# Hazelhurst Farm, Stockton, Worcestershire (live/work to residential)

- **Decision:** dismissed, 22 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Standfield
- **Authority:** Malvern Hills (West Midlands)
- **Appeal reference:** 6008601
- **Application reference:** M/25/01503/FUL
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Change of use of the work element of a live/work unit to additional living accommodation
- **Site context:** open-countryside
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(c), E2, E4, L2
- **Development plan policies:** South Worcestershire Development Plan Review 2026 SWDPR15
- **Main issues:** loss of rural employment opportunity
- **Tags:** rural-employment-loss, live-work, s5-1-c-reuse, e2-substantial-weight, l2-effective-use, marketing-evidence-absent

## Summary
An appeal to absorb the unused workspace of a rural live/work unit into the dwelling was dismissed. The inspector gave substantial weight under L2 to effective use of the building, but found the loss of a modern rural employment unit, with no marketing evidence, to be "a very substantial adverse effect" given E2 and E4. The E2 "substantial weight to business growth" policy was used in reverse, as a reason to protect existing employment space.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** Parties had the opportunity to comment (DL ¶2).
- **The existing condition.** "Policy DM6 of the NPPF re-iterates previously established requirements for the use of conditions and there is therefore no change in this respect" (DL ¶7).
- **Loss of rural employment: HARM.** No marketing exercise, and no analysis of "whether the site remains a viable proposition, the extent of demand … the availability of alternative units" (DL ¶10). Conflict with SWDPR15 (DL ¶11).
- **S5 route.** S5(1)(h)/(j) do not apply "as there is no net addition of dwellings" (DL ¶15). "Policy S5 1c allows for the reuse of existing buildings … The benefit in this instance relates to making effective use of the site, which is afforded substantial weight in line with Policy L2" (DL ¶15).
- **E2/E4 as a harm.** "Policy E2 requires substantial weight in favour of business growth and Policy E4 specifically supports the sustainable growth of businesses in rural areas. The loss of a modern, purpose-built employment unit that could support the rural economy in this location would be a very substantial adverse effect" (DL ¶16).

## Planning balance
Under S5(1)(c), the L2 benefit (substantial) was set against the loss of rural employment (very substantial) and conflict with the plan. The adverse effect "would substantially outweigh the benefit" (DL ¶17).

## What made the difference
Missing marketing evidence. SWDPR15 Part D requires a marketing exercise, and without it the inspector could not find the employment space surplus. A robust marketing campaign showing no demand would probably have reversed the balance, given the L2 substantial weight.

## Transferable points
- The E2/E4 support for business growth can be turned into a "very substantial" adverse effect where a proposal would lose purpose-built rural employment space (DL ¶16).
- L2 "effective use" attracts substantial weight even for small internal reorganisations (DL ¶15).
- S5(1)(h) and (j) are not engaged where there is no net new dwelling (DL ¶15).
- DM6 makes no change to the conditions tests. Existing occupancy-tie conditions remain enforceable (DL ¶7).

## Policy findings
- **S5(1)(c): fail.** reuse of existing building is a listed category, but benefits substantially outweighed by loss of rural employment space (DL 15-17)
- **L2: benefit (substantial weight).** making effective use of the site given substantial weight "in line with Policy L2" (DL 15)
- **E2: harm (substantial weight).** loss of a modern purpose-built rural employment unit is "a very substantial adverse effect" given E2/E4 support for business growth (DL 16)
- **E4: harm.** E4 supports sustainable growth of rural businesses; loss conflicts (DL 16)
- **DM6: neutral.** DM6 reiterates established conditions tests; the existing live/work tie condition remains valid and enforceable (DL 7)
- **S5(1)(j): not-engaged.** no net additional dwelling, so S5(1)(h)/(j), HO8 and HO11 do not apply (DL 15)

## Key facts
- One of two live/work units from a 2011 barn conversion; workspace unused, dwelling occupied as 3-bed house
- No marketing evidence as required by SWDPR15 Part D for loss of rural employment buildings (DL 9-11)
- Newly adopted South Worcestershire Plan Review (2026)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008601
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/bf932932-3a3b-490c-9068-6ea45f490651

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008601.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.