# Barn on West Lane, Galphay, Ripon

- **Decision:** dismissed, 18 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: A Caines
- **Authority:** North Yorkshire (Yorkshire and the Humber)
- **Appeal reference:** 6010348
- **Application reference:** 26/00533/FUL
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Demolition of traditional stone barn and erection of one dwelling with new access (extant consent to convert the barn)
- **Homes:** 1
- **Site context:** open-countryside, national-landscape, rural-lane
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** S5(1)(c), S5(1)(j), S5(4), N4, TR3
- **Development plan policies:** Harrogate District Local Plan 2020 GS2, GS3, GS6, HP3, NE4
- **Main issues:** location of housing, National Landscape character, fallback
- **Tags:** s5-1-c-reuse, s5-1-j, s5-4-exceptional, national-landscape, fallback, sustainable-location-fail, rural-lane-no-footway, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework

## Summary
Demolition of a traditional stone barn in the Nidderdale National Landscape, which already had consent for conversion to a dwelling, and its replacement with a new-build house. Dismissed. S5(1)(c) did not apply because a replacement must be for the same use. S5(1)(j) did not help because the scheme added no home beyond the fallback and was not physically well-related to Galphay. Under S5(4), the unjustified loss of the barn (N4, substantial weight) and car reliance outweighed the benefits, even with significant weight to the fallback.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** Parties commented on the 2026 Framework (DL ¶2).
- **Location / TR3: FAIL.** "The surrounding roads are narrow, unlit country lanes with limited opportunities for safe pedestrian movement … future occupiers would be likely to rely heavily on private vehicle travel" (DL ¶7).
- **Fallback.** Given "significant weight", but the approved scheme "does not authorise the complete demolition of the traditional barn … the fallback position reduces the weight to be attached to the conflict arising from the proposal's countryside location, it does not remove that conflict" (DL ¶9-11).
- **N4: HARM.** The structural evidence "does not demonstrate that demolition is unavoidable" (DL ¶17). The result is "the unnecessary loss of a traditional rural building that contributes positively to local distinctiveness" (DL ¶18).
- **Housing.** "an extant planning permission already exists for the creation of a dwelling on the site … the appeal proposal would not materially increase housing supply" (DL ¶23).
- **S5 categories.** "Policy S5(1)(c) does not apply because the replacement building would not be for the same use … Whilst the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply … the proposal would not materially increase housing delivery … and would not be physically well-related to an existing settlement" (DL ¶27).

## Planning balance
S5(4). On the harm side: countryside location, TR3, and N4 (substantial weight). On the benefit side: the fallback (significant weight, but offsetting only the locational conflict), the safer access (moderate), highway retaining wall (limited), energy and housing (little). "The exceptional circumstances required by Policy S5(4) have therefore not been demonstrated" (DL ¶29).

## What made the difference
The barn itself had value. A conversion fallback can neutralise the principle of a dwelling in the countryside, but not the loss of a traditional building in a National Landscape. A structural report showing the barn could not be repaired would have changed the N4 finding, though (c) would still not apply because the use changes.

## Transferable points
- S5(1)(c) replacement requires the same use. A barn cannot be "replaced" by a dwelling under (c) (DL ¶27).
- Where an extant permission already delivers the home, the shortfall adds little weight and (j) is not engaged (DL ¶23, 27).
- A conversion fallback offsets locational conflict, not the harm of demolishing the building it relies on (DL ¶11, 18, 26).
- A structural report that lists defects and repairs does not justify demolition (DL ¶10, 17).

## Policy findings
- **S5(1)(c): fail.** replacement must be for the same use; agricultural barn to dwelling is not (DL 27)
- **S5(1)(j): fail.** council lacks a 5YHLS (figure not given) but no net addition over the extant conversion and not physically well-related to Galphay (DL 23, 27)
- **S5(4): fail.** fallback (significant weight), access (moderate), highway support (limited), energy/housing (little) do not substantially outweigh harm (DL 26-29)
- **N4: harm (substantial weight).** unjustified loss of traditional stone barn contributing to Nidderdale NL special qualities; structural survey shows repair possible (DL 15-19, 25)
- **TR3: fail.** narrow unlit lanes, limited safe pedestrian movement; heavy car reliance (DL 7, 25)

## Key facts
- Extant permission (25/03836/FUL) to convert the barn; officer accepted the conversion was a substantial rebuild
- Structural evidence showed defects but not that demolition was unavoidable
- Council cannot show 5YHLS, but the appeal would add no dwelling beyond the fallback

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010348
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/4e8fccc3-c804-452b-baea-ae565da3e8c3

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010348.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.