# 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 (years):** 3.9 - **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 - **Tags:** ndha, ndha-harm, heritage-harm-decisive, dp3-refuse-trigger, barn-conversion, s5-limb-not-identified, housing-shortfall, small-scheme, costs-application, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework ## 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 - **HE7: harm (significant weight).** moderate harm to NDHA - domestic fenestration and heavy cladding compete with simple stonework; exposed cruck roof a positive (DL 5-8, 22-23) - **DP3(3): fail.** explicit - retention and viable use of the historic structure do not clearly justify the design; benefits achievable by a less harmful scheme (DL 23-24) - **DM7: pass.** septic tank near a private water supply left to EA permitting; separate regimes assumed to operate effectively (DL 15-17) - **HO7: benefit (substantial weight).** one dwelling on a 3.9-year supply (DL 21) - **S5(1)(c): pass.** mapped; letter finds a genuine conversion under local DM2 but does not name an S5 category or run the S5 test (DL 9-12) ## 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 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6012293 - https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/published-document/11909f34-cae1-45a8-948b-6c9f71d35b36 --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6012293.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.