# Court Farm, Padbrook Lane, Elmstone - **Decision:** dismissed, 14 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Victor Callister - **Authority:** Dover (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6006123 - **Application reference:** 25/01256 - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Conversion and change of use of light industrial shed (former agricultural barn) to 3 dwellings with gardens and parking - **Homes:** 3 - **Site context:** open-countryside, rural-lane, PDL - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** HO11, S5, TR3, E2, DP3 - **Development plan policies:** Dover District Local Plan to 2040 (2024) PM1, SP4, E2 - **Main issues:** suitable and sustainable location, loss of employment land - **Tags:** sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, isolated-home, ho11, rural-business-conversion, marketing-evidence, fallback-rejected, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, drafting-slip, old-balance-wording, s5-limb-not-identified ## Summary Conversion of a lawful light-industrial former barn at Court Farm, Elmstone, to 3 houses with large gardens and parking. Dismissed. The inspector found the scheme would domesticate a rural farmyard setting (DP3), create "isolated" dwellings outside any settlement that meet no HO11 exception, rely on unsafe unlit lanes (TR3), and lose a rural employment site without 12 months' marketing (local plan E2). Housing benefit got substantial weight in principle but did not outweigh the harm. The reasoning under the new S5 is thin, and the letter contains several drafting slips. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** "I have sought comments from the main parties on the revised Framework … It will therefore not prejudice any party" (DL ¶2). - **Character: DP3 FAIL.** The building conversion "would not greatly affect its appearance". However, "the use of the other majority part of the appeal site as residential curtilage with large garden areas, with parking area for a total of 9 cars, along with the inevitable domestic paraphernalia … would urbanise and domesticate" the building's rural setting (DL ¶8). - **Isolated homes: HO11 FAIL.** "the proposal would result in the appearance of an isolated residential development in the countryside that would not meet the requirements set out in Policy HO11" (DL ¶10). - **Access: TR3 / S5 FAIL.** "very poor and unsafe access to nearby services and public transport, requiring the use of unlit country lanes without footways … contrary to Policy SP4 of the Local Plan and Policy S5 and T3 of the Framework, which collectively seek residential development in urban areas or other defined settlements, or if a change of use of an existing building in the open countryside, to meet the criteria or criterium set out in Policy HO11 or be within reasonable walking distance of a well-connected station" (DL ¶11). - **Employment land: E2 CONFLICT, substantial weight.** "No marketing or other information with regard to the likelihood of obtaining a user for the building … has been provided" (DL ¶14). The appellant's retirement plans are "a personal choice" and "not a direct planning matters" (DL ¶15). - **Fallback: REJECTED.** Nearby Class Q approvals were not a fallback because "a prior approval application has not been made or assessed for the appeal site" (DL ¶17). ## Planning balance The balance was informal. Housing: "Collectively small housing developments make a significant contribution to the delivery of new housing, to which I have given substantial weight, although the creation of 3 new houses in isolation would make only a small contribution". This "does not outweigh the harm through the creation of isolated housing in the countryside and the loss of employment land, to both of which I have afforded substantial weight … I do not find that the proposal would result in sustainable development" (DL ¶21). The inspector did not use the S5 "substantially outweighed" formula and did not state a supply position. ## What made the difference Two things decided it: the loss of an employment building in active use with no marketing evidence, and the car-dependent location on unlit lanes. The S5 analysis is weak. The building is lawful, permanent and in light industrial use, so it plainly engages S5(1)(c) (reuse of an existing building) and arguably S5(1)(d) (PDL, "including a material change of use to residential"). Neither limb was considered. The inspector instead treated the dwellings as "isolated" under HO11, even though they sit in a cluster with three existing houses. The outcome would probably survive a correct S5 analysis, because the E2 conflict and TR3 harm would still weigh. But an appellant with 12 months' failed marketing and a stronger S5(1)(c) argument would have a better case. ## Transferable points - Loss of an in-use rural employment building without 12 months' marketing can carry substantial weight against a residential conversion (DL ¶¶14, 19, 21). - Domestic curtilage, parking and paraphernalia around a converted barn can be the source of DP3 harm even where the conversion itself is sympathetic (DL ¶8). - Nearby Class Q permissions are not a fallback unless prior approval has been sought for the appeal building (DL ¶17). - An owner's retirement or plans to close the business get no significant weight (DL ¶15). - Caution on reuse: this letter treats S5 as if it requires a settlement location, an HO11 exception or station proximity (DL ¶11). It does not address S5(1)(c) or (d), cites "T3" for TR3, and uses a simple "does not outweigh" balance. It is weak authority on how S5 applies to conversions. ## Policy findings - **DP3: fail.** conversion itself keeps utilitarian barn look, but large gardens, 9 parking spaces and domestic paraphernalia would urbanise the rural farmyard setting (DL 8-9) - **HO11: fail (substantial weight).** treated as "isolated" homes in countryside (outside any settlement, separated from Preston by fields) meeting none of the HO11 exceptions - despite sitting in a Court Farm cluster with 3 existing homes (DL 5, 10, 21) - **TR3: fail.** letter says "T3"; very poor and unsafe access - unlit lanes without footways, car reliance (DL 11, 19) - **S5: fail.** no S5(1) limb analysed; inspector read S5 as requiring settlement location, HO11 compliance or station proximity; S5(1)(c) reuse and S5(1)(d) PDL change of use to residential not considered despite lawful light-industrial use (DL 11, 20) - **E2: conflict (substantial weight).** loss of rural employment building with no 12-month marketing (LP E2); Framework E2 "market signals" (DL 12-14, 19) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** letter says small sites collectively significant, substantial weight, but 3 homes only a small contribution; "HO7" not named (DL 21) ## Key facts - Large modern ex-agricultural barn with certificate of lawfulness for light industrial use (22/00620); in use for joinery and timber storage by the appellant's sash window business - Part of Court Farm cluster (light industrial, 3 homes, other buildings) in the loose village of Elmstone; site backs onto open fields - Nearest defined settlement Preston, separated by fields - Access by unlit country lanes without footways - No marketing evidence; appellant's retirement plans given no significant weight - Nearby Class Q prior approvals not a fallback - no prior approval sought for this building - Supply position not stated - Revised plan accepted under Wheatcroft, removing refusal reason 3 (outlook) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6006123 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/50e9fb8d-9db4-4057-9d7c-8d84f8b671f8 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6006123.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.