- Decision
- allowed, 29 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: S Sharp
- Authority
- East Devon (South West)
- Appeal reference
- 6009619
- Application reference
- 25/1721/FUL
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Change of use of a holiday-let dwelling to unrestricted residential occupation (removal of holiday restriction)
- Homes
- 1
- Site context
- open countryside, national landscape, rural lane, PDL
- Green Belt
- No
- Housing land supply
- 3.5 years
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S5(1)(d), TR3, S5(2)
- Development plan policies
- East Devon Local Plan 2016 Strategies 1, 3, 5B, 7, 27, TC2
- Main issues
- appropriate location for an unrestricted dwelling
Summary
Removal of a holiday-occupancy restriction from a converted cow shed near Dalwood, East Devon, was allowed. The inspector walked the unlit, unpaved route to the village and found that residents would rely on the car, conflicting with the local plan. But under the 2026 Framework the existing holiday dwelling is previously developed land, so S5(1)(d) applies. No "should be refused" policy was breached, and TR3 was not engaged for a single dwelling. The Framework outweighed the plan conflict.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "The main parties were provided with an opportunity to comment" (DL ¶2).
- Route walked. "The journey is on unlit roads, devoid of segregated footways, and an uphill, moderately steep incline was encountered on the return leg" (DL ¶5). "it is probable that future occupiers of the proposed development would turn to car borne trips after nightfall and/or in inclement weather" (DL ¶7).
- S5(1)(d): PASS. Category (d) covers "the redevelopment of previously developed land (PDL) (including a material change of use to residential or mixed-use including residential). The appeal property accords with the definition of PDL in the glossary in Annex B of the Framework" (DL ¶15).
- S5(2): no trigger. The inspector lists and checks each "should be refused" policy (DL ¶16).
- TR3: NOT ENGAGED. "I have already found that the proposed development would not result in a significant number of movements in absolute terms given it is for just a single dwelling" (DL ¶18). "I also find that the change of use nature of the proposal means that a genuine choice of transport modes for future occupiers would be impractical. Overall, I find no conflict with policies CC2, TR3 and TR4 of the Framework" (DL ¶18).
- Housing benefit. "Notwithstanding that the current housing land supply is the equivalent to 3.5 years, I only afford this benefit minor weight" (DL ¶19).
Planning balance
S5(1): minor benefit and no adverse effects under the Framework's decision-making policies, so the benefits are not substantially outweighed (DL ¶19). The local-plan conflict on car reliance stands, but "the Framework is a material consideration of critical importance" and outweighs it (DL ¶22–23).
What made the difference
S5(1)(d) treats a change of use of an existing dwelling (here holiday-restricted) as PDL redevelopment, and the S5 balance weighs only harms under the Framework's own decision policies. Once TR3 was found not engaged for one dwelling, there was no Framework harm to weigh against the local-plan conflict. For a larger number of units, the same unlit route would probably have engaged TR3.
Transferable points
- Lifting a holiday-occupancy restriction on an existing dwelling can fall within S5(1)(d) as a material change of use of PDL to residential (DL ¶15).
- A single dwelling is not "a significant amount of movement" for TR3(1)(a), even on an unlit, unpaved route (DL ¶17–18).
- Contestable: the letter treats the "nature of the development" proviso in TR3 as met because the proposal is a change of use of an existing building (DL ¶17–18). Other letters read TR3 as a whole even for small schemes (e.g. PINS-6009966 ¶27).
- Local-plan conflicts on car reliance can be outweighed where the Framework's S5 test is met with no adverse effects under its decision policies (DL ¶22–23).
- The inspector ran a full S5(2) check, listing each "should be refused" policy (DL ¶16).
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)(d) | pass | existing holiday dwelling is PDL; material change of use to residential falls within (d) (DL 15) | |
| AnnexB:PDL | pass | property accords with the Annex B definition (DL 15) | |
| S5(3) | not-engaged | part of a group of houses and a Methodist church, so not isolated; HO11 not triggered (DL 4, 20) | |
| S5(2) | pass | no conflict with any "should be refused" policy - L3(4), DP3(3), TR6(4), F6(1), F7(2), N2(2), N6(1)(a), N6(2), HE6(5) listed and checked (DL 14, 16) | |
| TR3 | not-engaged | route to Dalwood walked - 7 min, unlit, no footways, steep return; car reliance likely; but one dwelling is not significant movement absolutely or relative to the road, and the "change of use nature" makes a genuine choice of modes "impractical" (DL 5-7, 17-18) | |
| CC2 | pass | no conflict with CC2/TR3/TR4 (DL 17-18) | |
| HO7 | benefit | limited | one extra home, "minor weight" despite a 3.5-year supply (DL 19) |
| N4 | neutral | Blackdown Hills National Landscape - statutory purpose considered; no physical change (DL 10) | |
| N6 | pass | River Axe SAC nutrient catchment - existing use allowed 365 days, so no increase in occupancy; screened out (DL 11) | |
| LP Strategies 1/3/5B/7/27, TC2 (local) | conflict | car reliance and unrestricted housing in the countryside conflict with the plan as a whole; outweighed by the Framework (DL 8, 22-23) |
Key facts
- Holiday let in a roadside group outside Dalwood (pub, village hall, church, shop, cafe, preschool) (DL 4-5, 7)
- Walk to Dalwood about 7 minutes each way; unlit, no segregated footway, moderately steep uphill return, nowhere to rest (DL 5)
- Residential use would add employment, medical and school trips; carbon emissions "materially greater" but "not significant in scale overall" (DL 6-7)
- BNG small-site exemption (DL 12, 25)
- East Devon supply equivalent to 3.5 years (DL 19)
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.