Barn Lying South East Of Farmyard - Court Farm Barns, West Woodlands, FROME, BA11 5EN
Mendip District Council * — appeal dismissed
- Outcome
- Dismissed
- Decision date
- 21 September 2021
- Authority
- Mendip District Council *
- Inspector
- Bale M
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Casework type
- Planning Appeal
- Type detail
- Planning Appeals - Full
- Development type
- Change of use
- Appellant
- Mr Mark Knight
- Agent
- Wright Consult Lee Wright
- LPA reference
- 2020/1916/PAA
- ONS LPA code
- E07000187
- Jurisdiction
- Transferred
- Link status
- Not Linked
- Start date
- 5 July 2021
Summary AI
The appeal was dismissed due to the extent of building works required to convert the agricultural building to a residential dwelling, which was deemed to go beyond what can be reasonably described as a conversion.
PDF text
Barn Lying South East Of Farmyard - Court Farm Barns, West Woodlands, FROME, BA11 5EN — Mendip District Council * — Appeal Decision Site Visit made on 12 August 2021 by M Bale BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21 September 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/Q3305/W/21/3274875 Court Farm, West Woodlands, Frome BA11 5EN • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant approval required under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q, Paragraph Q.2.(1) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended). • The appeal is made by Mr Mark Knight against the decision of Mendip District Council. • The application Ref 2020/1916/PAA, dated 22 September 2020, was refused by notice dated 12 November 2020. • The development proposed is the conversion of agricultural building to one larger dwelling. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is whether the proposal would be permitted development, with particular regard to the extent of building operations required. Reasons 3. The building is a metal framed barn. It has an entirely open front and, once an adjoining building has been demolished as proposed, a largely open side elevation.
Barn Lying South East Of Farmyard - Court Farm Barns, West Woodlands, FROME, BA11 5EN — Mendip District Council * — Appeal Decision This is because the main part of the walling materials on that side elevation, rather than being shared, appear to be attached to the adjoining barn. The remaining wall on that side, where it projects beyond the adjoining building, is covered with profiled sheeting, as is the rear wall of the main part of the building. A side ‘lean-to’ section has block walls to 3 sides, but they do not extend to the roof. 4. The steel frame, which would be retained alongside the foundations and floor slab, is structurally strong enough to take the required loading, which is said to be of less weight than the existing cladding. However, aside from the relatively small areas of masonry walling, the external walls and roof would be entirely replaced. Whether or not some of those elements could be retained, that is not the proposal before me. Essentially, only a skeleton would remain to the vast majority of the building. 5. I have been referred to an appeal1 at Hornblotton Farm, which also fell to me. In that case, I noted that the external walls were not fixed to the ground and, like this proposal, extensive open sections were to be infilled with glazing.
Barn Lying South East Of Farmyard - Court Farm Barns, West Woodlands, FROME, BA11 5EN — Mendip District Council * — Appeal Decision However, the extent of building works was broadly the same as another part of 1 Ref: APP/Q3305/W/20/3247213 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate
Barn Lying South East Of Farmyard - Court Farm Barns, West Woodlands, FROME, BA11 5EN — Mendip District Council * — Appeal Decision However, the extent of building works was broadly the same as another part of 1 Ref: APP/Q3305/W/20/3247213 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Appeal Decision APP/Q3305/W/21/3274875 the same barn that had already been approved and all existing external walling was to be retained. Therefore, the building to be converted was not so skeletal as this one and the cases differ. 6. While the permitted development right allows the installation and replacement of roofs and walls, having regard to the judgement in Hibbit and Another v SSCLG and Rushcliffe Borough Council [2016] EWHC 2853 (Admin), I find that the works required in this case go beyond what can reasonably be described as a conversion and a fresh build is proposed. As such, the building is not already suitable for conversion to residential use. 7. The proposal does not, therefore, benefit from the relevant permitted development rights and the appeal is dismissed.
Barn Lying South East Of Farmyard - Court Farm Barns, West Woodlands, FROME, BA11 5EN — Mendip District Council * — M Bale INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2
Main issues and findings
Heritage impact Against appellant ¶4
The external walls and roof would be entirely replaced, leaving only a skeleton of the building, which is not in line with the permitted development right.
Character and appearance Against appellant ¶5
The extent of building works is not comparable to the case of Hornblotton Farm, where the external walls were retained, and the building was not as skeletal as this one.
Planning obligations Against appellant ¶7
The proposal does not benefit from the relevant permitted development rights.
Policies relied on
| Reference | Weight |
|---|---|
| Hibbit and Another v SSCLG and Rushcliffe Borough Council [2016] EWHC 2853 (Admin) |
Determinative |
Site constraints from the Casework Database
Source
Decision letter, 2 pages, issued by the Planning Inspectorate on 21 September 2021 under the Open Government Licence.