Appeal 6004390

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for conversion of agricultural buildings to form 3 no dwellings and garages at [site address] , [site address] , Kingswood , Staffordshire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 25/00732/FUL, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The submissions refer to an emerging local plan that has been the subject of public consultation and is currently in the process of being examined. I am referred to no particular policy from the emerging document and the Council advises it should be given minimal weight in my assessment of the appeal. I find no reason to disagree with the Council on this point.

The main issues are:- - whether the proposal would represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt; - the effect on bats; - whether the development would be in a suitable location having regard to development plan policies, the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and accessibility; - whether the development would provide a safe and suitable access for all users; and - the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the appeal site and the area.

Policy GB1 of the Council’s Core Strategy Development Plan Document 2012 (the CS) permits development in the Green Belt deemed acceptable within the terms of the Framework. Also, this policy lists types of development that will normally be allowed. Under part B of the policy, the re-use of a building is acceptable provided it and any extensions, rebuilding or alterations would not harm the openness of the Green Belt or the fulfilment of its purposes. Also, under part C, engineering operations and the material change in the use of land is also permissible in the Green Belt, again subject to the provisos that there is no material effect on openness and the purposes of Green Belt policy.

Paragraph 154 of the Framework explains development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless specified exceptions apply. These include at sub-paragraph 154(h)(iv) the re-use of permanent and substantial buildings, provided openness is preserved and the scheme does not conflict with the purposes of Green Belt policy. It is also noteworthy that sub-paragraph 154(c) of the Framework defines the alteration of a building as not inappropriate development in the Green Belt provided it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. Also, engineering operations are identified as an exception under sub-paragraph 154(h)(ii) of the Framework, subject to openness being preserved and there being no conflict with the purposes of Green Belt policy. Consequently, there is a significant degree of consistency between CS policy GB1 and the Framework in terms of the re-use and alterations of buildings in the Green Belt and engineering operations.

The proposed conversion would relate to 2 steel portal framed buildings with vertical timber plank cladding on most of the external walls and corrugated sheeting to the roofs. The larger barn would be converted to the proposed dwellings whilst the adjacent smaller building would be used for parking. The floors within the buildings are exposed dirt rather than a laid hard surface and the appellant’s structural survey report (the SSR) assumes the portal frames are built on mass infill pad foundations. Nonetheless, I have no reason to dispute the SSR’s conclusion that the larger barn is in good structural condition and suitable for conversion without structural alterations. The walls and roofs are clad rather than constructed of more solid materials but both of the barns are sizeable and appear as permanent rather than temporary buildings. As such, the re-use of the barns would fall within the exception as set out under sub-paragraph 154(h)(iv) of the Framework, provided openness is preserved and there being no conflict with the purposes of Green Belt.

The conversion of the larger barn to dwellings would involve the installation of a new concrete ground bearing slab and internal partitions. Also, the SSR refers to the replacement of the existing timber wall cladding with a modern insulation system supported off the existing steel portal frame. New windows and doors would be added to the long elevations on the north and south sides of the barn. Furthermore, the planning application form refers to the installation of profiled steel sheets to replace the existing roofing as well as new photovoltaic panels. However, despite these extensive alterations, it is evident from the drawings that the development would not result in any obvious increase in the footprint or overall size of the larger barn. Similarly, the minor alterations to the smaller barn would not affect the shape and size of the building.

The Council refers to CS policy EV6 and the requirement that the re-use of rural buildings must not involve substantial reconstruction. However, CS policy EV6 does not mention the Green Belt and it provides no assistance in determining whether the scheme would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Moreover, [name] of CS policy GB1 does not set limits on the amount of alteration works permissible for the re-use of a building in the Green Belt. Also, there is no evidence to indicate the affected barns have already been enlarged and the proposed works would not increase the size of the buildings. As such, the alterations would accord with sub-paragraph 154(c) of the Framework as they would not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original buildings. Therefore, the conversion of the buildings would preserve openness and would not conflict with the purposes of Green Belt policy.

In addition, the proposal would include the installation of a new length of crushed stone driveway. This would lead off an existing drive across a paddock and around the larger barn to provide vehicular access to the proposed parking facilities. The provision of the new track would constitute an engineering operation and it would be visible from the public right of way that runs along the existing access drive from [site address] . The new surfacing would affect the appearance of an area of field but it would constitute a change only at ground level and so it would cause no loss of spatial or visual openness. Moreover, there is no claim from the Council that the provision of the driveway would be contrary to any of the purposes of Green Belt policy. Therefore, the construction of the access drive would represent an exception as defined under sub-paragraph 154(h)(ii) of the Framework and it is permissible in the Green Belt under part C of CS policy GB1.

Parking associated with the development would be within the smaller building or within adjacent parking bays. This would be largely hidden from view by existing buildings and hedgerows. As such, the parking would not harm the openness of the site and it would not conflict with Green Belt policy.

The appeal drawings indicate the provision of garden areas between the proposed dwellings and new access drive. The garden boundary features would consist of timber post and rail fences that would allow views through the gardens and so they would preserve openness. It is likely the gardens and associated domestic features would be seen from the public right of way, although views would be at least partially screened by a new hedgerow to the side of the proposed access drive. To help minimise the visual effects of the proposal, the Council has suggested a planning condition that would remove permitted development rights that relate to curtilage buildings and structures as well as extensions to the dwellings. Any external domestic paraphernalia outside of planning controls would be seen against the backdrop of the proposed dwellings. Also, I am mindful the external parts of the appeal site could currently be used to store agricultural or equestrian equipment and features. Given this context, the garden areas would not lead to any meaningful loss of openness and they would not conflict with the purposes of Green Belt policy.

In summary, I find the re-use of the buildings and the other associated elements of the proposal would preserve Green Belt openness. Also, the scheme would not conflict with the purposes of Green Belt policy. Consequently, I conclude it would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and so it would be acceptable under the provisions of CS policy GB1 and the Framework. The effect on bats.

The appellants have submitted a [name] (the PESR). This describes desk and field studies aimed at establishing whether protected species would be affected by the development. The PESR identifies records of bats within 2km of the site. Also, it states the 2 buildings affected by the development are potentially accessible to bats but that an investigation showed no potential roost features or signs of bat occupation such as droppings.

The Council claims the PESR fails to adequately justify its conclusions on bat use of the buildings and says that further photographs should be provided. However, I find no sound reason to dispute the findings of the appellants’ ecologist, especially as a search of the buildings for evidence of bat use has been carried out.

Therefore, I conclude the development would have an acceptable effect on bats. Consequently, in these regards, the proposal would not be contrary to any part of the Framework, the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) or the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The Council’s refusal reason on this matter refers to CS policy EQ9. However, this relates to protecting residential amenity and so it is not relevant to this matter. Suitability of location.

The appeal site lies in open countryside, well outside any of the villages and hamlets identified under CS Core Policy 1. This policy sets out the spatial strategy to locate growth to the most accessible and sustainable locations in accordance with a settlement hierarchy. For land outside defined villages, the primary aim of the spatial strategy is to restrict new development to affordable housing or that supports tourism, recreation or the rural economy. There is no claim from the appellants that the appeal proposal would meet any of these purposes. Accordingly, I find the proposed dwellings would not be in a suitable location having regard to CS Core Policy 1.

The dwellings would not be isolated new homes as they would be near to an existing cluster of residences in converted buildings as well as [site address] itself. As such, the general policy resisting isolated new homes in the countryside as set out in paragraph 84 of the Framework does not apply.

Nonetheless, the dwellings would be a significant distance away from the nearest sizeable villages of Albrighton and Codsall. Due to separation distances, it is unlikely that residents would walk to the nearest facilities and services. Also, traffic travelling at speed along [site address] would discourage cycling between the development and the settlements. A bus stop on [site address] and on the same side of the highway would be within a reasonable walking distance from the proposed dwellings. However, the Council claims the bus stop is no longer in use. Also, I saw no nearby bus stop on the opposite side of the road. Therefore, it would seem the potential for bus travel between the development and the nearest facilities would be limited.

For these reasons, occupants of the proposed dwellings would be heavily reliant on car travel to access everyday services such as shops, schools, medical and community facilities. Consequently, it is more likely that residents would travel by car to the broader range of facilities in Wolverhampton rather than support the more limited range of services in the nearest villages. Therefore, the development would not be located where it would enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities as advocated under paragraph 83 of the Framework.

CS policy EV11 looks for all development to include provision for sustainable forms of transport to access the site. Given the modest scale of the scheme, the proposed electric vehicle charging points and covered cycle storage facilities would be sufficient to address the requirements of CS policy EV11. However, it is unlikely these measures would realistically reduce the reliance on the private car. Also, the provision of electric vehicle charging points would not guarantee the use of electric cars to get to and from the development. Therefore, compliance with CS policy EV11 would not overcome the identified conflicts with CS Core Policy 1 and the provisions of the Framework on the location of rural housing

I am referred by the appellants to an appeal decision1 where an Inspector in granting permission found a residential development in a rural area to be in a suitable location, despite acknowledging some reliance on private car travel. However, this decision relates to a site in a different part of the country to the current appeal proposal where different development plan policies would apply. Also, the other Inspector found future residents of that development would support local facilities in nearby centres. I have a different view on this appeal scheme and so I am not bound to arrive at the same conclusion.

Accordingly, I conclude the development would not be in a suitable location having regard to accessibility, CS Core Policy 1 and the provisions of the Framework on the location of rural housing and prioritising the use of sustainable modes of travel. By including secure cycle parking and vehicle charging points, the proposal would accord with CS policy EV11. However, acceptability in these regards would not fully address the identified conflict with other policies. Whether the development would be served by a safe access for all users.

The Council refers to comments from Staffordshire County Council’s highways officers in support of concerns that the development would exacerbate the risk of conflict between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles travelling at speed along [site address] . However, I have already concluded that travel to and from the development would be highly reliant on the private car. In light of this conclusion and the small scale of the development, it is likely the proposal would not meaningfully increase walking and cycling along the highway.

In any case, pedestrians would be able to use the roadside footways. From my observations there is generally good visibility in both directions along the road to allow pedestrians to cross the carriageway safely. Traffic speeds may discourage cyclists but there is no clear explanation before me on why the Council considers cycling along [site address] to be unacceptably dangerous.

Therefore, I conclude the development would be served by a safe access for all users, particularly as it is likely to generate only a few additional trips by pedestrians and cyclists. In these regards, the proposal would accord with paragraphs 115 and 116 of the Framework. 1 Appeal decision reference number APP/N2739/W/17/3171586. Character and appearance.

The appeal site is in a rural location where fields, trees and hedgerows are the predominant features. The buildings subject of the proposal are set back and hidden from the road but they are visible from the nearby dwellings and the public right of way that runs along the access drive and into the field beyond the site to the north. The barns’ simple form and appearance reflects the countryside character of the area. The adjacent dwellings in converted buildings are also seen from the right of way but these retain an agricultural rather than an overtly residential character. As such, the appeal development would be seen within an attractive rural context.

Only minor works are proposed to the smaller barn. Also, the parking within and near to this building would be hidden from views from outside the site. Therefore, this aspect of the proposal would have no effect on the appearance or character of the area.

New hedge planting would provide a partial level of screening but the alterations to the southern elevation of the larger barn would be clearly visible on the approach to the proposed dwellings. The appellant states that as far as possible the existing timber cladding would be maintained but the plans indicate the insertion of new doors and a significant number of windows at ground and first floor levels. The simple elongated form of the building would remain but the proposed fenestration would introduce an obvious and unusual residential appearance to the south elevation. The gardens in front of the dwellings as well as the encroachment of the proposed drive onto existing paddock land would emphasise the domestic character of the properties.

A similar amount of new windows and doors would be inserted into the north facing elevation of the larger barn. These would be less obvious as views would be obstructed by the smaller building to be converted to parking. However, some of the upper floor windows in the north facing elevation would be visible to the side of the smaller building from the public right of way in the field to the north of the site.

Therefore, windows and doors on both sides of the proposed dwellings would be seen by users of the footpath and residents at nearby properties. These features and the obvious signs of residential use seen through glazing would erode the agricultural feel to the building and would to a degree diminish the positive contribution it makes to the rural character of the site and area. New hedge and tree planting as proposed would soften the visual effects of the dwellings but this would not fully overcome or offset the harmful effects of the development on the rural nature of the locality.

The appellant refers to an appeal decision to grant planning permission for a change of use of an agricultural building2. However, in that case, the Inspector found the areas of new glazing would complement the existing barn and would not introduce an overt domestication of the building. In this case, no existing openings in the larger barn would be used for the new fenestration and the insertion of glazing at ground and first floor level on the 2 longest elevations would lead to the building having a significant residential appearance. As such, the referred to appeal decision does not set a precedent that I am bound to follow in the consideration of this main issue. 2 Appeal reference APP/J1860/W/24/3347554

For the above reasons, I conclude the development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the appeal site and the rural nature of its surroundings. In these regards, it would not accord with CS policies EQ4, EQ11 and Core Policy 4. Amongst other things, these policies seek to ensure development maintains the intrinsic rural character of the landscape and respects local character.

CS policy EV6 sets out the Council’s support for the re-use of redundant rural buildings. However, this policy requires such proposals to demonstrate the affected buildings are capable of conversion without substantial reconstruction. Also, it requires conversion works to avoid harm to a building’s character and appearance. In this case, the submitted plans and supporting information indicate that significant elements of the walls and roof of the larger barn would be rebuilt, even though the portal frame would remain. Therefore, I find the proposal would involve substantial reconstruction and for the reasons given above that the alterations would be detrimental to the character of the building. Accordingly, I conclude the proposal would not be supported by CS policy EV6. Points in support of the proposal and planning balance.

I have found the development would be acceptable when assessed against Green Belt policy, in terms of its effects on bats and in providing safe access to all users. However, I have also found it would not accord with CS policies in terms of location and accessibility as well as its effect on the character and appearance of the site and area. It follows to consider whether other factors justify granting planning permission contrary to the development plan.

The Framework requires the Council to identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide at least 5 years’ worth of housing land against its housing requirements. The officer’s report on the planning application leading to this appeal states the Council is currently only able to demonstrate 0.89 years of housing land supply against the 5 year requirement. This is a substantial shortfall. In such circumstances, paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is engaged. This states planning permission should be granted unless the circumstances in either sub-paragraph 11(d)(i) or (ii) apply.

The proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and so there are no Framework policies on the protection of areas or assets of particular importance that provide strong reason to refuse the appeal development. Therefore, sub-paragraph 11(d)(i) of the Framework does not apply. It follows under the terms of sub-paragraph 11(d)(ii) to consider the benefits of the proposal against its adverse impacts.

The development would make only a modest contribution towards the supply of new housing. Nonetheless, the benefits in these regards attracts moderate weight given the significant shortfall in housing land supply.

Paragraph 125 of the Framework states that planning decisions should support the development of under-utilised buildings, especially if this would help meet identified needs for housing. The proposal would be an effective re-use of existing buildings and so it gains support from this policy of the Framework.

The development would create construction employment and support associated businesses. Due to the separation between the site and the nearest settlements I am unconvinced residents of the dwellings would support local businesses to any significant extent. Even so, the scheme would have minor economic benefits.

The application form indicates that any permission granted would be subject to the statutory biodiversity gain condition. The appellant’s assessment on the issue shows proposed planting would increase the value of the site’s habitats and hedgerows in excess of the mandatory 10%. The biodiversity enhancements attract moderate weight in support of allowing the appeal. When considered together, I attach significant weight to the benefits of the development.

The proposal would be contrary to policies of the Framework on the location of rural housing and that promote the use of sustainable transport. Also, it would not accord with policies that seek to ensure development is sympathetic to local landscapes and recognises the intrinsic character of the countryside. Overall, I attach moderate weight to the harm caused in these regards as 3 new dwellings would generate only a limited need to travel and as the visual effects of the development would be fairly localised and to a degree softened by new planting.

Therefore, the adverse effects of the development would not significantly nor demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme. The circumstances as set out in sub-paragraph 11(d)(ii) do not apply and so planning permission should be granted under the terms of paragraph 11(d) of the Framework. This support from the Framework in favour of the proposal provides sufficient justification to grant planning permission contrary to the policies of the CS.

I have regard to the conditions suggested by the Council and other parties in light of the advice on conditions in the Framework. Where required, I have made amendments for precision reasons and to avoid pre-commencement requirements.

Condition 2 is imposed for clarity reasons. The appellants have confirmed that the list of drawings provided by the Council is correct. Condition 3 is required to avoid unacceptable disturbance to nearby residents. I have amended the wording of this condition compared to that suggested to avoid the need for a separate condition that restricts delivery times. Also, I see no need for this planning condition to set out requirements in respect of potential asbestos within the buildings as this is a matter addressed through other regulations.

Condition 4 is imposed to protect [name] during construction works. Condition 5 seeks to ensure the development is of a satisfactory appearance. Condition 6 is imposed in the interests of highway safety and to minimise the visual effects of parking associated with the development.

To preserve the openness of the Green Belt, I have imposed condition 7 so that permitted development rights that would allow the enlargement of the dwellings or the erection of buildings within their curtilages do not apply. However, there is no reason to remove permitted development rights for alterations that would not meaningfully enlarge the dwellings. Also, development allowed under rights pertaining to hard-surfacing and means of access would not harm the openness of the Green Belt and so these are not included within condition 7.

The suggested condition on walls and fences is unnecessary as the approved plans provide sufficient details. A condition to prevent the demolition or rebuilding of any of the barns would be unreasonable as elements of the proposed development such as removal of walls or roof cladding could be seen to represent rebuilding. Also, I see no reason for the suggested condition that prevents burning on the site during development. As such, these conditions have not been imposed.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan but material considerations indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, I conclude the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos 101876/004/PL01, 101876/004/PL03 revision 2, 101876/004/PL04 revision 2, 101876/004/PL07 and 101876/004/PL08.

All development works hereby permitted, including demolition, site works and construction, as well as deliveries to the site associated with development works shall only take place between the hours of 8.00am and 6.00pm Mondays to Fridays; between 8.00am to 2.00pm on Saturdays and not at all on Sundays or bank holidays.

The development hereby permitted shall be implemented in accordance with the recommendations and measures with respect to [name] and as stated in Appendix 1 of the [name] dated August 2025, prepared by [name].

No construction works to provide the 3 dwellings hereby permitted shall commence until details of the facing materials to be used on the walls and the roofs of the dwellings have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

The dwellings hereby permitted shall not be first occupied until the parking and associated turning areas as shown on the approved plans have been provided and the parking and turning areas shall thereafter be retained and used only for the purpose of parking and turning of vehicles.

Apart from the development as shown on the approved plans, and notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development (i) that would enlarge the dwellings hereby permitted, or (ii) that would introduce buildings, gates, walls and fences and other forms of enclosures within the curtilages of the dwellings and as permitted by virtue of [name], B, C, D or E of Part 1 and Class A of Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the Order shall be undertaken.