- Decision
- dismissed, 2 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: J J Evans
- Authority
- West Oxfordshire (South East)
- Appeal reference
- 6009103
- Application reference
- 25/01990/LBC
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Change of use of listed curtilage outbuilding (three commercial units) to one dwelling with two-storey side extension in service yard
- Homes
- 1
- Site context
- listed building setting, conservation area, inside settlement
- Green Belt
- No
- Housing land supply
- 4.3 years
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- HE6(1), HE6(3), HE6(4), E1
- Development plan policies
- West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2018 OS2, OS4, H2, E1, EH3, EH8, EH9, EH10, EH11, EH12, EH16, WODC Design Guide 2016
- Main issues
- listed buildings and conservation area; living conditions of future occupiers; protected species; town centre vitality
Summary
Converting a listed curtilage barn behind a Grade II former inn in Witney Market Square to a dwelling, with a two-storey extension in the service yard. Both the planning and LBC appeals were dismissed. The conversion itself was sympathetic. The extension harmed the listed buildings and the conservation area, gave future occupiers poor light and privacy, and was not justified by any marketing of the employment units. The protected-species survey was also stale. The housing benefit was substantial (4.3-year supply) but outweighed.
Issues and findings
- Heritage — HE6. "the extension would be a harmful addition to Long Barn and one which would detract from its significance and that of No 46" (DL ¶13). "These harms are of considerable importance and must be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including where appropriate securing the optimum viable use" (DL ¶16). Reusing vacant units is "an important public benefit", but "these important benefits would not outweigh the substantial harms to the designated heritage assets" (DL ¶17).
- Living conditions. "future occupiers experiencing low levels of natural light and an oppressive, constrained outlook" (DL ¶23).
- Employment. "the Framework accords substantial weight to supporting business growth"; no marketing evidence (DL ¶31).
- Ecology. A 2021 survey "cannot be assumed that its findings remain extant" (DL ¶27).
Planning balance
Plan-led s38(6), with the Framework read "alongside" the plan. Plan policies consistent with the Framework keep significant weight (DL ¶36). Housing and efficient use are "substantial benefits" (DL ¶35) but are "outweighed by the substantial harms … to the listed buildings, to the conservation area, to biodiversity, to town centre vitality and viability, and the significant harms to the living conditions of future occupiers" (DL ¶37). No S4 formula is used.
What made the difference
The extension, not the conversion. Without it, the heritage and living-conditions objections largely fall away, and the conversion's own reuse benefit might have carried the HE6 balance. Missing marketing evidence and an out-of-date bat survey were independent failures.
Transferable points
- Securing reuse of vacant listed fabric is an "important public benefit" under HE6(4) (DL ¶17). It will not carry an extension that itself causes the harm.
- Harm grading remains loose after the switch: "considerable importance" (DL ¶16) then "substantial harms" (DL ¶17, 37), with no HE6(5) analysis. Carry-over wording "optimum viable use" (DL ¶16).
- Five-year-old protected species surveys will not do where the building's condition has changed (DL ¶27).
- Loss of employment units needs marketing evidence even in a town centre where residential use is acceptable in principle (DL ¶31).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| HE6(4) | harm | considerable | harm not graded on a scale — "These harms are of considerable importance and must be weighed against the public benefits … including where appropriate securing the optimum viable use" (DL 16; "optimum viable use" is 2024 wording); later described as "substantial harms to the designated heritage assets" (DL 17, 37) though no HE6(5) substantial-harm finding; HE6(1) substantial weight stated; ss16(2), 66(1), 72(1) cited (DL 4) |
| HE4(1)(a) | benefit | code mapped by harvester — ongoing use for two vacant units "an important public benefit", plus removal of infill, a town-centre home, spend (DL 17) | |
| HE9 | harm | extension fills open service yard and breaks cascading outrigger hierarchy; cladding and dormers discordant (DL 13-15) | |
| L2(1)(d)(ii) | fail | significant | code mapped by harvester — extension would cut light to north-facing glazing, oppressive outlook, overlooking from Nos 44/46 outriggers (DL 23-25) |
| E1 | fail | "the Framework accords substantial weight to supporting business growth" — no marketing evidence to show units unviable (DL 29-31); possibly E2 substantial weight | |
| N2 | fail | code mapped by harvester — protected species survey from 2021 out of date; Circular 06/2005 relied on (DL 26-28) | |
| HO7 | benefit | substantial | 4.3 years (council) v 2-3 years (appellant); one home plus efficient use of land "would be substantial benefits" (DL 35) |
| Annex A | neutral | plan heritage/design/amenity/biodiversity/employment policies consistent with the Framework, so their conflict carries significant weight (DL 36) |
Key facts
- Appeal A 6009101 (planning, 25/01989/FUL) and Appeal B 6009103 (LBC) decided together (DL 6)
- Long Barn treated as a listed curtilage building of Grade II No 46 (former inn) (DL 5)
- Two of three units vacant since 2022; no marketing evidence (DL 30-31)
- Parties consulted on 2026 Framework (DL 3)
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.