South Barn, Elworthy Farm, Greenham, Wellington

Decision

dismissed, 24 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: J Hills

Authority

Somerset (South West)

Appeal reference

6012293

Application reference

35/25/0005

Procedure

written representations

Development

Conversion of a stone barn (a non-designated heritage asset with a late medieval jointed cruck roof) with single-storey extensions to a dwelling

Homes

1

Site context

open countryside

Green Belt

No

Housing land supply

3.9 years

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

HE7, DP3(3)

Development plan policies

Taunton Dean Core Strategy SP1, CP1, CP8, DM1, DM2, Site Allocations and Development Management Plan SB1, D7, I4

Main issues

character and NDHA significance; whether a conversion; drainage and water supply

Summary

Converting a stone barn at Elworthy Farm, a vestige of a medieval house with a jointed cruck roof, into a dwelling with extensions. The works would be a genuine conversion, and drainage and water supply were acceptable. But heavily domestic fenestration and cladding would cause moderate harm to the non-designated heritage asset. Under HE7, and with no clear justification under DP3(3), that outweighed substantial weight to one home on a 3.9-year supply. Dismissed.

Issues and findings

• Significance. "A key feature that remains is the late medieval jointed cruck roof." (DL ¶5).
• Harm. "Collectively, these alterations would harmfully compete with the architectural and historic qualities of the building." (DL ¶6).
• Conversion: yes. "That is not to say such works, including new load-bearing elements would necessarily amount to a major rebuild." (DL ¶10).
• Drainage. "the Framework says that it should be assumed separate regulatory regimes will operate effectively unless there is clear evidence to the contrary" (DL ¶15).
• Self-build and BNG. Even if secured, "as it would exempt the proposal from providing any biodiversity net gain, it could not be considered a benefit of the proposal" (DL ¶18).
• Lapsed permission. "national policy has changed in the fairly lengthy intervening period" (DL ¶19); "I attach very little weight to the previous permission" (DL ¶19).
• Housing. The latest evidence shows "a supply of 3.9 years. In accordance with the Framework, I give substantial weight to the provision of one additional dwelling." (DL ¶21).
• HE7 and DP3(3). "I attach significant weight to the identified heritage harm." That harm also conflicts with "Framework Policy DP3, which indicates that development should be refused where, without clear justification, it fails to respond appropriately to its context" (DL ¶23). Retaining the structure "does not clearly justify the presented design. Moreover, any such benefits could conceivably be achieved through a less harmful" scheme (DL ¶24).

Planning balance

HE7 balanced judgement plus DP3(3): "the benefits of the proposal, including the substantial weight I give to the provision of one dwelling, do not outweigh the harm to the NDHA and the conflict with the development plan" (DL ¶25). No S5 category is named and the S5 substantially-outweighed formula is not used.

What made the difference

The design, not the principle. The conversion itself was accepted, but domestic-style openings on both long elevations were the harm, and conditions could not fix them.

Transferable points

• DP3(3)'s clear-justification step, applied to heritage-led design: a viable use and retention of historic fabric do not clearly justify a harmful design when a less harmful scheme could deliver them (DL ¶23-24).
• A self-build exemption that removes the BNG requirement is not a benefit (DL ¶18).
• A lapsed permission for a similar scheme carries very little weight after a policy change and deterioration (DL ¶19).
• Caution: the balance is a plain HE7/level balance, not the S5 test (DL ¶25).

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• 2017 permission for a similar conversion expired; very little weight as policy changed, 2021 design guidance adopted and building deteriorated (DL 19)
• Self-build claimed but not secured; even if secured it would remove BNG, so not a benefit (DL 18)
• Conversion accepted despite new roof, floor, wall repairs and lintels (DL 9-12)
• Costs application by the appellant decided separately (DL 2)

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

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.