Appeal Decision

Site visit made on 11 February 2026

by H Nicholls MSc MRTPI

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State

Decision date: 25 February 2026

Appeal Ref: APP/Y3940/W/25/3372256

Waterhay Barn, Waterhay, Leigh SN6 6QY

• 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 Wiltshire Council.
• The application Ref is PL/2025/03873.
• The development proposed is erection of one self/custom build, wheelchair accessible, dwelling.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Preliminary Matters

2. A unilateral undertaking (UU) made as a deed under s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended, dated 1 September 2025, was submitted with the appeal to secure the dwelling as a self-build dwelling and address matters in relation to Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG), the effects on the North Meadow and Clattinger Farm Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and to build the dwelling to meet Part M4 (2) of the Building Regulations in respect of wheelchair accessibility standards. I return to this further below.
3. In the interests of completeness, it is necessary to refer to the relevant entries in the planning history of the site. Pursuant to the Council’s decision[1] on a prior notification under Class Q of the Order[2], ‘permission’ was granted for the change of use of a barn to a dwelling (the Class Q permission).
4. An application to demolish the barn to be replaced by a new build dwelling was refused permission[3]. Subsequently, an application was made by the appellant for the demolition of the barn and construction of a replacement dwelling[4]. Permission was refused. Prior to the determination of an appeal for the same, the barn was demolished. An appeal against the refusal of permission was subsequently dismissed.

Main Issues

5. The main issues in the appeal are:
   • whether the location of the development accords with local policies for new housing development and whether the location would offer alternative modes of transport to the private car; and
   • the effects of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. 1 Ref PL/2021/07862 dated 30 September 2021 2 Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) 3 Ref PL/2022/03761 dated 6 July 2022 4 Ref PL/2024/01572, appeal Ref APP/Y3940/W/24/3342862

Reasons

Location of development

6. The appeal site is located in a rural position in a predominantly agricultural setting away from any defined settlement. The access to the site is via a rural lane without footways, streetlighting or any nearby public transport infrastructure.
7. The relevant policies of the Wiltshire Core Strategy (adopted 2015) (Core Strategy) are policies CP1, CP2 and CP13. CP1 and CP2 effectively deal with the settlement and delivery strategies for the plan area whilst CP13 provides a spatial strategy for the Malmesbury area, within which the appeal site is situated. Taken together, the policies effectively provide that development will be focused on settlements within defined settlement boundaries or allocated land.
8. The site lies in countryside beyond a designated settlement boundary, as defined within the Core Strategy. Saved Local Plan policy H4 of the North Wiltshire Local Plan (2011) (NWLP) defines the circumstances where new dwellings may be permitted outside settlement boundaries. Similarly to the previous proposal for demolition of the building and construction of a new build dwelling, the proposal does not fall within any of the defined categories under NWLP policy H4.
9. Policies CP60 & CP61 relate to sustainable transport and the means of achieving it in new development. In essence, new development should be located and designed to reduce the need to travel by car and to encourage the use of sustainable transport alternatives. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) also details that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas.
10. The rural location of the appeal site is poorly connected to any settlements that offer everyday facilities and services. There are very limited means for people to walk or cycle given the distances and lack of suitable infrastructure to support noncar modes of travel. The country roads leading to the appeal site are largely narrow, unlit and would be unsuited to any material increase in pedestrian movements to everyday facilities.
11. As such, future residents of a dwelling would be largely reliant on private vehicles to access everyday facilities which conflicts with the aims of policies CP60 and CP61. The journeys to defined settlements by car would not even be particularly short, with the settlements of Ashton Keynes offering some basic everyday facilities around 2.4 kilometres away but with greater likelihood of journeys being made to the service centre of Cricklade, with its greater range of facilities and services, around 4 kilometres away. The inevitability of numerous journeys being made to either of these settlements by private vehicle underlines the rural context of the appeal site.
12. In view of the above, the development conflicts with Core Strategy policies CP1, CP2, CP13, CP60 and CP61 and saved policy H4 of the NWLP in terms of its location, nature and inability to offer meaningful alternatives to the private car for access to facilities.

Character and appearance

13. The appeal site red line area extends to around 0.4 of a hectare and is a broadly rectangular area separated from a larger open field to the north and west. A cluster of trees is situated at the western end of the site, and hedgerows and some trees are situated along the southern side and frontage, save for the open gateway section at the front.
14. The appeal proposal would result in the construction of a pitched roof, two storey dwelling, designed to appear like a rustic, converted agricultural barn on a position close to the gateway access to the site. The proposed dwelling would be sited more centrally than the barn that previously existed, away from the southern boundary hedge.
15. The hedgerow along the frontage of the adjoining field is owned separately and was maintained lower in height than the appeal site vegetation, allowing views towards the relatively open northern boundary of the site. The more prominent position of the newbuild dwelling when compared with the former barn would increase its visibility from both the gateway opening and in views from the north.
16. Due to the more prominent siting of the newbuild dwelling and its evident degree of domestication, the largely undeveloped and unspoilt character of the site would be harmed. Furthermore, unlike the previous Class Q permission which would have heavily contained the residential curtilage of the building, the extent of the appeal site that would be capable of being used for purposes ancillary to the residential dwelling would be far larger. This would effectively permit a wide range of residential paraphernalia to be introduced onto the site, further harming the rural character of the area.
17. The appellant’s evidence suggests that large garden plots are not uncommon in this particular area and that despite the large size of the garden, it would be typical for residential paraphernalia to be positioned close to the dwelling for convenience. Whilst it may be that established dwellings and curtilages in the wider area are generously proportioned, the appeal site baseline is that of a part of a field in a rural context with an exposed northern boundary to an open field. Leaving the containment of the residential paraphernalia to the discretion of the occupiers would not be a satisfactory way of minimising harm to the countryside.
18. Whilst the appellant also offers to introduce new tree and shrub planting by way of landscaping condition, such would take a period of time to establish and would not entirely screen views of the upper parts of the new dwelling and its associated parking and sizeable garden area.
19. In conclusion, taken as a whole, the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, contrary to policies CP51 and CP57 of the Core Strategy which seek to ensure development protects, conserves and where possible enhances landscape character and local distinctiveness.

Other Matters

20. The submitted UU would ensure the payment of a financial contribution towards the North Meadow and Clattinger Farm Interim Recreation Mitigation Strategy (2023) (the Mitigation Strategy) to offset the effects of increased recreation from new residents on the SAC and to secure eligibility under the BNG exemption for self-build dwellings. The UU details that the owner of the site is a company rather than the appellant himself. Though the evidence suggests otherwise, there is no definition of the first intended occupier or clarity that the appellant himself would be among the first intended occupiers. Similarly, the UU refers to the proposed design and layout as being something into which the first intended occupier would have primary input which appears to overlook the fact that the scheme is for detailed permission with a fixed design and layout as shown in the plans. There is also a missing trigger point for the payment of the financial contribution under the Mitigation Strategy. Though I would benefit from clarity on these aspects, as the appeal is failing in any event, they are not decisive factors in the overall balance.

Material considerations

21. As the barn has been demolished, there is no fallback position. The appellant’s evidence refers to the instruction to demolish the barn without having secured a fallback as a genuine mistake that was made without having appointed a planning consultant to oversee the project to advise on such matters. That may be so, but a number of professionals had been appointed to convert the building under the Class Q permission and to advise on the structural stability of such, despite earlier findings of its suitability.
22. In my view, the appointed professionals would have a degree of familiarity with the planning process, to at least the extent relevant to their area of expertise. It should also be sufficiently clear to most people that a change of use under a Class Q permission cannot, by its very nature, involve starting with an entirely blank canvas without any alternative permissions having been secured. Though it may be hard to pinpoint who may be responsible, either fully or in part, and even if it was a genuine oversight, the absence of due caution by those involved in the project has resulted in the current regrettable situation. As such, the fact that a barn previously present on the site once benefitted from a Class Q permission is a factor that attracts limited weight in the overall planning balance.
23. I note that the dwelling is intended to be used as a multigenerational home and would be built to be fully wheelchair accessible to accommodate a disabled relative of the appellant. This is a positive aspect that attracts modest weight in the overall balance.
24. The appellant asserts that the proposal would offset numerous vehicle journeys which are made regularly made between his home address and his relative’s in order to visit and offer support. However, it is not easy to quantify the number of journeys that would be offset and this benefit could as easily be undermined by the need for this intended occupier to employ other external support or access services from the appeal site location which are at a similar or greater journey length from their existing residence.
25. The evidence also details that electric vehicle charging would be installed on the site and that there is an ability for services to be ordered online for delivery which offsets some of the disconnect between living rurally and accessing everyday services. I have taken these factors into consideration in the overall balance though they are not unique to the appeal proposal.
26. The Council concedes that it is currently unable to demonstrate a five year supply of housing with the necessary minimum buffer as required by the Framework, with only around a 2.42 year’s supply capable of being demonstrated. This is a shortfall of significance that affects the planning balance undertaken below.

Planning balance and conclusion

27. There would be clear conflicts with the development plan in respect of the location of the development and its inability to meaningfully support modes of travel other than the private vehicle. There would also be harms to the rural character and appearance of the area. These harms bring the development into conflict with the development plan as a whole.
28. As there is a shortfall in the five year housing land supply, the provisions of Framework paragraph 11d) are engaged. This requires that permission should be granted unless: (i) the application of Framework policies that protect areas or assets of particular importance provide a strong reason for refusal; or (ii) any adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against Framework policies taken as a whole, having particular regard to directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing welldesigned places and providing affordable homes.
29. I have assumed that the contribution would be made through the UU to mitigate effects on the SAC and the relevant protective policies of the Framework do not amount to a strong reason for refusal in this regard.
30. The main benefit of the scheme would be the delivery of a dwelling in the context of an acknowledged and significant shortfall of housing. Though the previous Class Q permission may have contributed to the supply relied upon by the Council, increasing the deficit or adding to the supply by only one dwelling makes relatively little difference overall. As such, I attribute the benefit of the delivery of a dwelling, along with the other considerations advanced in support of the scheme modest, weight in favour of the proposal.
31. However, the identified harms would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the modest benefits in favour of the scheme. Therefore, the scheme does not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development under the terms of the Framework and does not represent a reason to depart from the development plan.
32. Returning to the ordinary balance, the material considerations in this case do not outweigh the conflict with the development plan such as to indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance therewith.
33. In reaching this conclusion, I have given due regard to the Equality Act 2010, in particular the Public Sector Equality Duty. To the extent that there would be an effect on the intended occupier with a disability, the decision is made in the context of the wider public interest and is a proportionate response to the circumstances of this case.
34. Consequently, the appeal should fail.

H Nicholls

INSPECTOR