- Decision
- dismissed, 14 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: H Marriott
- Authority
- King's Lynn and West Norfolk (East of England)
- Appeal reference
- 6011256
- Application reference
- 25/01774/CU
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Change of use of agricultural barn to repair, sale and storage of camper vans and caravans
- Site context
- open countryside, rural lane
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- TR6, S5(1)(c), S5(2), E2
- Development plan policies
- King's Lynn and West Norfolk Local Plan 2021-2040 (2025) LP13, LP18
- Main issues
- highway safety and road network suitability
Summary
Converting a disused farm barn to a small camper-van repair and sales business fell within S5(1)(c) (re-use of an existing building), and its economic benefits got substantial weight under E2. It was nevertheless dismissed. The inspector treated failure to comply with TR6 as an S5(2) circumstance and found the benefits "substantially outweighed". The objection was highway safety on a narrow, peat-damaged lane carrying towed vehicles and low-loaders.
Issues and findings
- Transition. Parties were invited to comment on the revised Framework (DL ¶2).
- Highway safety: FAIL (TR6). "The nature of the vehicles associated with the proposed use would be likely to increase occasions where two-way traffic flow is impeded, requiring vehicles to wait or reverse … increase the risk of collisions" (DL ¶10). An absence of accident data "is only one indicator of highway safety" (DL ¶10).
- Fallback rejected. "I am not persuaded that the agricultural fallback identified in the TS represents a realistic prospect" (DL ¶8).
- Conditions. A cap on vehicles would not "directly control the frequency or nature of those movements" (DL ¶11).
- S5 balance. S5(1)(c) applies, and "Policy E2 … states that substantial weight should be given to the economic benefits" (DL ¶19). But "the circumstances in which the benefits … are likely to be outweighed by adverse effects include situations where the development proposals would fail to comply with Policy TR6 of the Framework, a matter which attracts considerable weight" (DL ¶20). "the benefits … would be substantially outweighed" (DL ¶21).
Planning balance
Under S5(1)(c)/S5(2), E2 substantial economic weight was set against considerable-weight TR6 non-compliance, conflict with TR3, and conflict with the plan as a whole. The benefits were substantially outweighed.
What made the difference
The highway authority's objection, backed by site-specific evidence (peat subsidence, narrow width, bends), and the appellant's failure to show a realistic fallback. Mitigation such as passing places, as secured for the nearby solar farm, might have changed the outcome.
Transferable points
- The inspector treated failure to comply with TR6 as an S5(2) circumstance where benefits are likely to be substantially outweighed, even for a listed S5(1) category and even with E2 substantial weight (DL ¶20-21).
- A historic agricultural traffic fallback carries no weight where the building has been unused for years and the land is in other ownership (DL ¶8).
- A cap on the number of vehicles stored does not control the character of movements, so it cannot cure the road-network objection (DL ¶11).
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 | reuse of an existing building is a listed category (DL 19) | |
| E2 | benefit | substantial | E2 requires substantial weight to economic benefits of businesses investing/expanding/adapting; modest rural employment (DL 19) |
| TR6 | fail | considerable | narrow national-speed-limit lane on peat, cracked and undulating; towing/low-loader traffic would force reversing on bends; LHA objection given significant weight (DL 4-13, 20) |
| TR3 | conflict | conflict with the Framework's sustainable transport policies (DL 13, 20) | |
| S5(2) | fail | failure to comply with TR6 is a circumstance where benefits are likely to be substantially outweighed; benefits substantially outweighed (DL 20-21) |
Key facts
- Portal-frame barn unused c.15 years; surrounding farmland in separate ownership, so agricultural traffic fallback not realistic (DL 8)
- One part-time employee, around five vans on site, c.25 sales a year, appointment-only
- Harps Hall Road narrow, unlit, no footways, peat-deformed surface, restricted junction visibility
- A nearby solar farm appeal (APP/V2635/W/23/3323065) distinguished because its construction traffic was temporary and mitigated (DL 15)
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.