Appeal 6005286

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for proposed conversion of agricultural storage shed at [site address] , Broadwoodwidger [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 1/0729/2025/FUL, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The address in the banner heading above has been taken from the Appeal Form and Decision Notice as this more clearly identifies the site than that given on the Application Form.

The description of development in the banner heading above has been taken from the application and appeal forms as neither party has provided written confirmation that a revised description has been agreed.

The main issue is whether the proposed dwelling would be in an appropriate location with particular regard to the local policies concerned with housing in rural areas.

The appeal site comprises an agricultural building located in the open countryside. The proposal is to convert the building to a single dwelling.

There is no dispute between the main parties that the site is located in the countryside outside of any designated settlement boundaries as identified in the [name] and Torridge Local Plan 2011-2031 October 2018 (LP). There is also no dispute between the main parties that LP Policy ST07 applies to the proposal and allows the reuse of rural buildings in the Countryside, even where they are located away from a range of services and facilities.

In relation to the re-use of rural buildings, LP Policy DM27 is relevant. This states that the conversion of redundant and disused rural buildings will be supported. [name] 13.143 clarifies that the policy supports the reuse of redundant or disused buildings for residential use.

The Council do not raise any substantive concerns with regard to the proposal satisfying the relevant criteria to LP Policy DM27 and I have no reason to disagree. This is the case given that the building is of little quality or historic interest, is well screened from the public domain and [name] by existing hedgebanks, trees and hedgerows at a distance, would result in no harm to the wider character and appearance of the area given its sensitive design and isolated location, and benefits from a suitable access. The main issue therefore is whether the proposal complies with LP Policy DM27 in terms of the existing building being disused or redundant.

The terms disused and redundant are not defined within the LP or within the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and is therefore a matter for the decision taker in each case. I have however had regard to the dictionary definitions put forward by the Council with regard to disused being ‘the condition of not being used (any longer)’ and redundant being ‘unnecessary because it is more than is needed’.

With regard to whether the building is disused, at the time of my site visit the building was largely empty with little sign of external activity. [name] have had regard to previous visits to the site by the Council, and to the presence of a tractor within the building in September 2023, this was some time ago. The presence of a [name] and [name] outside of the building do not in themselves or in combination clearly demonstrate that the building is in use. Furthermore, the appellant states that the building has not been in agricultural use since before September 2024 following the cessation of agricultural activities for unforeseen personal circumstances and I have little evidence before me demonstrating otherwise.

The appellant advises that the land is informally managed for conservation and amenity purposes. [name] note the Council’s case that the land and these activities, and the improved [name] and construction of a wildlife pond, would require some form of machinery and equipment storage, this is not supported by substantive evidence of a permanent on-going need for machinery and/or equipment. Moreover, given the size of the holding, I see no reason why machinery and equipment cannot be stored elsewhere and bought to site if and when needed. Given that the land has been recently maintained with the building unused, this would indicate that a building is not necessary to maintain the land. In light of this, I do not find a need for the building to support the use of the land and find that the building is not being used any longer and is therefore disused.

Given that I have found that the building is disused, there is no need for me to go on to consider whether the building is redundant. Nonetheless, the Council state that given the design, location, scale and age of the building, it could be used for a variety of purposes associated with the adjacent agricultural land or for other agricultural or commercial purposes. On this basis the Council consider that the building cannot be considered redundant. However, the Council’s position is not supported by substantive evidence of a specific identified need for the building to support purposes associated with the adjacent land and do not identify any specific other agricultural or commercial purpose for which the building is needed. As such, I consider that the building is unnecessary because it is more than is needed and therefore redundant.

In light of the above, I do not find that the nature of the development is contrived.

Regardless of the above, the Council states that insufficient time has passed since the substantial completion of the building to assert that it is disused and redundant. In relation to this, there is no timescale referenced in [name] ST07 or DM27 or within their supporting text. [name] have had regard to reference by the Council to timescales for rural permitted development rights in the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO), these are not directly relevant to the proposal as it is not seeking a change of use under the GPDO. Similarly, any requirements of other LP policies for new rural businesses to set out a three-year benchmark to establishment are not reflected within [name] ST07 and DM27 that are the most important policies in this instance. Furthermore, I have little substantive evidence before me demonstrating that the appellant did not construct the building to support a small-scale sheep and fodder operation as part of a wider plan to reintroduce livestock. This is partly demonstrated through the provision of stock-proof fencing, the purchase of agricultural equipment and offer of a [name] agreement.

The Council question whether livestock was introduced to the site and state that it is unclear what the nature of the agricultural activity was. In relation to this, even if I were to find that the agricultural activity was minimal with no livestock introduced to the site, LP Policy DM27 does not require the building to have been in agricultural use for the policy to apply.

I have had regard to the appellant being the sole director of a limited company described as ‘development of building projects’ but do not find this to be determinative given that planning is concerned with land use in the public interest and as I am required to consider the planning merits of the proposal.

It follows from the above that the proposed dwelling would be in an appropriate location with particular regard to the local policies concerned with housing in rural areas. As such, the proposal complies with [name] ST07 and DM27, the aims of which I have outlined above. As a result of compliance with [name] ST07 and DM27, the proposal complies with LP Policy ST01 that states that applications that accord with the policies in the Local Plan will be approved unless material considerations indicate otherwise. For the same reasons, the proposal complies with paragraph 84 of the Framework that seeks to avoid isolated homes in the countryside unless the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and enhance its immediate setting.

I have had regard to the concerns from Broadwoodwidger Parish Council in relation to the proposal setting a precedent for similar applications. However, each application must be considered on its merits, and I have found above that the evidence before me demonstrates that the proposal complies with the relevant policies in the development plan. Moreover, I have not been made aware of other similar examples nearby that would result in a cumulative harmful effect.

I have had regard to the suggested conditions put forward by the Council and to the tests in the Framework in relation to conditions. In addition to the standard time condition, a condition is necessary to confirm the approved plans in the interests of certainty.

A condition is also necessary to ensure that the development is carried out, and retained, in accordance with the proposed ecological mitigation in the interests of protecting and enhancing ecology. I have amended the wording slightly in the interests of clarity and enforceability.

A condition is necessary to ensure that any external lighting levels are at an appropriate level in order to protect ecology in the immediate area.

A condition is necessary to remove permitted development rights for enlargement, improvement or alteration to the dwelling, additions to the roof and buildings or enclosures in the interests of protecting the character and appearance of the building and surrounding rural area.

The Council’s Delegated Report states that any landscape harm could be reduced through imposition of a condition to secure a hedge bank in place of the proposed post and rail fence to help screen any domestic paraphernalia. However, and noting that this is not a suggested condition from the Council, given the existing planted screening to the site and isolated location, I do not find such a condition to be reasonable or necessary in order to protect the character and appearance of the immediate area.

Finally, I have had regard to the request by the Environmental Protection Officer for a condition relating to land contamination. However, given the relatively low sensitive agricultural use and activity taken place to date, and in the light of the lack of a suggested condition from the Council in its Statement of Case, I do not find such a condition to be reasonable or necessary.

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 nos: 0005 P01 [name] and [name]; 0007 P02 Location Plan; 0008 P02 Site Layout; 0010 P02 Site Layout – Identification; and 1012-BNG-F2 Post-Intervention Habitat Plan.

The development shall be undertaken in strict accordance with the recommendations and mitigation measures set out within Section 5 (Recommendations) of the submitted ‘[name] prepared by [name], received 17th September 2025. Thereafter the development shall be retained in accordance with the recommendations.

Any external lighting provided on the application site, shall be in accordance with the recommendations put forward by the Institute of [name] and the Bat Conservation Trust. For the avoidance of doubt these include: • All luminaires should lack UV elements when manufactured. Metal halide fluorescent sources should not be used. • LED luminaires should be used where possible due to their sharp cut-off, lower intensity, good colour rendition and dimming capability. • A warm white spectrum (ideally <2700 Kelvin) should be adopted to reduce blue light component. • Luminaires should feature peak wavelengths higher than 550nm to avoid the component of light most disturbing to bats. • Only luminaires with an upward light ratio of 0% and with good optical control should be used - See ILP Guidance for the Reduction of Obtrusive light. • Luminaires should always be mounted on the horizontal, ie no upward tilt. • Any external security lighting should be set on motion-sensors and short (1min) timers. • As a last resort, accessories such as baffles, hoods or louvres should be used to reduce light spill and direct it only to where it is needed.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (or any order revoking, reenacting, or modifying that Order), no development of the types described in Part 1, Class A, AA, B, and E of Schedule 2, other than that hereby permitted shall be carried out without the further grant of planning permission. END OF SCHEDULE