The Barn (opposite Lansdowne House), Fordingbridge

Decision

dismissed, 21 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: AJ Sutton

Authority

New Forest (South East)

Appeal reference

6008115

Application reference

25/10858

Procedure

written representations

Development

Change of use of agricultural barn to dwelling, part demolition of stables and demolition of pole barn

Homes

1

Site context

open countryside, isolated, rural lane

Green Belt

No

Housing land supply

1.53 years

Housing Delivery Test

48%

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

S5(3), HO11(1)(c), DP3(1), DP3(2)(d)

Development plan policies

New Forest Local Plan Part 1 2020 STR1, STR3, ENV3, ENV4, Local Plan Part 2 DM20

Main issues

suitable location; character of the area

Summary

The appeal sought to convert a barn in open countryside near Fordingbridge to a house. It was dismissed. New Forest's supply was only 1.53 years and its HDT 48%, so the local countryside policy DM20 got very limited weight. The barn qualified under S5(1)(c). But as an isolated home it also had to satisfy HO11, and it failed. The barn was still in use, and the domestic conversion would not "enhance its immediate setting". The car-dependent location was treated as a DP3(2)(d) failure, and DP3 conflicts "should be refused".

Issues and findings

• Transition. The parties were invited to comment on the August 2026 Framework (DL ¶2).
• Local plan weight. DM20 is "somewhat more restrictive" than S5, and with supply "chronically low at just 1.53 years" and an HDT of "a woeful 48%", the local spatial strategy was failing, so DM20 got "very limited weight" (DL ¶21). ENV3, ENV4 and STR1 remained consistent with the Framework (DL ¶22).
• S5(1)(c): PASS. "the existing building is a brick clad structure with a solid roof; it appeared permanent and substantial" (DL ¶24). The footprint increase was modest (DL ¶25).
• S5(3)/HO11: FAIL. Dwellings only across the lane did not make a group (DL ¶27). The inspector applied pre-2026 case law on "isolated" as "physically separated or remote from a settlement": the site "may not be remote from buildings, but it is from any meaningful settlement" (DL ¶27). For HO11(1)(c), the building "was being used for storage; it was neither redundant nor disused", and the domestic conversion "would fail to enhance its immediate setting" (DL ¶28-29).
• Transport as design, DP3(2)(d). "a lane without pavements or streetlights along most its length is unappealing to pedestrians ... contrary with the national decision-making policy DP3(2) d which priorities walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport" (DL ¶31).

Planning balance

One dwelling in a district with "dire" supply got considerable weight, reduced because the same home could come from a more sensitive design (DL ¶33). L2 substantial weight did not apply because the site was not underused (DL ¶34). Against: conflict with S5(3)/HO11, and with DP3(1) and (2)(d), which "should be refused" (DL ¶32, 35). "the limited benefits identified would be substantially outweighed by the stated adverse effects (including character of the countryside and location)" (DL ¶35).

What made the difference

Isolation. Qualifying under S5(1)(c) was not enough, because S5(3) sent the scheme to HO11. HO11(1)(c) requires the building to be redundant or disused and the conversion to enhance its setting, and this scheme failed both. A restrained, agricultural-looking conversion of a genuinely disused barn could have passed despite car dependence, given the 1.53-year supply.

Transferable points

• Local countryside policies stricter than S5 can drop to "very limited weight" where supply is very low and HDT has failed (DL ¶21).
• S5(1)(c) is necessary but not sufficient for an isolated home. HO11(1)(c) also applies: the building must be redundant or disused and the conversion must enhance its immediate setting (DL ¶26-29).
• Houses only on the opposite side of a lane do not make a "group of houses" (DL ¶27).
• Car dependence can be framed as a DP3(2)(d) design failure, which carries the DP3 "should be refused" consequence (DL ¶31-32).
• L2 substantial weight needs land that is actually underused (DL ¶34).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Supply 1.53 years; HDT 2025 48% (DL 21)
• LP DM20 more restrictive than S5, so given very limited weight given the failing spatial strategy (DL 20-21)
• Building in active storage use at the site visit (DL 28, 34)

Related decisions

• PINS-6011694

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

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.