITTED UNLESS:

The scale of the building is not materially changed;

(ii) Design is appropriate to the character and setting of the building.

8.0 Heritage statement of significance.

The NPPF provides a definition of ‘significance’ for heritage policy (Annex 2). This states that heritage significance comprises ‘The value of a heritage asset to this and future generations because of its heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic or historic’. This also clarifies that for World Heritage Sites ‘the cultural value described within each site’s Statement of Outstanding Universal Value forms part of its significance’. Regarding ‘levels’ of significance the NPPF (2019) provides a distinction between: designated heritage assets of the highest significance; designated heritage assets not of the highest significance; and non-designated heritage assets. Historic England’s ‘Conservation Principles’ expresses ‘heritage significance’ as comprising a combination of one or more of: evidential value; historical value; aesthetic value; and communal value:

• Evidential value – the elements of a historic asset that can provide evidence about past human activity, including physical remains, historic fabric, documentary/pictorial records. This evidence can provide information on the origin of the asset, what it was used for, and how it changed over time.

• Historical value (illustrative) – how a historic asset may illustrate its past life, including changing uses of the asset over time.

• Historical value (associative) – how a historic asset may be associated with a notable family, person, event, or moment, including changing uses of the asset over time.

• Aesthetic value – the way in which people draw sensory and intellectual stimulation from a historic asset. This may include its form, external appearance, and its setting, and may change over time.

• Communal value – the meaning of a historic asset to the people who relate to it. This may be a collective experience, or a memory, and can be commemorative or symbolic to individuals or groups, such as memorable events, attitudes, and periods of history. This includes social values, which relates to the role of the historic asset as a place of social interactive, distinctiveness, coherence, economic, or spiritual / religious value.

Effects upon heritage assets

Heritage benefit

The NPPF clarifies that change in the setting of heritage assets may lead to heritage benefit. Paragraph 200 of the NPPF (2019) notes that ‘Local planning authorities should look for opportunities for new development within Conservation Areas and World Heritage Sites, and within the setting of heritage assets, to enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to the asset (or which better reveal its significance) should be treated favourably’.

GPA3 notes that ‘good design may reduce or remove the harm, or provide enhancement’ (Paragraph 28). Historic England’s ‘Conservation Principles’ states that ‘Change to a significant place is inevitable, if only as a result of the passage of time, but can be neutral or beneficial in its effects on heritage values. It is only harmful if (and to the extent that) significance is reduced’ (Paragraph 84).

Specific heritage benefits may be presented through activities such as repair or restoration, as set out in Conservation Principles.

Heritage harm to designated heritage assets The NPPF (2019) does not define what constitutes ‘substantial harm’. The High Court of Justice does provide a definition of this level of harm, as set out by Mr Justice Jay in Bedford Borough Council v SoS for CLG and Nuon UK Ltd. Paragraph 25 clarifies that, with regard to ‘substantial harm’: ‘Plainly in the context of physical harm, this would apply in the case of demolition or destruction, being a case of total loss. It would also apply to a case of serious damage to the structure of the building. In the context of non-physical or indirect harm, the yardstick was effectively the same. One was looking for an impact which would have such a serious impact on the significance of the asset that its significance was either vitiated altogether or very much reduced’.

Effects upon non-designated heritage assets

The NPPF (2019) paragraph 197 guides that ‘The effect of an application on the significance of a non- designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non designated heritage assets, a balanced judgment will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset’.

9.0 Sustainability

The site is currently open to trade (subject to current COIVD 19 restrictions) and operated by The Peach Pub co. The proposed works as outlined within this Heritage, Design and Access document have been proposed taking on board the site’s listed architectural merit along with being located with a Green Belt and conservation area and the current restrictions the site has. It is believed the proposals have taken on board the operational issues and are designed sympathetically to utilise and re-organise the current footprint of the external space.

The Peach Pub co have been successfully operating The Chequers p/h since 2013 with improving results year on year. The existing internal spaces of the public house have many operational challenges and is seen the external space been an area of growth and sustainability for The Chequers and the business.