Appeal 6004625

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for Change of use and conversion to a self-build dwelling, construction of open fronted car port, EV charging point, log store and associated works at [site address] , Wiltshire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/05419, and the plans submitted with it subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

During the appeal a Deed of Variation to the previously submitted [name] (UU) was submitted to ensure that the obligations in the undertaking apply to a planning permission granted on appeal in the event that the appeal is allowed. The Council has been consulted on the Deed of Variation and I have taken its comments into account in my decision.

On 16 December 2025, the Government published a consultation on proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Whilst broad changes to the structure of the Framework are proposed as part of this consultation, these proposals could be subject to further change and can only be given very limited weight at this stage. It has therefore not been necessary to consult the parties on the proposed changes, and in reaching my decision, I have had regard to the Framework published in December 2024.

The main issues are • Whether the site would be in a suitable location having regard to the development plan policies concerning new housing in the countryside with reference to the conversion and re-use of rural buildings; and • The effect of the proposal on the Bath and Bradford on Avon Bats Special Area of Conservation (SAC).

The site lies outside the limits of development defined in the [name] 2015 (WCS) and is within the countryside for development plan purposes. [name] 1, 2 and 15 of the WCS set out the settlement and delivery strategies for new residential development in this location. Core Policy 48 sets out the circumstances in which the conversion and re-use of rural buildings will be supported.

The existing building on the site is a single storey, predominantly brick building which received planning permission in 2018 for “B8 storage use”. Since the Covid pandemic, the owner’s business operations have changed and now operate from a site elsewhere.

Core Policy 48 supports the conversion and re-use of rural buildings for employment, tourism, cultural and community uses subject to various criteria being met. Where there is clear evidence that those uses are not practical propositions, residential development may be appropriate where it meets the same criteria.

The evidence indicates that the building was constructed for storage purposes to a basic specification. The cost estimates and [name] valuation1 provided in 2020 for the appellant indicate that the cost of installing a water supply and electricity to the site is prohibitive. When the valuation was made, the [name] letter questioned whether a commercial business would look to occupy the site.

Although the appellant has not produced evidence that the market for a storage or alternative employment use has been fully tested through a recent marketing exercise, nor has the Council provided compelling evidence that there is a market demand for a unit of this type. Nevertheless, it is unclear why a storage use would by necessity require three phase electricity or a water supply or why such a use could not take place without those services being installed. It is also not evident whether alternative means of power generation, such as solar power, have been fully explored. As a result, I am not convinced that there is clear evidence that an alternative employment use, including a storage use, is not a practical proposition.

I recognise that the absence of a viable water supply means that a tourism use, such as holiday accommodation, is unlikely to be practical. The distance from the nearest villages, combined with the limited size of the building, the absence of a water supply and the limited space for parking, means that its use for community or cultural purposes is also unlikely to be practical.

Even if there was clear evidence that a use for employment purposes was not a practical proposition, the villages of Keevil, [name], Bulkington and Seend provide only limited services and facilities for any future occupier of the proposed dwelling. Access by foot would be via rural roads without footways and street lights. Together with the distances to the villages, this means that it would not be a safe and suitable pedestrian route for all users, especially in bad weather or after dark.

Although there are bus stops on the A361 to the north of the site and in some of the villages, for the reasons given above, the pedestrian routes to them would not 1 Appellant’s appendix 5: [name] letter dated 11 November 2020 be safe or suitable for all users. As a consequence, whilst some of the villages are within cycling distance of the site, travel by car would be likely to be a necessity for future occupiers of the proposed dwelling needing to access the majority of the services and facilities for their daily needs in Melksham, Trowbridge and Devizes.

The permitted use of the building for B8 storage purposes would also generate vehicle movements. However the pattern and frequency of those movements and the vehicles involved would be likely to be different to those of the future occupiers of a dwelling who would be expected to make regular trips for purposes such as work, shopping, health care, leisure, educational or other activities.

Despite the occasional building in the surrounding area, from what I saw on my visit, the site is in a remote location physically separate from the nearest settlements. The distance from the nearest villages and other settlements means that the site is isolated from them.

Even though future occupiers of the dwelling might be able to make use of car sharing, no details of how this might take place are before me or how such an arrangement would reduce reliance on the private car. The provision of an electric vehicle (EV) charging point might encourage future occupiers to use ultra-low or zero emission vehicles. Nevertheless, I am not convinced from the evidence before me, that future occupiers of the proposed dwelling could be prevented from using other types of vehicle if they so wished.

The lack of sustainable transport alternatives and the distance to the villages and towns therefore leads me to conclude that the site does not have reasonable access to local services.

The Council accepts that the building is structurally sound and that the proposed conversion would retain its character and the effect of the proposal on the character or appearance of the landscape could be made acceptable through a landscaping scheme if the appeal is allowed. It also accepts that the site has adequate access to the highway. [name] have found no sound reason to come to a different conclusion on these points, the location of the proposed dwelling would nevertheless result in a moderate level of harm to the Council’s objectives to reduce the need to travel as required by [name] 60 and 61.

The reliance on the private car and the absence of clear evidence that employment use, including B8 storage, is not a practical proposition means that the proposal is not in a suitable location having regard to the development plan policies concerning new housing in the countryside. The moderate harm caused results in conflict with [name] 1, 2, 15, 48, 60 and 61 which seek to restrict residential development in the countryside and promote sustainable transport.

The proposal has the potential to effect the Bath and Bradford on [name]. The qualifying features of the SAC are its populations of Bechstein’s bats, greater horseshoe bats and lesser horseshoe bats. Regulation 63(1) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (the Habitat Regulations) requires me to make an appropriate assessment of the implications of the proposal for the conservation objectives of the SAC.

The conservation objectives for the SAC seek to maintain or restore the extent and distribution of the habitats of qualifying species; the structure and function of the habitats of qualifying species; the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely; the populations of qualifying species; and the distribution of qualifying species within the site.

A lesser horseshoe bat night roost was identified on the site as part of the previous proposal. The evidence indicates that of 2 night roosts subsequently installed on the site, one is no longer functioning as a roost and the other is deteriorating. Hedgerows along the northern and eastern site boundaries are likely to be used as commuting and foraging corridors by bats using the on-site roosts.

Any increase in external light levels has the potential to have an adverse effect on the use of these corridors by bats. Unmitigated, the development could result in the loss of night roosts and the disruption of the bats’ flight lines from increased light. This could have an impact on the local distribution of bats. This effect could be significant and effect the integrity of the SAC. I have therefore carried out an appropriate assessment.

The proposal would include a dedicated bat loft within the roof void above the car port. It would be serviced by a fly-in entrance in the north elevation of the proposed car port facing the site boundary and adjoining field. The proposed log store would also provide night roosting opportunities. Whilst the proposed bat roost would be sited away from the proposed dwelling and therefore less likely to be affected by lighting from it, a control on external lighting at the site could be secured through a planning condition if the appeal is allowed. I note that the Council has previously carried out an appropriate assessment under the Habitat Regulations which arrived at the same conclusion. I have also consulted Natural England which has confirmed that suitable conditions would avoid an adverse impact on the SAC.

Therefore, subject to the imposition of appropriate planning conditions if the appeal is allowed, I am satisfied that the likely significant effects of the proposal on the SAC would be avoided. For these reasons, I conclude that the proposal would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SAC and would therefore comply with the Habitats Regulations.

Against the harm I have identified, there would be economic, social and environmental benefits arising from the proposal. It would provide an additional windfall dwelling using previously developed land which, given the Council’s housing land supply shortfall, would be a moderate benefit.

As well as meeting general housing needs, the proposal would also provide one self-build dwelling to be secured through the UU and Deed of Variation submitted with the appeal. The Framework highlights the importance of a sufficient amount and variety of land coming forward where it is needed and that the needs of groups with specific housing requirements are addressed. Those groups include people wishing to commission or build their own homes. The Council accepts that there is an unmet need in Wiltshire for self-build plots. Therefore, the provision of an additional self-build unit would be a further moderate benefit of the scheme.

The development would generate modest economic benefits to the construction sector during the conversion of the building and future occupants would contribute to the vitality of the local community. The provision of an EV charging point would be a further limited benefit of the scheme.

Whilst the emerging Wiltshire Local Plan has been the subject of an examination by Inspectors, the Inspectors’ letter to the Council dated 27 February 2026 identifies significant soundness concerns. As a result, the draft plan carries very limited weight in this appeal.

Although reference has been made to appeal decisions at Sherston2, Warminster3, Swindon4 and Old Sarum5 I am not aware of the full details of those schemes, the sites involved or their planning context. I have determined this appeal on its individual merits.

The conflict I have identified with [name] 1, 2, 15, 48, 60 and 61 results in conflict with the development plan when read as a whole. The Council can only demonstrate 2.42 years supply of deliverable housing sites which is well below the minimum level required. The policies most important for determining the appeal are therefore out of date for the purposes of the Framework. Consequently, with reference to paragraph 11 d) of the Framework, consideration of the presumption in favour of sustainable development is required.

Paragraph 232 of the Framework states that due weight should be given to existing policies according to their degree of consistency with the Framework. The Framework recognises the re-use of redundant or disused isolated buildings in the countryside where the development would enhance its immediate setting. Whilst the evidence is unclear whether there is a practical proposition of an alternative employment use taking place in the building, the appellant states that the owner’s business operations have changed and the building is therefore redundant.

The Framework’s policy for the re-use of isolated buildings in the countryside does not require those buildings to have reasonable access to local services or require that an alternative use is explored before the re-use for residential purposes is considered. Core Policy 48 is not consistent with the Framework in this respect and therefore the conflict with it carries limited weight in this appeal. The proposed re-use of the building would be consistent with the Framework’s policy to make effective use of under-utilised land and buildings to meet identified needs for housing.

The significant shortfall in the Council’s housing land supply indicates that the settlement strategy in [name] 1, 2, and 15 is not delivering the required number of houses. The conflict with those policies therefore also carries limited weight.

Whilst the Framework requires that developments promote sustainable transport and that sustainable transport modes are prioritised, it also recognises that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas. As a consequence, although [name] 60 and 61 are broadly consistent with the Framework, taking into account the permitted use of the 2 APP/Y3940/W/23/3327178 3 APP/Y3940/W/24/3351590 4 APP/Y3940/W/22/3303198 5 APP/Y3940/W/24/3356285 building which would generate its own vehicle movements, the conflict with those policies is given moderate weight in this appeal.

The Framework sets out the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes and highlights that small sites such as this can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement in the area. Therefore, taking into account the significant shortfall in the Council’s supply of deliverable housing sites, the addition of a self-build dwelling is a benefit which attracts moderate weight in favour of the proposal. The modest economic benefits also attract moderate weight in favour of the proposal. The proposed provision of EV charging also carries limited weight in favour of the scheme.

Overall, the moderate adverse impact of the proposal does not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the totality of the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies to this appeal.

Conditions setting out the period for commencing the development and requiring it to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans are necessary to provide certainty. In view of the rural location of the site it is also reasonable and necessary to require that any materials to be used in the external surfaces of the development are submitted to the local planning authority for approval prior to their installation. It is also reasonable and necessary to require the submission and implementation of a landscaping scheme to ensure the development would enhance its setting and would not detract from the character and appearance of the landscape.

A condition securing the means for charging electric vehicles is reasonable and necessary to promote the use of sustainable transport in accordance with the relevant development plan policies. Conditions securing the provision of the required bat roosts and controlling external illumination are necessary to protect the integrity of the SAC and ensure the development complies with the Habitat Regulations. A condition safeguarding the visibility splays at the site entrance is also reasonable in the interests of highway safety.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan but material considerations, particularly the Framework, indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above 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: Location Plan. Existing & Proposed Site Plans 01 rev 2. August 2024; Existing & [name]. Existing & [name] 02. August 2020; [name] and Log store [name]. [name] and [name] 03. November 2022.

Details of the materials to be used in the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to their installation. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

The dwelling hereby permitted shall not be occupied 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 on the land, identify those 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 dwelling or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and 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.

The dwelling hereby permitted shall not be occupied until a scheme for the charging of electric vehicles has been installed on the site in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The approved scheme shall thereafter be retained.

Prior to the occupation of the dwelling and car port hereby permitted , the bat roosts and access points for bats, as detailed in the Ellendale Environmental ‘[name] & Assessment, 7 July 2025’ and ‘EEL532 PL/2025/05419 COU and conversion of barn - [site address] , Trowbridge, BA14 6N – Addendum’ shall be implemented in accordance with plans and details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The bat roosts and access points for bats shall thereafter be permanently retained in accordance with the approved plans and details.

The visibility splays shown on plan no. 25-0378-RAP-XX-XX-DR-TP-3200 shall be kept free of any obstruction exceeding 0.6m in height and shall be retained as such thereafter.

No means of external illumination shall be installed on the site unless full details including the height, design, location and intensity of the means of illumination have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The means of external illumination shall thereafter be installed and maintained in accordance with the approved details. END OF CONDITIONS