# Barn House, Warren Road, Fairlight - **Decision:** dismissed, 22 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: C Housden - **Authority:** Rother (South East) - **Appeal reference:** 6008634 - **Application reference:** RR/2025/1552/P - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Change of use of holiday let to permanent dwelling - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, isolated, national-landscape - **Green Belt:** no - **Housing land supply (years):** 2.63 - **Housing Delivery Test (%):** 35 - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(3), HO11(1)(c), S5(4), E2, E4 - **Development plan policies:** Rother Core Strategy 2014 EC6, Development and Site Allocations Local Plan 2019 DEC3, DCO1 - **Main issues:** loss of holiday accommodation, isolated home - **Tags:** isolated-home, s5-4-exceptional, s5-1-c-reuse, holiday-let-loss, housing-shortfall, national-landscape, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## Summary This was a change of use from a holiday let to a permanent dwelling at an accepted isolated site in the High Weald National Landscape. It was dismissed. The appellant relied on S5(1)(c) reuse. The inspector held that S5(3) sends isolated homes to HO11 instead. The HO11(1)(c) test failed: the let was not shown to be redundant, and a bare change of use would not enhance the setting. Under S5(4), the housing benefit, despite 2.63-2.79 years' supply and an HDT of 35%, did not substantially outweigh the unjustified loss of tourism accommodation. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** The parties' views were sought on the August 2026 Framework (DL ¶2). - **Loss of tourism use: CONFLICT.** There was no marketing. "one year of low occupation does not definitively demonstrate the site can no longer function as a holiday let" (DL ¶6). - **HO11(1)(c): FAIL.** "the evidence before me does not sufficiently establish the holiday let is disused or redundant ... the proposal is for a change of use only ... I have no evidence ... that a future landscaping scheme ... would result in any tangible enhancements to the immediate setting" (DL ¶10). - **S5(1)(c) displaced by S5(3).** "paragraph 3 of Policy S5 is clear that in the case of development proposals comprising isolated homes, these should not be approved other than in accordance with Policy HO11" (DL ¶11). - **Plan weight.** The LP tourism policies are consistent with E2/E4, so conflict with them carries significant weight (DL ¶14-15). ## Planning balance S5(4) (DL ¶16). "Whilst the provision of a dwelling would be an important benefit given the Council's deficits in both the delivery and supply of housing, it would not substantially outweigh the conflict with the evidence based and plan led approach to tourism and economic development, a matter of significant weight against the proposal. As such, exceptional circumstances ... do not exist" (DL ¶18). ## What made the difference The absence of marketing and viability evidence. That defeated both the local tourism-retention policy and the "redundant or disused" limb of HO11(1)(c). A comparable allowed appeal (APP/U1430/W/25/3361201) had that evidence (DL ¶12). ## Transferable points - For isolated homes, S5(3) takes precedence over the S5(1)(c) reuse category. HO11 must be met (DL ¶11). - HO11(1)(c) needs both redundancy or disuse and an actual enhancement of the immediate setting. A change of use alone does not enhance (DL ¶10). - One poor trading year does not prove a holiday let is unviable (DL ¶6). - Even at 2.6 years' supply and an HDT of 35%, S5(4) was not met against a significant-weight economic policy conflict (DL ¶17-18). ## Policy findings - **S5(3): fail.** appellant accepts isolated location; S5(3) overrides the S5(1)(c) reuse category argued by the appellant (DL 9, 11) - **HO11(1)(c): fail.** holiday let not shown redundant or disused; change of use only, no evidence of enhancement to immediate setting (DL 10) - **S5(4): fail.** HO7 benefit (2.63-2.79 years, HDT 35%) does not substantially outweigh significant-weight tourism-loss conflict (DL 16-18) - **E4: conflict (significant weight).** loss of tourism accommodation without marketing or viability evidence; LP EC6/DCO1 consistent with Framework E2/E4 (DL 4-7, 15) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** important given supply and delivery deficits (DL 18) ## Key facts - Supply 2.63-2.79 years (unchallenged range); HDT 35% (DL 17) - No marketing; occupancy graph showed good 2024 occupancy and near 0% in 2025 without explanation (DL 5-6) - High Weald National Landscape conserved - change of use only (DL 8) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008634 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/e1ff3d49-f1df-4ba5-ae83-5c2c960ec353 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008634.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.