- Decision
- dismissed, 25 August 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: K Craddock
- Authority
- North West Leicestershire (East Midlands)
- Appeal reference
- 6006388
- Application reference
- 25/01015/FUL
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Use of former groom's accommodation (stone outbuilding) as an independent dwelling, with surface water drainage works
- Homes
- 1
- Site context
- open countryside, rural lane
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S5, HO11(1)(c), TR3
- Development plan policies
- North West Leicestershire Local Plan 2021 S2, S3
- Main issues
- suitable location for housing; spatial strategy; access to services
Summary
Conversion of a former groom's flat in a farm courtyard to a separate house, in a hamlet classed as countryside. Dismissed. Heavy car reliance (no services, unlit B591 with no footway) conflicted with the local plan's countryside accessibility criterion, and the building was not shown to be redundant or disused, so the Framework's isolated-homes re-use route did not help.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "The changes to the Framework do not affect the merits of this case in a material way and I, therefore, have not consulted the parties" (DL ¶3).
- Local plan consistency. "I find LP Policies S2 and S3 to be consistent with the Framework, which seeks to actively manage patterns of growth" (DL ¶9).
- Sustainable location — TR3: FAIL. "the B591 did not include footpaths or street lighting. These factors result in both walking and cycling being unattractive options" (DL ¶11); "Future residents would therefore be heavily reliant upon the use of the private car" (DL ¶12).
- PDL. Lawful use disputed (agricultural or equestrian): "I cannot be certain it meets the definition of PDL as contained within the Framework" (DL ¶13). Even if PDL, accessibility criterion still applies (DL ¶14).
- Re-use of redundant building — HO11(1)(c): FAIL. Letter cites "Policies S5, HO10 and T3 of the Framework" for isolated homes re-using "redundant or disused buildings" (DL ¶15). "it appeared the building has not ceased to function as an ancillary dwelling as it remains laid out, equipped and available for residential occupation … While it may presently be unoccupied, vacancy does not necessarily equate to disuse" (DL ¶16).
- Fallback. Class Q fallback "limited weight" given no evidence of PDL/lawful use (DL ¶17). Traffic-equivalence claim unevidenced (DL ¶18).
Planning balance
Plan-led s38(6) balance, not an S5(1) "substantially outweighed" balance. One dwelling, drainage and short-term economic benefits all "limited weight" vs social and environmental conflict: "there are no material considerations that outweigh the conflict with the development plan" (DL ¶19, ¶21).
What made the difference
The building was still a functioning (if vacant) ancillary flat, so it could not be called redundant or disused; and the site had nothing walkable and only an unlit, footway-less B-road. The appellant supplied no evidence on services, lawful use or trip generation. A clearly redundant building, proven lawful PDL status, or a transport statement showing no net increase in trips would have been needed. Notably, the inspector did not consider S5(1)(c) (reuse of an existing lawful building) or HO11(1)(d) (subdivision of an existing residential building), either of which might have been argued.
Transferable points
- "vacancy does not necessarily equate to disuse" — a building still fitted out for residential use is not "redundant or disused" for HO11(1)(c) (DL ¶16).
- Unlit rural B-roads without footways make walking and cycling "unattractive options" (DL ¶11).
- Class Q / PDL fallbacks carry limited weight where the lawful use of the building is not proven (DL ¶17).
- A claim that an independent dwelling generates no more trips than ancillary use needs a traffic survey or transport statement (DL ¶18).
- Local countryside policies that "actively manage patterns of growth" found consistent with the 2026 Framework (DL ¶9).
- Drafting slip: Framework policies cited as "HO10" and "T3" where HO11 and TR3 were meant (DL ¶15).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| HO11(1)(c) | fail | letter cites "Policies S5, HO10 and T3" for re-use of redundant/disused buildings — the re-use limb is actually HO11(1)(c); not shown redundant or disused, as still laid out and equipped as ancillary accommodation (DL 15-16) | |
| TR3 | fail | cited as "T3"; no services nearby, B591 unlit with no footway; heavy reliance on private car (DL 10-12, 15) | |
| S5(1)(d) | not-engaged | not addressed as an S5 limb; PDL status unproven (lawful use agricultural vs equestrian disputed) in the context of LP S3(e) (DL 13-14) | |
| S5(1)(c) | not-engaged | reuse-of-existing-building limb not discussed despite the proposal being a conversion | |
| NWLLP S2, S3 | conflict | hamlet → countryside; S3 criterion (vi) accessibility by range of sustainable transport not met; policies found consistent with the Framework (DL 7-9, 20) | |
| HO7 | benefit | limited | one additional dwelling given limited weight (HO7 not named) (DL 19) |
Key facts
- Stone outbuilding in a farm courtyard; two dwellings at Hall Farm reached by a long private drive off the B591
- B591 has no footpaths or street lighting; no services in the immediate vicinity observed
- Building still laid out and equipped as ancillary dwelling ("vacancy does not necessarily equate to disuse")
- Class Q fallback given limited weight because PDL/lawful use not demonstrated
- No transport statement to support the claim that trips would equal ancillary use
- Decided without consulting parties on the 2026 Framework
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.