# Northolm Farm, Crowland Road, Eye Green, Peterborough (barn to B2/B8)

- **Decision:** dismissed, 20 August 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: R Gee
- **Authority:** Peterborough (East of England)
- **Appeal reference:** 6010542
- **Application reference:** 25/01330/FUL
- **Procedure:** written-representations
- **Development:** Change of use of agricultural barn to B2/B8 as storage and dispatch base for a mobile agricultural repair business
- **Site context:** open-countryside, listed-building-setting
- **Green Belt:** no
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** TR6(4), S5(1)(c)
- **Development plan policies:** Peterborough Local Plan 2019 LP13
- **Main issues:** highway safety
- **Tags:** highway-safety-fail, rural-business-conversion, s5-1-c-reuse, transitional-no-consultation, old-wording-slip, red-line-grampian

## Summary
An early (20 August 2026) decision under the new Framework, dismissing a farm-barn-to-B2/B8 conversion on highway safety at the access. The principle was accepted under S5(1)(c), but vehicles could not pass on the bend near the junction. The land needed to fix this was outside the red line, and not shown to be in the appellant's control. The concluding paragraph states the S5 test backwards.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** "the relevant policy approach has not fundamentally changed … Therefore, the parties have not been invited to make further comments" (DL ¶3).
- **Scheme changes at appeal.** Holborn Studios was applied to reject amended plans enlarging the red line (DL ¶2).
- **Highway safety: FAIL (TR6(4)).** "In the absence of this [additional land], there is a potential for vehicles to have to reverse or wait onto the public highway" (DL ¶11). "a Grampian-style condition would not overcome my concerns" (DL ¶12). This conflicts with "criterion 4 of TR6 of the Framework" (DL ¶17).
- **Heritage: preserved** (DL ¶18-20).
- **S5.** "The proposal would re-use an existing building of permanent and substantial construction" (DL ¶23). The conclusion reads: "I am, therefore, not satisfied that the benefits of approving the development proposal would be substantially outweighed by adverse effects. The appeal is therefore dismissed" (DL ¶26). Read literally that would favour approval; from the context the intended finding is plainly the reverse.

## Planning balance
Some economic and diversification benefit and moderate locational sustainability weight were set against unacceptable highway safety at the access. Other matters were neutral.

## What made the difference
The application red line. Had the passing place been included in the application site, or had control of that land been shown, a Grampian condition could have secured it and the scheme would probably have succeeded.

## Transferable points
- S5(1)(c) re-use schemes still fail under TR6(4) where safe access is not shown (DL ¶17, 25).
- A Grampian condition is not available where there is no persuasive evidence that the land is in the appellant's control (DL ¶12).
- Early decisions show some inspectors applying the Framework without consultation where they judge the policy "not fundamentally changed" (DL ¶3). The drafting of the S5 conclusion here shows the new "substantially outweighed" wording being misapplied (DL ¶26).

## Policy findings
- **S5(1)(c): pass.** re-use of an existing building of permanent and substantial construction; principle not in dispute (DL 23)
- **TR6(4): fail.** sharp bend in access track means two vehicles (especially large) cannot pass near the junction; widening land outside red line and control not shown; Grampian condition not appropriate (DL 8-17)
- **HE6: pass.** post-1948 steel barn not curtilage listed; setting of Grade II* Northolme Farm preserved (DL 18-20)
- **S5(1): fail.** benefits (employment, farm diversification, moderate locational sustainability) did not justify approval given unresolved highway safety; DL 26 wording inverted (see body)

## Key facts
- Revised plans enlarging the red line to add passing hardstanding refused under Holborn Studios principles (DL 2)
- Inspector did not invite comments on the new Framework, finding the relevant approach "not fundamentally changed" (DL 3)
- No robust evidence on frequency or type of vehicle movements; HGV exclusion unenforceable (DL 14)
- Decided three days after the new Framework took effect

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010542
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/2ca9968f-7585-4fe3-a761-89cbc9f055a9

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010542.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.