Appeal 6002437

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for conversion of redundant rural building to one dwelling and associated works at [site address] , Road from [name] to [name], [site address] , Devon [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 80682, subject to the conditions in the attached Schedule.

As part of the appeal, the appellant has provided an amended plan. Amongst other things, this shows the addition of a large number of solar panels on to the roof of the stables. These could well affect the loading and structural suitability of the building. As such, in the context of the proposal, this would be a fundamental change to the scheme that was before the Council.

PINS Guidance1 is that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme, and that I should consider essentially only that which was before the Council at application stage. This is because the views of interested people have not been sought on the changes. Consequently, I will make my decision using the plans that were before the Council when it made its decision, without the solar panels.

The main issues are whether the proposal would: • accord with the requirements of the Development Plan for the re-use of rural buildings, and • provide acceptable living conditions for its future occupiers. 1 The Planning Inspectorate ‘Procedural Guide: Planning Appeals – England’.

The appeal site lies on the periphery of the village of [site address] , in countryside identified as having an attractive, pastoral landscape and character. The site consists of a stable building and yard, with an adjacent manege, and thus has a rural appearance.

It is proposed to convert the stables into 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 supports the conversion of existing buildings where, amongst other things, they are redundant and disused. Dictionary definitions referred to by the Council define ‘disused’ as not being used any longer, and ‘redundant’ as being unnecessary because it is more than is needed.

The appellant has invested in use of the site for horses, including the construction of a manege adjacent to the stables. I understand that the personal circumstances of the appellant meant that she had to move from the village, although she now lives more locally. As evidenced by the Council’s photograph, the stable building was used for the appellant’s horses until at least May 2025. A horse box was photographed on site in July 2025, although the appellant says that it was stored there for convenience and not used for horses.

The appellant still keeps horses, but fewer of them, and at another stable at [name] for security and welfare purposes. This is confirmed by a letter from the other stable owner. [name] 2025, the appeal application was submitted describing the stables as redundant, and an October 2025 [name] by the appellant makes clear that they are disused and no longer required for the appellant’s horses. Neither document indicates any contractual or legal basis for the alternative arrangements. Nevertheless, there is little evidence to say that the arrangement of keeping horses at [name] is short-term.

The change in circumstances is suggested by the Council to be contrived, given that the appellant has sought to secure a dwelling on the site, including an unauthorised mobile home. However, this is conjecture rather than evidence of the current use of the building. Given the change to the appellant’s circumstances, I see little reason to doubt that the appeal building is no longer in use for equestrian purposes. It is therefore not necessary for its original purpose. Having regard to the above definitions, it is disused and redundant.

Policy DM27 also requires proposals for the re-use of rural buildings to have a positive impact on the immediate setting of the building, and to protect the wider rural character. The appeal building and yard can be seen from public viewpoints, such as through the site entrance on [address]. Residential use would be likely to result in additional domestic paraphernalia within the site, although only a small area of garden is proposed, hidden behind existing hedging and vegetation. As such, the negative visual effects of the proposal would be very limited, if any.

The plan before me includes improvements to the northern boundary hedge with the planting of indigenous species. The amended plan proposed further new landscaping but, for the reasons already given, this plan cannot form part of my decision. That said, further landscaping works within land controlled by the appellant could be required by a planning condition. Control over landscaping in the long term may be limited but it would have time to become established. The landscaping would thus have a positive effect on the immediate setting of the building, and protect the wider rural character.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would accord with the requirements of the Development Plan for the re-use of rural buildings, complying with Local Plan policy DM27. It would similarly satisfy Local Plan policies DM04 and DM8A, which seek to avoid adverse landscape impacts and to reinforce the special qualities of the area. Beyond permitting the re-use of rural buildings, policy ST07 makes no further requirements relevant to the proposal. Accordingly, I find no conflict with this policy.

The proposal includes one bedroom, with the plans showing that it would have two bed spaces. Excluding its car port and storage area, there is no dispute that the internal floorspace of the proposed dwelling would be below the minimum amount required by the Government’s Nationally Described Space Standard (NDSS).

Nevertheless, I have little evidence to suggest that the NDSS has been adopted as a space standard in the Local Plan, which is one of the requirements of the NDSS. Moreover, the proposal includes an attached car port and storage area. Although accessed externally, these would in practice provide additional space for occupiers of the dwelling. Taken as a whole, I consider that the accommodation would provide a reasonable amount of space for users of the dwelling.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would provide acceptable living conditions for its future occupiers. It would not therefore conflict with Local Plan policy DM04(a), which in any case does not refer specifically to internal amenity space. Local Plan policies DM01(b) and DM27 have also been referred to in the Decision Notice. However, they relate to effects from existing or allocated uses, or to matters that I consider above, rather than to internal space. Consequently, I find no conflict with these policies in respect of the living conditions of future occupiers.

Adjacent to the site is the manege. A planning condition of its approval states that the manege shall be used only for private recreational equine purposes ancillary to the use of the appeal stables. However, the use of this land and the status of the condition is a matter between the Council and the appellant.

The Council has provided a list of conditions, which I have assessed and where necessary amended, having regard to the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance. A condition requiring adherence to the approved plans is necessary for certainty. It is also necessary to require that development accords with the external materials shown on the approved plan, in the interests of the character and appearance of the area.

For the reasons already given, details of landscaping provision and its implementation are required. A pre-commencement condition is needed to ensure the protection of trees and hedgerow during implementation of the proposal. In the interests of human health, measures are necessary if contamination is discovered during the course of the development.

The Council has suggested conditions regarding removal of the solar panels if no longer in use, and for removal of the menage. However, in light of my findings above, neither condition is necessary.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing numbers 1746 01A and 1746 30A.

The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be as shown on plan no. 1746 30A.

The development hereby approved shall not commence until a scheme of landscaping has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of all existing trees and hedgerows within and around the site, including land adjacent to [address] within the control of the appellant; identify the trees and hedgerows to be retained; and set out measures for their protection throughout the course of development. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the building. Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species.

Any contamination that is found during the course of undertaking the development hereby permitted that was not previously identified shall be reported immediately to the Local Planning Authority. Development on the part of the site affected shall be suspended until a risk assessment has been carried out and submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Where unacceptable risks are found, the development shall not resume or continue until remediation and verification schemes have been carried out in accordance with details that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. End of Conditions