# 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 (years):** 1.53 - **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 - **Tags:** s5-1-c-reuse, isolated-home, ho11-1-c, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, housing-shortfall, dp3-2-d-transport, lp-policy-very-limited-weight, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## 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 - **S5(1)(c): pass.** permanent, substantial brick barn; modest footprint increase not disproportionate (DL 24-26) - **S5(3): fail.** not in a settlement or group of houses (dwellings only across the lane); isolated from any meaningful settlement (DL 26-27) - **HO11(1)(c): fail.** building in storage use, not redundant or disused; and overtly domestic conversion would not enhance its immediate setting (DL 28-29) - **DP3(2)(d): fail.** unlit lane without pavements, limited public transport, car dependent - conflicts with priority to walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport (DL 31-32) - **DP3(1): fail.** floor-to-ceiling windows, patio doors and suburban curtilage incongruous with the rural yard (DL 15-17, 30) - **HO7: benefit (considerable weight).** one dwelling in a district with a 1.53-year supply; limited because a more sensitive scheme could deliver it (DL 33) ## 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) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008115 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/5d7f8064-a013-43c4-b098-56386a6f35b9 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008115.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.