Appeal 6001136

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for an award of costs was made by J and [name] and Hyde against the decision of West Suffolk Council and is the subject of a separate

In the intervening period between the refusal of planning permission and the lodging of the appeal, the West Suffolk Local Plan 2024-2041, Adopted 15 July 2025 (“the WSLP”) has replaced Policies DM11, DM12, DM28 and DM33 of the Forest Heath and St Edmundsbury Local Plan Joint Development Management Policies Document, February 2015, that are listed on the decision notice. Accordingly, those superseded policies have no bearing on this appeal.

There is no dispute between the main parties as to the WSLP policies that are relevant to the appeal proposal and the matters in dispute, and therefore I am satisfied that no party would be prejudiced by me taking those policies into account in determining this appeal.

The main issue in this appeal is whether the proposed dwellinghouse use of the buildings is justified by the provisions of WSLP Policy LP16, with particular regard to (i) whether the appellants’ marketing exercise adequately explored alternative uses of the buildings to support the rural economy such that they can be discounted, and (ii) whether the buildings are structurally sound and capable of conversion without the need for extension, significant alteration or reconstruction.

The planning application form describes the current use of the appeal site as amenity land and stables. The buildings date back to the mid-1990s and were reportedly built as domestic stables by the previous owner of the adjacent dwelling ‘Larkspur’ that is now in different ownership. I agree with the appellants that the buildings have the appearance of a residential bungalow and double garage. I am advised that the appeal site lies in the countryside for planning purposes.

Policy LP16 of the recently adopted WSLP sets criteria for the conversion of buildings in the countryside to ensure that those required to support the rural economy are not lost to higher value residential uses. To explore whether a building(s) might be required for the alternative uses specified1 in WSLP Policy LP16, the Policy requires marketing for a minimum of 12 months in accordance with the guidance in [name].

There is no dispute that the buildings have been marketed by a property specialist with a strong local presence for a minimum of 12 months, with part of that period continuing after the refusal of planning permission. [name] of the WSLP strongly advises that the marketing strategy be agreed with the Council in advance, but it is not mandatory. [name] states that the marketing must only be for the lawful use of the property and should not include any other use unrelated to that use, unless for a use which accords with the policies in the development plan, which would reasonably include those uses specified in WSLP Policy LP16.

In this instance, the marketing particulars state “the property currently has consent to be utilised as stables although could potentially be utilised for business use subject to the necessary planning consents”. The newspaper advert refers to it as a “detached stable....offering potential for a variety of uses”. Prints that appear to be from a webpage listing refer to the buildings as “Commercial”.

Although marketed for business use and commercial, and offering a potential for a variety of uses, none of those descriptions have a clear association with tourist accommodation, being one of the specific uses in WSLP Policy LP16 to be explored through marketing. Tourist accommodation would seem to be a residential use for which a number of enquirers expressed an interest in pursuing. [name] can understand the marketing agent being unable to speculate whether enquirers would be successful in obtaining planning consent for a residential use of the appeal property, there is little to indicate that the marketing was clear in making enquirers aware of any potential for tourism accommodation.

[name] requires an asking price to be reasonable with regard to the condition of a building, and it should not include any uplift in value from any potential alternative uses. In this instance the marketing price of the buildings should be based on their lawful use, which the evidence indicates is a stable. To ensure the price is reasonable it may be subject to an independent review.

The appeal property was marketed from August 2024 for a price of ‘offers in excess of’ (OIEO) £400,000. This was reduced to OIEO £350,000 in June 2025. The agent considers the marketing price to be realistic as it would cost significantly more to build the structure that is currently in situ, before any consideration is 1 employment, economic development, tourist accommodation, recreation and community facilities given to the value of the land itself. They consider the buildings to be very good value as constructing them would cost £450,000 plus.

I have significant concerns over the asking price used in the marketing and the terms of OIEO for seeking offers from prospective buyers. The larger of the appeal buildings is a sizeable structure and in my experience its construction is far more substantial than a typical stable building. It has the appearance of a residential bungalow and double garage, and is built like one with brick and blockwork cavity walls and a hipped tiled roof. There are several domestic style windows set in domestic sized openings.

As the building resembles a bungalow it seems to me that the marketing price broadly reflects the build costs of constructing a residential bungalow at current prices. I would expect those build costs exceed those of a typical stable type building and there is nothing of substance to indicate otherwise. Whilst a landowner is at liberty to decide how much they wish to spend on constructing their own stable building there is likely to be a ceiling price for a stable block in the area of the appeal site, irrespective of its specification and build costs.

It is possible that a prospective buyer may be willing to pay a premium to acquire a stable building that exceeds typical standards and specifications. However, as no evidence indicating the market values of stables in the area have been provided, I am unable to compare them to the asking price of the building and determine whether it is reasonable. Accordingly, I cannot be satisfied on the evidence before me that the appeal buildings have been marketed for a reasonable price based on their lawful use.

[name] does not mandate an independent review of the marketing price of a building in all instances. However, as the appeal relates to buildings that are unlike a conventional stable building in terms of their construction and appearance, I consider it necessary, in this instance, for an independent review of the valuation and sale price of the appeal buildings as stables.

The marketing agent advises that the appeal buildings failed to find a buyer because of factors unrelated to the asking price. They consider that reducing the asking price would have made no difference as it would not have affected those reasons. Negative feedback from the parties who viewed the buildings is centred around their construction making it inappropriate for business use, and their location and accessibility, particularly by comparison to properties in [site address] . However, none of those factors leads me to conclude that the appeal buildings were marketed for a reasonable price.

Marketing the buildings as OIEO is an indication to a prospective purchaser that no offer below the price advertised should be made. It is reasonable to suppose that an interested party would be respectful of those terms and would have known that the price to acquire the buildings was not open for downward negotiation. Whilst the terms of OIEO would not prevent offers from being submitted below the marketing price it would likely have deterred them and could have left enquirers to decide whether the buildings were suitable for them based on factors other than price. It seems probable that a strategy setting a guide price or seeking ‘offers in the region of’, could have signalled to enquirers that the vendors were open to negotiation on price.

Given my concerns over the valuation of the appeal buildings, the methods and duration of marketing would not have altered the outcome of the appeal, and I need not reach a finding on them. Nonetheless, I have seen nothing in the extracts of [name] that compels an applicant to keep a detailed log of enquiries or to necessarily adjust a marketing strategy that would otherwise meet the terms of the Appendix. Providing that an asking price for a building was reasonable, I would see no clear basis for continual reductions in price over the marketing period. Whilst the marketing agent has not quantified the total number of enquiries received, they have quantified the number of viewings and provided a commentary on the feedback. I find no basis to doubt that the buildings were marketed through all reasonable channels.

The buildings are constructed from modern materials consistent with the build date. They appear to be weather tight with functioning roof drainage. There were no obvious signs of structural movement such as cracking to the walls or loose mortar. The timber fascias and windows showed no decay of any significance. Although not surveyed by an engineer the appeal buildings are, in my judgement, structurally sound and capable of the necessary alterations and improvements needed for the proposed conversion. No substantive evidence has been advanced that would lead me to conclude otherwise.

Taking all the above into account, it has not been shown that the asking price for the appeal buildings was reasonable and the marketing was not specifically targeted at exploring the full range of alternative uses listed in WSLP Policy LP16. Consequently, on the evidence before me it has not been demonstrated through an adequate marketing exercise that the appeal buildings are not reasonably required for those alternative uses to support the rural economy. It follows that the loss of those buildings to a dwellinghouse use would therefore be expected to harm the rural economy.

I am advised that a range of non-residential uses in the former Use Class A were permitted on the large scale residential development to the north, including community hall, primary school, sports pitches and playing field. However, there is nothing to suggest that those uses would necessarily mean the appeal buildings are not required for the uses specified in WSLP Policy LP16, hence the requirement for a marketing exercise.

I therefore conclude on this main issue that the appeal proposal would conflict with WSLP Policy LP16 insofar as it seeks to retain buildings that are suitable and required to support the rural economy. Although the National Planning Policy Framework (“the Framework”) does not refer to the marketing of rural buildings in its policies, including in respect of achieving a prosperous rural economy, the WSLP is recently adopted and there is nothing of substance to indicate that the examining Inspector(s) did not consider that point in finding the plan sound.

The Council is satisfied on the basis of the [name] submitted with the appeal that harm to bats could be avoided. Having read that survey I find no reason to disagree with the Council on that matter and therefore I consider the second refusal reason has been adequately addressed.

The Council’s current housing land supply, which it states was confirmed through adoption of the WSLP, means that Framework paragraph 11 is not relevant in this instance. Nonetheless, there is no ceiling on housing supply and the conversion of the buildings to a dwellinghouse would be expected to reuse some previously developed land and generate some employment opportunities and spend in supply chains. Occupants would make a commensurately small contribution to using facilities and services in the wider area. Those are benefits that carry modest weight in its favour.

The extract from the [name] 2018, indicates that rural housing is vital to the creation and maintenance of sustainable communities. The Council has policies that supports rural housing but balances it with other planning objectives such as building a prosperous rural economy, including reusing rural buildings. The overall strategy for housing and the rural economy is part of the recently adopted WSLP and I have no basis to find that it is not consistent with the Framework. For the reasons given above this proposal would be at odds with that strategy.

Even if the proposal was to be considered as an enhancement to the character and appearance of the area through securing a landscaping scheme, given the baseline condition of the appeal building and site, the extent of that benefit would be a matter of modest weight in its favour.

The appellants’ unchallenged evidence points to an average need of around 22 self-build plots per year. I am not convinced given the limited scope of construction works to convert the building that it would necessarily qualify as a self-build or custom build project. Nonetheless, even if the Council was not meeting its duty to deliver enough self-build plots, a satisfactory mechanism to properly secure the appeal dwelling as a self-build or custom build development is not before me. Consequently, this potential benefit attracts modest weight in its favour.

Even if there was an exemption against the [name] objective there appears to be scope for biodiversity enhancement which would bring a small beneficial effect to the environment. Similarly, devices could be fitted to use water efficiently.

I am advised that the appeal site lies within the zone of influence of the Breckland Special Protection Area and Breckland Special Area of Conservation. However, as I am dismissing the appeal for other reasons, no harm would arise to the protected habitats sites, and I need not consider this matter any further as it would not alter the outcome of the appeal. The appellants have paid the contribution to secure access to the strategic mitigation scheme. As mitigation it would be a neutral factor that would not weigh in favour or against the proposal.

The Council found no harm in respect of highway safety, heritage, contamination, flood risk and living conditions. Even if I were to agree, the absence of harm is a neutral matter.

For the reasons given above and on the evidence before me it has not been demonstrated through an adequate marketing exercise that the appeal buildings are not reasonably required for the alternative uses set out in WSLP Policy LP16 to support the rural economy. As the appeal proposal would conflict with that Policy insofar as it seeks to retain buildings that are suitable and required to support the rural economy, I therefore conclude the appeal proposal would harm the rural economy.

Although the proposal would not cause any other harms and would comply with other development plan policies, the conflict with the strategy for rural buildings and the economy is an important matter that brings the development into conflict with the development plan as a whole. There are no other material considerations, including the benefits of the proposal and the provisions of the Framework, which outweigh this finding. Therefore, for the reasons given, the proposal is unacceptable and the appeal should be dismissed.