- Decision
- dismissed, 29 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: AJ Sutton
- Authority
- Stroud (South West)
- Appeal reference
- 6005652
- Application reference
- S.25/2010/FUL
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Demolition of modern outbuildings, alteration and extension of a stone barn and its conversion to one self-build dwelling, in the Cotswolds National Landscape
- Homes
- 1
- Site context
- open countryside, isolated, national landscape
- Green Belt
- No
- Housing land supply
- 3.2 years
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S5(3), HO11, N4, S5(4)
- Development plan policies
- Stroud District Local Plan CP1, CP2, CP3, CP13, CP14, CP15, ES7
- Main issues
- suitable location; Cotswolds National Landscape
Summary
Conversion and extension of a stone barn to a self-build home on the Cotswold escarpment, outside any settlement or group of houses. Dismissed. The reuse category in S5(1)(c) appeared to be met, but the home would be isolated. S5(3) therefore routed it to HO11, whose reuse limb requires the scheme to enhance its immediate setting. It would not: the unit would take in a large area of pastureland, causing significant harm to the National Landscape. The walk to the bus was uphill along a road without pavements or lighting. The S5(4) balance was then run and failed.
Issues and findings
- Location (local policy; TR3 not named). The walk to the bus stop is on a road "which has no made pavements or significant street lighting" (DL ¶11). "Sharing the road with motorised traffic, this uphill walk, however short, would be unappealing to most pedestrians and probably not feasible for those with restricted mobility or young children, particularly in winter months" (DL ¶12). Occupants "would nonetheless be largely dependent on the car to access a range of services" (DL ¶12).
- National Landscape: significant harm. "During the life of the development a significant section of existing undeveloped pastureland could be changed to a residential garden" (DL ¶20). "The harmful visual effect would be localised, but it would nevertheless be significant" (DL ¶21).
- Plan weight. Spatial policies are "largely in keeping with the aims of policies of the Framework. However, the Council’s housing land supply stands at just 3.2 years" and "this limits the weight that local spatial policies should attract" (DL ¶28). This is the 2024 out-of-date reasoning, not Annex A ¶2.
- S5(1)(c). "The requirements of S5(1) c appear satisfied in these respects" (DL ¶30).
- S5(3) and HO11. "Framework policy S5(3) defines isolated homes as those lying outside settlements or groups of houses. For the reasons already set out this applies in this case" (DL ¶31). "even with the removal existing sheds, this scheme would not enhance this setting. Therefore, this proposal does not find support from local emerging policy or Framework policies S5(3) and HO11" (DL ¶33).
- Benefits. Housing "attracts considerable weight" (DL ¶34). Self-build: "I attach substantial weight to this benefit. However, I am not persuaded that this visually harmful development is the only means of securing this benefit at this locale and this reduces the weight of this benefit" (DL ¶35). Reuse of the building gets little weight because of the extant commercial prior approval (DL ¶38).
Planning balance
S5(4). "The failure to conserve the natural beauty of the National Landscape weighs substantially against this development" (DL ¶39). DP3 context harm was added (DL ¶39). "I therefore find that the benefits in this case would not substantially outweigh the adverse effects, including to the character of the countryside and in relation to promoting sustainable patterns of movement" (DL ¶40).
What made the difference
The home would be isolated, so S5(1)(c) alone could not carry it. HO11's reuse limb needed an enhanced setting, and the curtilage creep over National Landscape pasture did the opposite. The extant commercial prior approval also took the weight out of the argument that the scheme would save the barn. A scheme confined to the barn's tight footprint, with no garden over the field, would have had a better chance under HO11.
Transferable points
- Meeting S5(1)(c) (reuse) does not help an isolated home: S5(3) sends it to HO11 (DL ¶30-33).
- HO11's reuse limb needs the scheme to enhance its immediate setting; removing sheds does not offset domestic use of open pasture (DL ¶22, 33).
- A short walk to a bus stop on a road without pavements or lighting is "unappealing to most pedestrians and probably not feasible for those with restricted mobility or young children" (DL ¶12).
- An extant prior approval that already secures the building's future cuts the weight of reuse and repair benefits (DL ¶10, 23, 38).
- Self-build benefit is reduced where it could be delivered elsewhere without the harm (DL ¶35).
- Caution: DL ¶28 reduces the weight of consistent spatial policies for under-supply, which Annex A ¶2 does not support.
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| S5(1)(c) | pass | permanent and substantial building; modest extension not disproportionate; "The requirements of S5(1) c appear satisfied" (DL 4, 30) | |
| S5(3) | fail | isolated home (outside settlements or groups of houses), so only HO11 can support it (DL 31) | |
| HO11 | fail | reuse limb needs the scheme to enhance its immediate setting; the domestic curtilage over pastureland would not (DL 32-33) | |
| N4 | harm | substantial | significant localised visual harm; pastureland in the National Landscape turned to domestic use; fails the statutory purpose (DL 14-26, 39) |
| TR3 | harm | TR3 not named; uphill walk to the bus stop on a road without pavements or significant lighting, unappealing and "probably not feasible" for some users; car dependence (DL 11-12, 37) | |
| DP3(1) | conflict | does not integrate with and enhance surroundings; weighed as harm, no DP3(3) clear-justification step (DL 39) | |
| Transitional(2) | conflict | spatial policies "largely in keeping" with the Framework, but their weight limited because of the 3.2-year supply (the 2024 out-of-date route) (DL 27-28); CP14 and ES7 consistent (DL 29) | |
| HO7 | benefit | considerable | one home against a significant shortfall (DL 34) |
| HO7 | benefit | substantial | self-build meeting evidenced local need; secured by legal agreement, "substantial weight" but reduced because it could be met elsewhere without harm (DL 35) |
| S5(4) | fail | benefits would not substantially outweigh the adverse effects, including countryside character and sustainable movement (DL 40) |
Key facts
- Extant prior approval for commercial use of the main barn (94 sqm, tight red line) given significant weight as a fallback that would maintain the building (DL 9-10, 24)
- Nearest settlement with services about 2 km; hourly bus to three towns, but the stop is some distance along a main road with no made pavements or significant street lighting (DL 11)
- Proposed site plan puts much of the pastureland into the residential unit, beyond the tightly drawn red line (DL 18-19)
- Council supply 3.2 years (DL 28)
- Cotswold Beechwoods SAC deed not considered because the appeal failed on other grounds (DL 41)
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.