- Decision
- allowed, 3 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: Chris Mayes
- Authority
- Lancaster (North West)
- Appeal reference
- 6009367
- Application reference
- 26/00093/FUL
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Change of use of detached studio/office building to a dwelling
- Homes
- 1
- Site context
- open countryside, listed building setting
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S5(1)(c), S5(1)
- Development plan policies
- Lancaster SPLA DPD 2025 SP2, Lancaster DM DPD 2025 DM4, DM13, DM49
- Main issues
- suitability of location for housing
Summary
Converting a lawful rural studio/office to a dwelling outside Lancaster's settlement hierarchy was allowed. The proposal conflicted with local location policies SP2/DM4, and that conflict carried moderate weight. It was outweighed because the scheme is a reuse of an existing building supported by S5(1)(c), and under S5 the adverse effects did not "substantially outweigh" the benefits.
Issues and findings
- Plan conflict. The site is "in a location that is not identified for housing growth within the settlement hierarchy … conflict with the development plan when read as a whole" (DL ¶9), given "moderate weight against" (DL ¶10).
- S5(1)(c) reuse. "the proposal is consistent with Policy S5(c) of the Framework, which supports the re-use of existing buildings outside settlements in appropriate circumstances. I attach moderate weight to that benefit" (DL ¶12).
- Housing. No five-year supply. One dwelling gets "moderate weight" (DL ¶11).
- L2 not engaged. The building no longer suiting the appellants "does not in itself demonstrate that it is vacant, redundant or under-utilised in planning terms" (DL ¶15).
Planning balance
S5: "the adverse effects arising from the proposal would not substantially outweigh its benefits when assessed against the national decision-making policies in the Framework" (DL ¶13). The Framework is a material consideration that indicates a decision other than in accordance with the plan (DL ¶24).
What made the difference
Reusing an existing lawful building with no external change, which brings S5(1)(c) into play. Moderate plan conflict set against moderate benefits could not meet the "substantially outweighed" bar. Compare PINS-6009184 (Norfolk, 17 Aug 2026), a holiday-let conversion dismissed on the plan alone with no reference to S5.
Transferable points
- A countryside conversion of an existing lawful building falls within S5(1)(c) and passes S5 unless the harms substantially outweigh the benefits, even where the location conflicts with the plan's settlement hierarchy (DL ¶12-13, 24).
- L2(1)(b) substantial weight needs evidence that the building is vacant, redundant or under-utilised. An owner's changed needs are not enough (DL ¶15).
- One-dwelling housing benefit in a shortfall authority was given "moderate" weight, not HO7 "substantial" (DL ¶11). This inconsistency recurs across inspectors.
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| S5(1)(c) | pass | moderate | cited as "Policy S5(c)" — "secure the residential re-use of an existing lawful building without the need for substantial new construction … consistent with Policy S5(c) … I attach moderate weight to that benefit" (DL 12) |
| S5(1) | pass | "the adverse effects arising from the proposal would not substantially outweigh its benefits when assessed against the national decision-making policies" (DL 13) | |
| HO7 | benefit | moderate | no 5YHLS (figure not stated); one dwelling "moderate weight" — HO7 substantial weight not applied (DL 11) |
| SP2 / DM4 (Lancaster) | conflict | moderate | outside settlement hierarchy; conflict with plan as a whole given moderate weight (DL 9-10) |
| L2(1)(b) | neutral | building not shown to be vacant/redundant/under-utilised, so L2 substantial weight not triggered (DL 15) | |
| HE6 | neutral | no external change; setting of Grade II Overtown Farm preserved; s66 cited; Class AA PD removed to protect setting (DL 14, 21) |
Key facts
- Building lawfully used as studio/office within the Overtown building group; no external alterations (DL 6, 8)
- Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply (DL 11)
- Parties consulted on 2026 Framework (DL 2)
Related decisions
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.