Appeal 6001587

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: - Whether the existing building is of permanent / substantial construction, suitable for conversion. - Whether suitable internal living conditions would be created

The appeal site comprises an L shaped stable building of timber boarded elevations and corrugated cement sheet roof. Internally it is divided into 5 separate stable compartments each with their own stable door and separate feed store and tack room. The building incorporates a canopy to the front with a large area of concrete hardstanding to the front of the building. It is located in open countryside though is adjoined to the east by two dwellings, [address] and [name].

The proposal would create a two-bed dwelling with combined kitchen / dining / living area. The information submitted with the application confirms that it would be a self-build development as set out in section 1(A1) of the Self-build and Custom-build Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended).

Policy 22 of the Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2 (2019) (LPP2) at (d) allows for the re-use and adaptation of buildings for appropriate uses, including housing. Such development is also subject to the list of criteria at part 3 of the policy though the Council does not contend any conflict with these and I agree that they would be satisfied. Supporting paragraph 6.20 states, amongst other things, that the re-use and adaptation of certain buildings to dwellings makes a valuable contribution to the housing stock and should ensure that the architectural or historic qualities of the building are retained. There is no specific reference to how such development should be carried out but clearly the building should be capable of ‘adaptation’ in order to satisfy this policy.

The appellant has provided a number of structural and other survey reports which seek to demonstrate that the building is structurally sound and can be ‘adapted’ to provide for the new use, that is, residential. The Council’s position is that these reports do not satisfactorily demonstrate this, in particular, that it lacks a schedule of remediation works, that elements of the primary structure of the building would require replacing, that the existing raft slab has not been demonstrated to be structurally sound to function as the foundation and ground bearing slab for the proposed dwelling, nor that it has been demonstrated that the timber frame would be able to withstand the roof loading including PV panels.

The appellants structural survey undertaken by [name], dated 23 May 2025 (SS) confirms that an approximated calculation to verify that the stud wall is capable of supporting both roof loading and wind load concurrently has been undertaken which shows that stud walls are satisfactory in this respect. The SS contains full details of the proposed architectural drawings which clearly show that the works include the provision of solar PV arrays on the south and east elevations therefore it seems clear that they would have been taken account of.

Whilst the SS does not set out a ‘schedule of remedial strengthening works’, it does set out the works that would be required to convert the building to a residential use, which, in summary, include insulation and replacing of the roofing in accordance with the submitted plans. It concludes overall that the building is considered to be a ‘robust and permanent structure’, easily capable of being converted to a dwelling.

A further structural survey undertaken by J Roberts Design Ltd dated October 2025 (FSS), also provided by the appellant, concludes that the raft slab will be satisfactory to support the proposed conversion, including insulation to the roof and walls, and that the proposed new internal stud walls could be constructed off the raft slab, with new timber lintels to support new openings as required. It also considered lateral stability and recommended how the new roof and walls could provide for alternative loading and buttressing. It concludes that the proposed conversion is structurally feasible with only minor repair works to the primary structure.

In addition, the appellant has provided a timber survey (TS). This confirms that there is no evidence of either woodworm or wet rot, nor any obvious defects to the external paint coating. It concludes that no specialist works are recommended but that the guttering should be inspected and cleared as necessary.

In contrast, the Council has not supported its case with any expert survey nor provided any technical reports to support its specific contentions, for instance that the timber frame walls do not have the longevity to be the timber frame for the conversion without the need for significant re-build nor that the external timber cladding is of such condition that it would need to be replaced. As noted above, these specific matters are addressed by the technical reports provided by the appellant. Furthermore, the above reports and the plans confirm that the only replacement works required would be related to the new internal insulated walls and roof, with some minor areas of new external cladding where existing openings are not to be utilised. Whilst the conversion works would involve the creation of additional openings, the overall character of the building would be retained and it would be sympathetic to its rural setting.

Having regard to the above, I find that the appellant has demonstrated that the building would be capable of being adapted for residential use and that the works involved are not so significant as to amount to the construction of a new dwelling. The Council has not provided any compelling technical evidence to contradict these expert technical reports or their findings. Therefore, the proposal complies with LPP2 Policy 22.

Policy 10 of the Local Plan Part 1: [name] (LPP1) seeks to ensure that attractive, safe, inclusive and healthy environments are created and states, amongst other things, that development proposals will be expected to perform highly when assessed against best practice guidance and standards for design.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that in seeking to ensure a high standard of amenity the [name] (NDSS) can be made use of. Furthermore, the National Design Guide seeks well-designed homes and buildings with good quality internal environments that support the health and well-being of users1. The Framework states that development that is not well-designed should be refused, especially where it fails to reflect local design policies and government guidance on design. [name] agree with the appellant that Policy 10 does not explicitly mandate adherence to the NDSS and that it would not be appropriate to require rigid adherence to them, nevertheless they provide useful guidance in assessing this issue.

The dwelling created through the conversion would be a two bed four person dwelling for which the NDSS sets a minimum gross internal floor area (GIFA) of [address] metres. The appellant contends that the development would provide a GIFA of 70.5 though this does not appear to take account of the internal wall insulation, the application form confirming that this is the existing GIFA, nor is there any clarification regarding built-in storage. In the absence of clear information in this regard, it is not possible to confirm whether the proposed GIFA would be significantly or unacceptably below the standard. The Council also raises concerns with regard to bedroom size but any concerns in this regard could be addressed through alterations to the proposed layout.

The NDSS also states that an internal height of 2.3 metres should be achieved for at least 75% of the GIFA. There are no section drawings which clarify the internal height achieved nor any other specific information in this regard. Whilst the SS confirms that the height of the timber stud wall panels would be 2.4 metres this is an external measurement2. The SS confirms that internally there is a need for a new DPC membrane across the floor slab with insulation and screed as well as a new standing seam roof system, both of which would affect the internal height available. 1 Paragraphs 120-127 2

Whilst acknowledging that some flexibility can be applied in the specific circumstances of this case, given the lack of information, it is not possible to conclude with any certainty that the proposal would ‘perform highly’ in this regard, nor that a high quality internal environment would be provided. I have considered whether this matter could be secured through the imposition of an appropriate condition, however, in these circumstances it would not be appropriate to do so.

Whilst in other respects the proposal would achieve good design, overall, given the above, I find that it has not been demonstrated that a high quality conversion would be achieved such that there would be conflict with LPP1 Policy 10 as well as with the Framework.

I have found that the building has been demonstrated to be structurally sound such that it is capable of adaptation; however, there is insufficient information to demonstrate that an acceptable internal living environment would be provided. I thus conclude that the resulting conflict with LPP1 Policy 10 results in conflict with the development plan as a whole.

Having regard to other material considerations, the Framework seeks the achievement of well-designed places, in particular that they function well, are visually attractive and sympathetic to local character and the surrounding built environment whilst optimising the potential of the site and creating accessible places with a high standard of amenity for future users. Whilst the proposal would accord with some elements, for the reasons set out above, it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would function well overall nor provide a high standard of amenity or reflect national design guidance. This adds further weight against the proposal.

In support of the proposal, it would make good use of the existing building and provide a conversion that would reflect its character and appearance and that of the locality and would contribute to the local supply of housing. The proposal is confirmed to be a self-build project which the Framework also supports, albeit there is no mechanism to secure that it would be so built, such as a unilateral undertaking or other legal agreement. Moderate weight is given to these factors.

Overall however, the material considerations are not of sufficient weight to indicate a decision other than in accordance with the development plan.

I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.