Couple Nigel and Louise Barker, who bought a 1970s concrete “Soda Ash” building from South West Water in 2015, have lost a legal fight to have their Dartmoor retreat recognised as a home.. Planning inspectors concluded the structure, lacking windows, plumbing and proper ventilation, does not meet the legal definition of a dwelling.

Eight years of living in a windowless concrete block

The Barkers spent several weeks at a time inside the former chemical treatment plant, even sheltering there for three months during the first Covid lockdown. They divided the interior into a main living area and a bedroom, furnishing it with a double bed, books, a gas camping stove and a small chemical toilet.

National Park Authority cites missing windows, water and sewage

Dartmoor National Park Authority and the local parish council argued the building remained an industrial shell because it had no windows, running water, sewerage or an official waste‑collection system. Inspectors noted the sink basin sat on a metal bin and the only toilet was a chemical one, with no shower facilities on site.

Utilities suppplied unofficially from South West Water

According to the report, the Barkers had no registered accounts for water , gas, electricity or broadband.. Electricity was drawn from a supply linked to South West Water, while water was manually brought in using bottles and tanks, and no council tax or refuse collection was arranged.

Planning Inspectorate rejects appeal over lack of ventilation

Inspector Richard Curnow observed that despite adding two skylights and a loosely divided shower area, the bunker still relied on a massive steel door for fresh air. the inspector ruled that the absence of a reliable ventilation system meant the building could not be classified as a dwellinghouse.

Who decides what counts as a home in protected landscapes?

As the source reported, the Dartmoor National Park Authority’s decision reflects broader tensions between private conversion projects and strict conservation rules in protected areas. The case raises questions about how flexible planning policy can be for unconventional dwellings that fall outside traditional housing standards.