# Barns at The Old Rectory, Bredicot - **Decision:** dismissed, 10 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: K Townend - **Authority:** Wychavon (West Midlands) - **Appeal reference:** 6009042 - **Application reference:** W/25/00613/FUL - **Procedure:** written-representations - **Development:** Conversion and extension of three derelict brick barns to a self-build dwelling - **Homes:** 1 - **Site context:** open-countryside, isolated, listed-building-setting - **Green Belt:** no - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(c), HO11(1)(c), S5(3), HE6, DP3(1) - **Development plan policies:** South Worcestershire Development Plan Review 2026 SWDPR 03, 6, 09, 19, 26, 28, 29, 33, 34, 35 - **Main issues:** character and heritage, location, living conditions, PROW, affordable housing and self-build - **Tags:** s5-1-c-reuse, isolated-home, heritage-harm-decisive, listed-building-setting, 5yhls-shown, old-wording-slip, self-build, barn-conversion ## Summary The appeal sought to convert three derelict brick barns beside a Grade II rectory and church at Bredicot into a self-build house. It was dismissed. The large glazed linking extension made the scheme disproportionate, so it fell outside S5(1)(c), and it harmed the listed buildings' shared setting. The group (barns plus one other house) was treated as isolated. HO11(1)(c) failed because the scheme would not, overall, enhance its immediate setting. The council had a five-year supply. The letter closes with the superseded "significantly and demonstrably outweigh" formula. ## Issues and findings - **Transition.** No consultation on the August 2026 Framework is recorded; it was simply applied (DL ¶4). - **S5(1)(c): FAIL.** "the large extension would be a dominant structure which would not be visually recessive ... It would, therefore, result in a disproportionate increase in size compared to the existing building and not comply with Policy S5:1(c) or Policy DP3:1" (DL ¶16). - **Isolation / HO11(1)(c): FAIL.** "Given the appeal buildings only form a group of buildings with one other dwelling I find that the site is isolated in the countryside ... the appeal proposal would not, as a whole, enhance the immediate setting" (DL ¶20). - **Heritage.** The barns "are part of the significance of the setting of The Old Rectory" (DL ¶12). The scheme would harm both assets' settings. Re-use, L2 efficiency and carbon savings got moderate weight, self-build moderate weight, and neither outweighed the harm (DL ¶22-23). - **Location.** "the proposal would rely heavily on the private car, or home deliveries" (DL ¶25). - **Affordable housing.** "the Court of Appeal ruled in 2016 that affordable housing should not be sought for developments of fewer than 5 units this has since been superseded by Policy HO5:1(a)(i)" (DL ¶31). ## Planning balance The council had a five-year supply "includ[ing] the 20% buffer required under paragraph 9(c) of Annex D" (DL ¶37). Conflict with SWDPR 26 had significant weight (DL ¶39). Environmental benefits were moderate (DL ¶40). "Collectively the adverse impacts ... would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits" (DL ¶41). That is old wording. No S5 "substantially outweighed" or S5(4) balance is expressly run. ## What made the difference The scale and forward projection of the glazed link. A subservient link like the timber extension (DL ¶17) would probably have kept the scheme within S5(1)(c), and possibly HO11(1)(c). With the barns in the listed buildings' setting, and the council holding a five-year supply, there was no counterweight. ## Transferable points - A group of one house plus outbuildings is "isolated" for HO11 purposes (DL ¶20). - HO11(1)(c) enhancement is judged on the scheme as a whole. Tidying and repairs do not offset a harmful extension (DL ¶20). - S5(1)(c) proportionality applies to conversion schemes, and a dominant linking extension fails it (DL ¶16). - HO5(1)(a)(i) permits plan requirements for affordable contributions on sub-major sites, displacing the 2016 small-sites ruling (DL ¶31-32). - The new small-site BNG exemption applies only to applications made on or after 6 August 2026 (DL ¶34). ## Policy findings - **S5(1)(c): fail.** large glazed link extension projects beyond the barns and dominates them - disproportionate increase (DL 15-16) - **HO11(1)(c): fail.** group of the barns plus one dwelling is isolated; repairs enhance, but the dominant extension harms the immediate setting overall (DL 20) - **HE6: harm (considerable weight).** harm to setting of Grade II Old Rectory and Church of St James (group value); moderate-weight public benefits do not outweigh (DL 10-14, 22-23) - **TR3: fail.** rural area with no sustainable transport opportunities; heavy car reliance even though the town is a short drive away (DL 25) - **HO5(1)(a)(i): neutral.** supersedes the 2016 Court of Appeal small-sites ruling; LP can require off-site affordable contributions below five units (DL 31-33) ## Key facts - Five-year supply shown after SWDPR adoption (March 2026), including the 20% Annex D buffer (DL 37) - The new small-site BNG exemption (0.2ha) applies only to applications made on or after 6 August 2026 (DL 34) - Balance expressed in the old "significantly and demonstrably outweigh" wording (DL 41) ## Sources - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6009042 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/65c65edf-a22f-46cb-89a4-a2f790479dca --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6009042.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.