- Decision
- dismissed, 21 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: S Ramsden
- Authority
- Cherwell (South East)
- Appeal reference
- 6009985
- Application reference
- 25/02893/PIP
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Permission in principle - conversion of an agricultural building to 2 dwellings
- Homes
- 2
- Site context
- open countryside, isolated, rural lane
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S5(3), HO11, S5(1)(j), TR3
- Development plan policies
- Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 Part 1 ESD1, ESD13, ESD15, saved Cherwell Local Plan 1996 H19, C28, C30
- Main issues
- sustainable location; character and appearance
Summary
Permission in principle for converting an agricultural building 700 m outside Kirtlington into two homes was refused on appeal. The homes would be "isolated" (S5(3)) with no HO11 justification. The site was not physically well-related to the village (S5(1)(j)) and was almost wholly car dependent. The inspector accepted the site "could be described" as PDL attracting S5 support, but the benefits (substantial HO7 weight) were still "substantially outweighed".
Issues and findings
- Location / TR3: FAIL. "Mill Lane is unlit and has no defined or separate footway … Around half the distance … is a gravelled bridlepath, which would not provide easy access … by users with limited mobility" (DL ¶11). Bus stops were about 1 km away (DL ¶13).
- S5(3)/HO11: FAIL. "The appeal site is some distance outside the settlement of Kirtlington and it is not within a group of existing houses … not well-related to an existing settlement. Policy S5.3 … isolated homes should not be approved other than in accordance with policy HO11" (DL ¶30). HO11 reuse was not met: "no substantive evidence has been presented to demonstrate that the building is redundant or disused, and the proposal would not enhance its immediate setting" (DL ¶31).
- PDL. "The proposal would involve the reuse of a site which could be described as constituting previously development land, which would attract support under Policy S5" (DL ¶32). This sits uneasily with the Annex B exclusion of land last occupied by agricultural buildings (compare PINS-6009303 DL ¶18).
- Character: domestic use would harm a tranquil rural landscape (DL ¶17-23).
Planning balance
The S5 balance: HO7 substantial weight and economic/social benefits moderate weight, against unsustainable location and character harm. "the benefits … would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶33-34).
What made the difference
Isolation and access, not the building. An in-use agricultural building with no evidence of redundancy cannot use HO11's reuse route. Its distance from the village, across fields and a golf course, defeated (j).
Transferable points
- HO11 reuse of a building for an isolated home needs evidence that the building is redundant or disused, and an enhancement of its setting (DL ¶31).
- A site 700 m from a village across open fields is neither "within a group of houses" nor "physically well-related" (DL ¶9, 30).
- Unlit lanes and gravel bridleways do not provide inclusive access for users with limited mobility (DL ¶11).
- Even where some S5 support (PDL) is found, isolation and car dependence can substantially outweigh substantial housing weight (DL ¶32-34).
- Contrast PINS-6009718, where S5(3) was treated as overriding PDL status outright. Here it was weighed instead.
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)(j) | fail | at least 700 m from Kirtlington across fields and golf course - not physically well-related (DL 9, 20, 30) | |
| S5(3) | fail | not within a group of houses and not well-related - isolated homes; HO11 not met (no evidence building redundant/disused, no enhancement of setting) (DL 30-31) | |
| S5(1)(d) | benefit | inspector says the site "could be described as" PDL attracting S5 support - questionable for an agricultural building (DL 32) | |
| TR3 | fail | Mill Lane unlit, no footway, half of route a gravel bridlepath; bus stops about 1 km; almost entirely car dependent (DL 9-15) | |
| HO7 | benefit | substantial | housing supply position (figure not stated) (DL 33) |
Key facts
- Building in current agricultural use; no evidence of redundancy
- Kirtlington has pub, school, church, village hall; store/post office asserted but not seen
- Nearest bus stops about 1 km; half the route is gravel bridleway
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.