# Beech Grove, Brock Road, Great Eccleston (barn to live/work) - **Decision:** dismissed, 15 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: Elaine Moulton - **Authority:** Wyre (North West) - **Appeal reference:** 6008848 - **Application reference:** 25/00762/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Conversion of agricultural building to a live/work unit - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, rural-lane - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** TR6(4), S5(1)(c), S5(2), Transitional(2) - **Development plan policies:** Wyre Local Plan 2023 SP1, SP2, SP4, EP8, CDMP6 - **Main issues:** highway safety - access visibility, suitable location - **Tags:** highway-safety-fail, s5-1-c-reuse, s5-2-refusal-policy, local-policy-inconsistent-very-limited-weight, live-work, sustainable-location-pass, small-scheme ## Summary A barn-to-live/work conversion in rural Lancashire won on the principle and lost on access visibility. The inspector made an important finding under Annex A ¶2. The local plan's sequential hierarchy of uses for rural conversions (employment first, residential last) is more restrictive than S5(1)(c), which supports re-use "irrespective of their intended use", so conflict with it carries very limited weight. TR3(1)(a) was held not principally aimed at small-scale proposals. But TR6(4) non-compliance triggered S5(2), and the appeal failed. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** Parties were consulted (DL ¶2). - **Visibility: FAIL (TR6(4)).** "In the absence of a mechanism to secure these measures, there is no certainty that the required visibility splays would be secured and maintained" (DL ¶9). "Although the proposed development would not give rise to severe residual cumulative impacts … it would … have an unacceptable impact on highway safety. Accordingly, it would conflict with Framework Policy TR6.4" (DL ¶10). - **Local hierarchy inconsistent with S5(1)(c).** "Framework Policy S5.1c supports the re-use of existing buildings outside settlements in certain circumstances irrespective of their intended use. Although Policy SP4 is consistent with the Framework in many respects, its hierarchy of uses … imposes greater restrictions … and is therefore inconsistent with national policy" (DL ¶14). "paragraph 2 of Annex A of the Framework indicates that only very limited weight should be afforded to any conflict with that requirement" (DL ¶16). - **TR3 and small schemes.** "Given the limited scale … it would not generate a significant amount of movement … Consequently, the proposed development is not a type to which Framework Policy TR3.1a is principally directed" (DL ¶19). TR1 is plan-making (DL ¶20). - **S5(2).** "The proposal would, however, fail to comply with one of the national decision-making policies, namely Policy TR6.4. This policy indicates that proposed development should be refused where it would have an unacceptable effect on highway safety" (DL ¶27). ## Planning balance The scheme fell within S5(1)(c). Benefits: re-use of a building with some heritage value and a small rural business (moderate), and reduced commuting (limited). TR6(4) non-compliance engaged S5(2), and the plan conflict on access (CDMP6) decided it. ## What made the difference A missing third-party visibility agreement. With a completed s106 or easement over the neighbour's frontage, the appeal would very probably have been allowed. The principle, location and TR3 all went the appellant's way. ## Transferable points - Local plan sequential "priority of uses" tests for rural conversions are more restrictive than S5(1)(c) and get very limited weight under Annex A ¶2 (DL ¶14, 16, 21). - S5(1)(c) supports re-use for live/work without requiring a separate or substantial work element (DL ¶16). - TR3(1)(a) is "principally directed" at development generating significant movement, not single small units (DL ¶19). - TR6(4) is one of the "refuse in specific circumstances" policies that trigger S5(2) (DL ¶25-27). - TR1 is a plan-making policy of limited relevance to decisions (DL ¶20). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(c): pass.** lawful, permanent and substantial building, no extension; supports re-use "irrespective of their intended use" (DL 14-16) - **Transitional(2): conflict (very-limited weight).** SP4 priority hierarchy of uses for conversions (live/work third, residential fifth) is more restrictive than S5(1)(c) and so inconsistent; conflict carries very limited weight (DL 14, 16, 21) - **TR3(1)(a): pass.** limited scale means little movement, so not the type of development TR3(1)(a) is "principally directed" at (DL 19) - **TR1: not-engaged.** plan-making policy, limited relevance (DL 20) - **TR8: not-engaged.** no PROW affected or opportunity arising (DL 20) - **TR6(4): fail.** 2.4 x 58 m splay to the NE not achievable in appellant's control; no legal agreement over third-party land (DL 7-11) - **S5(2): fail.** failure to comply with TR6(4) is a "refusal in specific circumstances" policy, so benefits substantially outweighed (DL 25-28) ## Key facts - 60 mph road but surveyed speeds substantially lower; splays based on actual speeds (DL 5) - Neighbouring boundary and overgrown vegetation block NE visibility; third-party agreement promised but not produced (DL 8-9) - Benefits (re-use of building with some heritage value, small rural business) moderate; reduced commuting limited (DL 26) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6008848 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/79111806-f3d8-44ff-a69a-f2c42174a732 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6008848.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.