Campaigners are claiming victory after controversial plans which would have seen a historic pub lost forever were refused.

Canterbury City Council has snubbed proposals to transform the old Two Doves site in Nunnery Fields into two houses, after receiving more than 100 objections to the scheme from disgruntled locals.

New Inn landlady Katrina Maclean has long hoped to snap up the boozer, having lodged two offers to take the building off owner LJW Developments’ hands.

And in the wake of the local authority’s decision, the publican says she is still interested in taking over the premises - which sold its last pint three years ago.

“The developer is convinced it’ll be far more profitable for the area to put up two houses, but I’m not - I see it as an important part of our history,” Ms Maclean said.

“Just because there are a few other little pubs in the area, doesn’t mean you don’t need a small, talking pub. This side of community life needs to be kept up.

“It’s the people who live there who spearheaded the campaign to keep the Two Doves - they wanted to keep it as theirs. Pubs closing is a disaster for communities in the long term.”

Marketing company Sibley Pares put the old alehouse - thought to have been built in the 1800s - on the market for £425,000 last year.

In a report compiled by Sibley Pares as part of the planning application, it says no offers were received for the property in the 12 months it had been up for sale.

But KentOnline revealed earlier this year that emails showed Ms Maclean made two offers - one for £350,000 two years ago to the firm that originally marketed the site and one of £400,000 in June - for the pub.

And city council officials noted they had “concerns with respect to the marketing exercise”, as they refused the housing scheme last Friday.

“Representations made during the course of the public consultation suggest there was an interest in the site and an offer made,” they explained.

“Details of the offer have been sent through to substantiate the comments submitted.

“The marketing evidence provided fails to reference this offer, at odds with comments submitted during the consultation period of the application.

“It is considered the evidence provided fails to accurately and unambiguously demonstrate there is no need for a pub in this location, or the site could no longer be used for a community purpose.”

The authority also argued the development “would detract from the character and appearance”.

When asked about Ms Maclean’s offer last year, Sibley Pares said it had not met the asking price and that the firm’s requests for proof of funds or finance arrangements were not answered.

Without these, the company said it could not put the bid forward for consideration and, therefore, did not record it.

Responding to the city council’s verdict, Sibley Pares partner Phil Hubbard said: “Our client is obviously disappointed with the decision, especially as we are still not in receipt of a substantiated offer to purchase the property.

“The marketing evidence is not ‘inaccurate or ambiguous’ and our position remains as already advised to you with regards the ‘offer’, which has never been qualified despite our requests.”