Case Reference: 3347352

Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 29 October 2024
by R Cahalane BA(Hons) MSc MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 04 February 2025
Appeal Ref: APP/Y9507/W/24/3347352
Barrow Hill Farm, Barrowhill Farm Lane, Ramsdean, Petersfield,
Hampshire GU32 1RW
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as
amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of South Downs National Park
Authority.
• The application Ref is SDNP/23/00200/FUL.
• The development proposed is change of use of agricultural building to leisure, swimming
pool and associated facilities and proposed outside tennis court to support existing
holiday let business.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Preliminary Matters
2. The appeal submission includes an amended block plan with refuse storage,
and amended elevations to include external light fitting locations. I do not
regard these amendments as involving a substantial difference or fundamental
change to the application. Nor do I consider that accepting these amendments
would lead to procedural unfairness to interested parties. I have therefore
determined the appeal on the basis of these amendments.
3. A revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was issued on
12 December 2024. Guidance for Relevant Authorities on Seeking to Further
the Purposes of Protected Landscapes was also published by the Government
on 16 December 2024. In the specific circumstances of this appeal, there is no
need to invite further comments on the above from the main parties.
Main Issues
4. The main issues are:
• whether the scale and location of the proposed development is acceptable
having regard to the spatial strategy of the development plan;
• whether the proposal would conserve and enhance the landscape, natural
beauty and tranquillity of the South Downs National Park; and
• the effect on the South Downs International Dark Sky Reserve.
Reasons
Scale and location
Scale
5. The appeal site comprises an agricultural barn at the eastern end of a farm
complex housing a number of barns and other buildings. The barn is
surrounded by concrete hardstanding and there are further areas of
hardstanding to the north and more immediately alongside the barn’s eastern
and southern elevations. The site lies in the open countryside and the South
Downs National Park (SDNP), surrounded by undeveloped land.
6. In recent years, farm diversification has been introduced in the form of self-
catered holiday accommodation on the wider holding. The National Park
Authority (NPA) has permitted nine holiday lets1 and three glamping pods2,
collectively known as Barrow Hill Barns and Homelands Farm, and flexible
commercial uses in a barn3 at the west side of the farm complex. The
permitted scheme for eight of the Barrow Hills Barns holiday lets included a
swimming pool that was not implemented, as ultimately the provision of a pool
at the outset before establishment of the holiday let business was seen as a
risk by the appellants.
7. Policy SD25 of the South Downs Local Plan 2019 (SDLP) states that
exceptionally, development will be permitted outside of settlement boundaries,
where, amongst other things, it complies with relevant policies in this Local
Plan and there is an essential need for a countryside location. Its supporting
text advises in paragraph 7.10 that exceptions to the development strategy are
set out in other policies, for example Policy SD23 (Sustainable Tourism).
8. Policy SD23 sets out, amongst other things, that proposals for visitor
accommodation and recreation facilities will be permitted where it is
demonstrated that ancillary facilities are not disproportionately large in relation
to the rest of the visitor facilities. Where proposals such as the appeal scheme
are located outside settlement policy boundaries, this policy requires the
development to be closely associated with other attractions or established
tourism uses.
9. It is put to me that the holiday lets in the control of the appellants can in total
accommodate up to 46 guests. The current proposal is presented as a
furtherment to the ongoing farm diversification to support the wider farm, and
to address increased competition in the area and higher guest expectations.
10. It is anticipated that there will be one full-time member of staff on site and also
visiting self-employed staff to carry out pre-booked treatments within the
building. There will be a self-service coffee machine for guests and additional
part-time staff will be contracted to work at the site as required, depending on
demand for the facilities and other matters such as staff holidays.
11. I accept that it is not unusual for tourist accommodation to be provided with a
swimming pool and associated facilities, and that the additional nearby holiday
lets have been implemented and established successfully. The scale of the
1 NPA Refs: SDNP/15/04644/FU; SDNP/22/02266/HOUS
2 NPA Ref: SDNP/21/01238/FUL
3 NPA Ref: SDNP/23/00201/FUL
overall proposed facilities however cannot be reasonably described as being
ancillary to the 12 holiday existing lets, even with up to 46 occupants.
12. Whilst utilising an existing building, the enclosed facilities would be of
considerable size. The overall nature, scale and extent of facilities to be
provided are more akin to what would be normally provided alongside a much
larger holiday complex than what currently exists. The proposal is therefore
disproportionately large relative to the existing scale of holiday
accommodation. In this respect, an essential need for the proposal has not
been demonstrated.
Location
13. SDLP Policy SD19 states, amongst other things, that development proposals
will be permitted provided that they are located and designed to minimise the
need to travel and promote the use of sustainable modes of transport.
14. SDLP Policy SD41 supports the conversion of redundant agricultural buildings
outside of defined settlement boundaries, subject to criteria requiring, amongst
other things, the location to be sufficiently well related to existing
infrastructure, amenities and services. Its supporting text advises at paragraph
7.201 that many but not all agricultural or forestry buildings will be suitable for
conversion. Buildings which are generally not suitable for conversion include
those in isolated locations, or with poor access arrangements.
15. The SDLP does not provide a definition of “isolated”, although the NPA
describes the site and its surrounds as being isolated in terms of connection to
the highway network and wider facilities and attractions. Whilst the site is at
some distance from the nearest town of Petersfield and the main road network,
the more immediate setting of the appeal site is not devoid of buildings,
including holiday lets. The appeal proposal is to provide facilities for these
holiday lets and the appellants, but not for wider public use. In this context, I
do not consider the location of the proposal to be isolated.
16. The appeal site and nearby holiday accommodation is served by a narrow rural
lane. Walking distances from the holiday units to the proposal site are short in
terms of distance. I also accept that Hampshire County Council Highway
Authority raised no objection in consultation if the proposed facilities are
limited to use by the existing tourist facilities, as there would be no significant
increase in vehicle movements to and from the site.
17. However, the lane contains dense hedges, no footways or street lighting and
limited pedestrian refuge opportunities. This is therefore a restrictive
environment to walk along. The appellant suggests that the pool and other
facilities could be available for use between 8am to 9pm. Given the absence of
public transport provision, this would likely lead to additional private car use
during periods of darkness and inclement weather. Although guests could stop
at the proposed facilities enroute to somewhere else or upon their return from
exploring the National Park, this would not always be the case.
18. The proposal is therefore not closely associated with the established holiday
accommodation. Whilst this situation may not have changed since the nearby
holiday lets were approved, I have not been provided with the full policy
context applicable at the time of their determination. This also does not alter
the fact that the current proposed conversion of an agricultural building would
not minimise the need to travel or promote the use of sustainable modes of
transport.
Conclusion on scale and location
19. For the above reasons, the overall proposed scale and location of the holiday
let facilities goes beyond the scope of what is supported under the spatial
strategy of the development plan, namely SDLP Policies SD19, SD23, SD25 and
SD41. A condition restricting use of the proposed facilities to guests of the
nearby holiday lets and the appellants would not mitigate this policy conflict.
20. The first reason for refusal refers to a significantly low level of parking given
the scale and scope of the proposed facilities, and a lack of provision for refuse
storage and collection and general servicing requirements. A row of parking
spaces is indicated immediately to the south of the conversion proposal,
including one accessible space, which I consider to be sufficient for the
anticipated use by staff and guests of the existing holiday units.
21. The appeal submission includes a refuse collection point adjacent the existing
vehicular access off Barrowhill Farm Lane. I am satisfied that this would
provide sufficient refuse storage and collection for the proposal, which could
have been secured by means of a suitably worded planning condition, had I
been minded to allow the appeal.
Landscape and natural beauty of the South Downs National Park
22. The statutory purposes of National Parks are to conserve and enhance their
natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage, and to promote opportunities for
the understanding and enjoyment of those areas by the public. Section 245 of
the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 amends the duty on relevant
authorities in respect of their functions which affect land in National Parks, who
now must “seek to further” their statutory purposes.
23. SDLP Policy SD4 states that development proposals will only be permitted
where they conserve and enhance landscape character by demonstrating that,
amongst other things, the design, layout and scale conserves and enhances
existing landscape character features which contribute to the distinctive
character, pattern and evolution of the landscape. The Policy SD4 supporting
text advises at paragraph 5.10 that proposals should be informed by the South
Downs Integrated Landscape Character Assessment 2011 (SDILCA). Whilst
supporting text does not have the force of policy and cannot trump it, it is
nonetheless relevant to its interpretation and in this case, how the
distinctiveness of the landscape can be identified.
24. The appeal site is within Landscape Character Area J2 (East Meon to Bury
Greensand Terraces) as set out in the SDILCA. Its Integrated Key
Characteristics are identified as including a diversity of field patterns and
enclosure, and contrast provided between the more open arable fields and the
intimacy and enclosure created by the sinuous bands of woodland. The above
characteristics are experienced within the setting of the proposal.
25. The relevant SDLP Policy SD41 criteria to this main issue require: the original
building to be worthy of conversion with regard to its current character, scale
and condition, without the need for substantial reconstruction or significant
extensions; and, no adverse impact on the character of the building and its
setting, in particular its agricultural character. Buildings generally not suitable
for conversion, as advised by supporting paragraph 7.201, include buildings
which have a negative landscape impact only justified in a National Park setting
by their agricultural usage.
26. The agricultural barn building proposed for conversion is mainly open and is
more enclosed on its western elevation adjacent the other agricultural
buildings. It has a large span, but reads as a typical form of modern
agricultural development. It therefore does not diverge from the rural character
of the site and the surrounding landscape. Even if it would become redundant
and deteriorate in physical form, its agricultural form and purpose could still be
appreciated.
27. The officer report states that the barn building is not considered worthy of
conversion as it has no architectural or historic interest. Whilst this is inevitably
a subjective matter, such a threshold is stricter than the wording of the
abovementioned relevant criteria of Policy SD41.
28. That being said, the long eastern elevation of the barn faces mainly open
countryside, with some intervisibility between the proposal site and the cluster
of holiday units set slightly downhill at a distance alongside the lane. The
proposed barn conversion would include a large expanse of glazing on its east
elevation, which is most exposed to the surrounding landscape. Open views of
the proposal would be possible from the southeast along Barrowhill Farm Lane,
with the building sited on higher ground level than the lane. The adjacent
agricultural buildings are much less prominent behind the proposal when
viewed along the lane to the southeast, and therefore do not mitigate the
adverse visual impact of the proposal.
29. Supporting paragraph 7.204 to SDLP Policy 41 further advises that conversion
should be achieved through minimal changes and retention of the existing
structure and its characteristics. Whilst the proposal would retain the existing
structure, any enclosure of the existing open elevations would go beyond what
could be reasonably described as minimal changes. The converted building
would appear as a stark, contemporary and prominent development of
significant commercial scale, appearance and function, at odds with and
detracting from the agricultural character of the barn and farm complex, and
the rural and distinctive qualities of the surrounding landscape.
30. Some change to the character of rural buildings is inevitable when they are
converted, and such change has already occurred to the buildings on the main
holiday let site. However, the converted building is read to be in a clearly
different location to the holiday accommodation in which it would serve, and
would appear disproportionately large relative to the existing scale of holiday
accommodation. This would further accentuate the harmful impact upon the
landscape character and natural beauty of the SDNP.
31. I also accept that mixed commercial uses have already been approved at
another barn on the western edge of the group of buildings4. This building is
however of smaller size and of less prominence than the appeal building, and
therefore does not justify the current proposal.
32. The hardstanding to the north of the building, where the tennis court is
proposed, contained a sileage clamp at the time of my site visit. The
4 See footnote 3 above
hardstanding was also used to store bales, fencing and other agricultural
equipment. There is also an earth mound along the east side of the proposed
tennis court. It is unclear as to whether this would be retained. It is also likely
that a tennis court in this location would require enclosure to be safely
operated alongside the agricultural complex. No detailed hard or soft landscape
details are before me. Based on the submitted evidence before me, I am not
certain that the use of planning conditions at this stage to secure further
details would avoid harm to the landscape and natural beauty of the SDNP.
Tranquillity of the South Downs National Park
33. SDLP Policy SD7 sets out that development proposals will only be permitted
where they conserve and enhance relative tranquillity and should consider
direct impacts from changes in the visual and aural environment, and indirect
impacts remote from the proposal such as vehicular. Proposals in highly
tranquil and intermediate tranquillity areas should conserve and enhance, and
not cause harm to, relative tranquillity.
34. The Policy SD7 supporting text at paragraph 5.43 advises that tranquillity is
considered to be a state of calm and quietude and is associated with a feeling
of peace. It is a perceptual quality of the landscape, and is influenced by things
that people can both see and hear in the landscape around them.
35. Supporting Paragraph 5.44 refers to the SDNP Tranquillity Study (2017). The
officer report describes the appeal site as being within a highly tranquil area,
whereas the Tranquillity Study score for the site and its immediate surrounds
suggest that it is within an intermediate tranquillity area. Given the site’s
location near other buildings and lanes, I consider that the Tranquillity Study
score forms a more accurate reflection of the site and its surrounds.
36. The proposed parking area would be sited within the existing hardstanding area
immediately south of the barn conversion, and could replace previous farm
vehicles parked or stored here. However, the visual impact of the barn
conversion, notably its exposed eastern glazed elevation and its associated
use, would fail to conserve the relative tranquillity of the site’s setting within
the SDNP. Whilst the likely increase in vehicle use between the appeal proposal
and the holiday lets would be minor relative to the existing use of the wider
road network, it would nonetheless also fail to conserve relative tranquillity.
Conclusion - landscape, natural beauty and tranquillity
37. The overall appeal proposal is contrary to Policies SD4, SD5, SD7 and SD41 of
the SDLP, the relevant criteria of which I have identified above.
South Downs International Dark Sky Reserve
38. SDLP Policy SD8 states that proposals will be permitted where they conserve
and enhance the intrinsic quality of dark night skies and the integrity of the
Dark Sky Core. Lighting which is proposed to be installed must meet or exceed
the level of protection appropriate to the environmental zone. The proposal site
is within the Dark Sky Core zone of the South Downs International Dark Sky
Reserve, as shown on the SDLP Policies Map.
39. The existing site is unlit apart from three internal lights underneath the ridge of
the proposed barn conversion. The proposed barn conversion includes no
rooflights, but would provide a large expanse of glazing along the eastern
elevation to serve the length of the pool, the coffee area, the gym room and
associated locker areas.
40. The appeal submission includes external illumination details, which would be
limited to the installation of two downward-pointing wall lights either side of
the proposed barn conversion main entrance on the southern elevation. These
lights would only illuminate when motion is detected outside the building.
Blackout blinds are proposed for all glazing within the building. The fixed
glazing units would use internal recessed blackout roller blinds. The entrance
doors and emergency exits would use a motorised integral blind system, and
both systems would be activated via a photocell.
41. Full lighting specification and mitigation details could be provided by means of
suitably worded planning conditions. However, the roller blinds may prove
inadequate for the gym room and the changing and locker areas. These areas
are served by windows on the exposed eastern elevation and may require
opening to provide adequate ventilation, even during periods of darkness. This
would prevent the intended operation of the roller blinds.
42. Whilst the appellant has made a genuine attempt to alleviate the impacts of
light spill, based on the submitted evidence I am not certain that the proposal
would conserve and enhance the integrity of the Dark Sky Core within the
South Downs International Dark Sky Reserve. It has therefore not been
demonstrated that the proposal would comply with the requirements of Policy
SD8 of the SDLP.
Planning Balance
43. The proposal partially complies with SDLP Policy SD23, as it would make use of
an existing building and would support a year-round visitor economy.
Paragraph 88 of the Framework states that planning decisions should enable
the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business in rural areas,
including through conversion of existing buildings, the development and
diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses, and
sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments which respect the character
of the countryside.
44. I have however found significant overall conflict with SDLP Policies SD4, SD5,
SD8, SD19, SD23, SD25 and SD41. Paragraph 187 of the Framework states
that planning decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local
environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, and recognising
the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. Paragraph 189 of the
Framework sets out that great weight should be given to conserving and
enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, which have the
highest status of protection in relation to these issues. I therefore conclude
that the proposal is contrary to the development plan as a whole.
45. The family of the appellants have farmed land in Ramsdean over many
generations and still farm today. Successful farm diversification has been
recently introduced and the holiday lets have now been operating for several
years. The existing self-catering tourist accommodation operated by the
appellants has been given the highest rating of 5 Star Gold by Visit England for
accommodation. In response to guest feedback, the appeal proposal seeks to
provide 5 Star Gold facilities for guests to improve their experience, and to also
extend the holiday season and diversify the tourism offer in an increasingly
competitive market. The proposed facilities would raise visitor spend levels that
would contribute more widely to the economy of the National Park. The above
benefits are afforded moderate cumulative weight.
46. The Government’s published guidance for relevant authorities on seeking to
further the purposes of Protected Landscapes advises that if there is a conflict
between the two statutory purposes of National Parks, as the relevant authority
I must attach greater weight to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the
natural beauty of the area in the National Park.
47. The appellants refer to other tourism and leisure facilities across England.
However, there are insufficient specific details before me to make meaningful
comparisons to the current proposal. The Parish Council has expressed support
for the proposal, subject to the building being limited to guests of the existing
holiday cottages and glamping pods. I must however assess the current
proposal on its own merits having regard to all planning policy requirements
and the site-specific circumstances.
48. The appellants contend that the proposal would lead to a significant reduction
in farm traffic and heavy machinery noise both within the farmyard and in the
local roads and fields, and that it would also pave the way for planting more
wildflower meadows and hedgerows outside the curtilage of the proposal. The
submitted evidence however suggests that the existing agricultural operation
will continue, and I have found it likely that the proposal would generate
additional private car trips. Therefore, the purported reduction in vehicular
movements has not been demonstrated. The overall proposed landscaping
details are limited and do not demonstrate that the adverse impacts I have
identified would be mitigated.
49. It is also put to me that following further changes to the Town and Country
Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 in May
20245, the agricultural building subject of this appeal could now be converted
to a gym, with further planning permission needed for the required external
alterations to the barn. However, any change of use above 150 square metres
would be subject to the prior approval procedure. Whilst this procedure is not
as comprehensive as a full planning application assessment, it would
nonetheless be subject to other material planning considerations that cannot be
determined under this appeal. The potential for such a fallback has therefore
not been demonstrated and is therefore only afforded very little weight.
Conclusion
50. The material considerations before me, including the Framework, do not
indicate that a decision should be made otherwise than in accordance with the
development plan. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.
R Cahalane
INSPECTOR
5 The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development etc.) (England) (Amendment) Order 2024