Appeal 6002370

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are whether the proposal would accord with the requirements of the Development Plan for the re-use of rural buildings in respect of: • whether it would necessitate significant external alteration or substantive rebuilding, and • whether it would result in a positive impact on the immediate setting of the building.

The site lies in the countryside, and consists of a former agricultural building which it is proposed to convert to a dwelling. Policy ST07 of the [name] and Torridge Local Plan (the Local Plan), adopted October 2018, limits new development to certain types, including the re-use of rural buildings. Policy DM27(c) further requires such conversions to be achieved without significant external alteration or substantive rebuilding.

Parts of the appeal building consist of blockwork walls with timber cladding. Other large sections consist of thin metal sheeting on a frame. The Structural Survey (the Survey) includes a [name] for undertaking the proposal. It states that there are no signs of any structural movement to the external walls or timber frame structure to the roof.

The Survey advises that there is no need to remove the cladding, and that minor repairs can be undertaken to leave it fully functional. However, the Survey is somewhat equivocal, saying that the cladding would only ‘appear’ to be in good condition. The extent of these repairs is not specified in detail. Some metal sheeting is currently missing, and the plans show that elements of timber cladding are proposed to be replaced with metal. New sections of external walling are shown on the east and west sides of the building, including at first floor level, whilst the retained block walls would have new lightweight internal walls behind them.

The Survey states that the foundations are not in need of any additional structural alterations or strengthening works, but only ‘at this stage’ and that they would only ‘appear’ to be adequate. The frame is also said to appear to be suitable for retention. The Survey says that the existing roof sheeting could be replaced or retained with insulated lining ‘if required’, but it is unclear which option I would be approving. Part of the floor is currently formed of a concrete base, though most is compacted earth. As such, a new concrete slab is proposed, which would need to be levelled off, given the differences in internal floor level.

I am aware of no requirement in planning policy for the undertaking of trial pits or the submission of structural calculations. The appellant has given evidence of approved barn conversions where these were not provided, despite involving buildings of metal sheeting and earth floors. The need for consistency in decision-making is important, although this must be set against the need to properly apply the policies of the Development Plan.

In this case, the changes to the building could include large sections of new (i.e. substantially repaired or replaced) cladding, the new internal and external walls, new windows and door frames, possible strengthening work, a new roof and a new floor. This may well leave relatively little of the original structure being retained. Consequently, on the evidence before me, I cannot be satisfied that the works proposed to the building would not amount to significant alteration and substantive rebuilding.

On this basis, the proposal would go beyond the scope of ‘re-use’ as permitted by policy ST07. The requirements of the Building Regulations do not affect my assessment which is based on its planning merits. For the reasons given above, the proposal would not accord with the requirements of the Development Plan for the re-use of rural buildings, necessitating significant external alterations or substantive rebuilding, conflicting with Local Plan policies ST07 and DM27.

Local Plan Policy DM27(b) requires that the proposal will have a positive impact on the immediate setting of the building, and that the wider rural character is protected. The supporting text to the policy refers to matters such as highway access, landscaping, means of enclosure and the provision of domestic paraphernalia. However, there is no dispute between the Council and the appellant about these elements of the proposal. It would include new trees and a substantial length of new hedgerow, resulting in small but positive benefits to the setting of the building.

The building has a functional design. Given its form, conversion means that it is always likely to retain something of a utilitarian appearance. The proposal would create new openings on several sides of the building. That said, the appellant has provided examples of approved conversions with similar configurations. In this case, I am not convinced that the proportions, positioning or arrangement of the fenestration would appear particularly discordant or out of place.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would accord with the requirements of the Development Plan in respect of having a positive impact on the immediate setting of the building. It would therefore comply with Local Plan policy DM27(c), and DM4(1)(a), which requires development to be appropriate and sympathetic including in respect of fenestration. It would also comply with the similar requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework. However, this does not change my findings in respect of the first main issue.

The proposal would add an additional dwelling to the supply of housing. It would also assist the local building industry, and its future occupiers would have positive social and economic advantages. The proposal would also result in ecological benefits. However, as a single dwelling, its contributions would be small, and they therefore carry limited positive weight. These matters do not therefore overcome my concerns above.

For the reasons given, I have found conflict with the Development Plan, read as a whole. The material considerations in this case do not indicate a decision other than in accordance with the Development Plan. This leads me to conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.