Buckerell, Honiton, EX14 3EH

Buckerell, Honiton, EX14 3EH — East Devon District Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 29 October 2025 by A Tucker BA (Hons) IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 12 November 2025 Appeal Ref: APP/U1105/W/25/3371542 Barns North of Sowton Farm, Buckerell, Honiton EX14 3EH • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant approval required under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (GPDO). • The appeal is made by Mr J Cuming against the decision of East Devon District Council. • The application Ref is 25/0874/PDQ. • The development proposed is change of use of the buildings to 4 residential dwellings along with the installation of windows and doors and services to enable the buildings to function as dwellings. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. Various addresses are given for the site. The application form refers to ‘Sowton Farm’, the Council’s decision includes ‘Barns North of’, whereas the appeal form includes neither. Sowton Farm would appear to be to the south of the site, so I have used ‘Barns North of Sowton Farm’ in the banner heading above. 3.

Buckerell, Honiton, EX14 3EH — East Devon District Council — Appeal Decision The development permitted under Class Q and the limitations to such permitted development were significantly amended on 21 May 2024, when the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) (Amendment) Order 2024/579 came into force. Given the transitional arrangements set out under Article 10 of the amending Order, prior approval applications could be made in respect of the old Class Q up until the end of 20 May 2025. The application form is dated 11 April 2025 and the appellant indicated to the Council that it intended for the application to be assessed under the old Class Q. I am satisfied that I can proceed to determine the appeal on this basis. 4. At appeal the appellant has sought to amend the proposal by submitting revised plans, to address the Council’s concerns. I need to consider whether to accept these plans as part of the appeal. Caselaw establishes that I should consider the substantive test and the procedural test. 5. The amended plans propose the demolition of the barn to the north of Barn 1, and the addition of openings on the north elevation of Barn 1 that would include windows and an additional rooflight.

Buckerell, Honiton, EX14 3EH — East Devon District Council — Appeal Decision The additional openings would be of little consequence as they would face over land that is within the appellant’s control. The removal of the barn is however a significant revision to the proposal. Demolition of another barn was already proposed. This barn is at the rear of the site away from the road. The barn to the north of Barn 1 is large, and its end https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Buckerell, Honiton, EX14 3EH — East Devon District Council — Appeal Decision The additional openings would be of little consequence as they would face over land that is within the appellant’s control. The removal of the barn is however a significant revision to the proposal. Demolition of another barn was already proposed. This barn is at the rear of the site away from the road. The barn to the north of Barn 1 is large, and its end https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Buckerell, Honiton, EX14 3EH — East Devon District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/U1105/W/25/3371542 elevation faces the road. Its loss would represent a considerable change to the public appearance of the site, as observed from the lane. With regard to the substantive test, the demolition of this barn would therefore constitute a significant change to the proposal. 6. With regard to the second test, the Council had opportunity to review the revisions, and the Parish Council sent a detailed response. However, others were consulted who did not comment. It cannot be assumed that they are aware of the changes proposed at the appeal stage. They may have a view on the loss of the building or how the land is subsequently used or finished, given that it is prominent to view from the adjacent lane. The amendments would therefore result in procedural unfairness. 7. For these reasons I shall determine the appeal with reference to the plans that were before the Council when it made its decision, and I shall disregard those that have been submitted with the appeal. Main Issues 8.

Buckerell, Honiton, EX14 3EH — East Devon District Council — Appeal Decision The main issues are: a) Whether the location or siting of the building makes it otherwise impractical or undesirable for the building to change from agricultural use to a dwelling, and b) Whether adequate natural light would be provided in all habitable rooms of the dwellinghouses. Reasons Location and siting 9. Barn 1 is attached to an existing agricultural building. The attached barn is large and capable of being put to a variety of agricultural uses including housing livestock. It is accessed from the east, and this is adjacent to the proposed garden area for Barn 1. It is likely that the ongoing agricultural use of the attached barn would be a considerable nuisance to future occupiers of the dwelling as a result of the noise from livestock and associated odour, and activity and noise that would arise from farm machinery and vehicle movements accessing the building and adjacent yard. Regular use of agricultural vehicles within the yard is likely to result in harmful overlooking into the garden area and towards the dwelling given the extent of glazing proposed for its east elevation and the height of modern agricultural vehicles.

Buckerell, Honiton, EX14 3EH — East Devon District Council — Appeal Decision These impacts are likely to be regular, particularly as land adjoining Barn 1 would remain in agricultural use. 10. It is suggested that a condition could be imposed to require the attached barn to be used for dry storage only. I need to consider the acceptability of this condition in light of the six tests set out at paragraph 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework. 11. The enforceability of the condition is questionable, as is its precision because of exactly what is meant by dry storage. In terms of whether it is reasonable, such a condition would significantly constrain the use of the barn and thus may have an adverse impact on the operation of the existing agricultural unit. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Buckerell, Honiton, EX14 3EH — East Devon District Council — Appeal Decision These impacts are likely to be regular, particularly as land adjoining Barn 1 would remain in agricultural use. 10. It is suggested that a condition could be imposed to require the attached barn to be used for dry storage only. I need to consider the acceptability of this condition in light of the six tests set out at paragraph 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework. 11. The enforceability of the condition is questionable, as is its precision because of exactly what is meant by dry storage. In terms of whether it is reasonable, such a condition would significantly constrain the use of the barn and thus may have an adverse impact on the operation of the existing agricultural unit. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Buckerell, Honiton, EX14 3EH — East Devon District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/U1105/W/25/3371542 12. In any case, whilst such a condition could address issues of odour and nuisance that arise from livestock, limiting the use of the barn in this way may still result in a considerable level of noise and activity as heavy farm machinery is regularly manoeuvred and dry store items such as hay or straw are retrieved for use elsewhere. In such instances the overlooking issue would remain. 13. There are many situations where agricultural activity takes place alongside an independent residential use. However, in this case the converted dwelling and its garden would be immediately alongside the attached barn and adjacent yard; its ongoing use for agricultural purposes, even if it could be limited to dry storage, still has the potential to be a considerable nuisance. This would be different than the situation with the dwelling that is already converted to the south of the site as it is more clearly orientated to face away from the adjoining agricultural building, with only a very modest shared boundary and with what would appear to be a largely enclosed garden area. 14.

Buckerell, Honiton, EX14 3EH — East Devon District Council — Appeal Decision In summary, the location or siting of Barn 1 makes it impractical or undesirable for it to be used as a dwelling, with reference to Q2. (1) (e) of Schedule 2 Part 3 of the GPDO. Natural light 15. The study would be without any natural light. The appellant explains that this was an oversight, however the lack of a window or rooflight is shown on the plans that were submitted to the Council and for the reasons given I am of the view that these are the plans that I should consider. 16. A study is a habitable room. Indeed, it would be well proportioned and located such that it could be equally suited to serve as a fifth bedroom. Accordingly, the conversion of Barn 1 would not secure adequate natural light for all its habitable rooms, with reference to Q2 (1) (g) of Schedule 2 Part 3 of the GPDO. Conclusion 17. For the reasons given, the appeal should be dismissed.

Buckerell, Honiton, EX14 3EH — East Devon District Council — A Tucker INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3