“Part 3 Class Q of the GPDO – Appeal Decisions” – 5 additional appeal decisions (total = 9) …

The Part 3 Class Q of the GPDO - Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 5 additional appeal decisions relating to agricultural-to-residential conversions, for which the conclusions are as follows:

November 2014 - Code P3CQ-009 (appeal dismissed):

  • This appeal decision was assessed against the issues specified by paragraph Q.2 as follows:
    - “transport and highways impacts” = acceptable (minimal assessment).
    - “noise impacts” = acceptable (minimal assessment).
    - “contamination risks” = acceptable (minimal assessment).
    - “flooding risks” = acceptable (minimal assessment).
    - “location or siting ... impractical or undesirable” = unacceptable (detailed assessment).
    - “design or external appearance” = no assessment.
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the site (i.e. the building and any land within its curtilage) was not used solely for an agricultural use, as part of an established agricultural unit, on 20/03/2013 or (if not in use on that date) when it was last in use or (if brought into use after that date) for 10 years. [Note: In other words, the proposed development would not comply with Q.1(a)].
    [Note: Inspector concluded that the site is part of a property that’s in a mixed use, rather than part of an “established agricultural unit”].
    [Quote: “Consequently, it appears that although about half the acreage of Gold Oak Farm is in agricultural use, some 89 % of the income is derived from the other activities so that farming activity appears to be a somewhat marginal activity. Moreover part of the yard is used by a local builder. Thus I consider, at best, Gold Oak Farm is in mixed use.”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering “whether the location or siting of the building makes it otherwise impractical or undesirable for the building to change from agricultural use to [C3]”, concluded that the proposed development would constitute new isolated homes in the countryside. (*)
    [Quote: “The proposed dwelling at Gold Oak Farm would be isolated from even basic support services such as food shops, medical services, sources of employment and education facilities”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering whether there would be special circumstances that would justify allowing new isolated homes in the countryside, assessed whether there is an essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside and concluded that for the proposed development this issue would not constitute special circumstances.
    [Quote: “This is considerably less than 275 smd [standard man days] which could indicate that there is an essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering whether there would be special circumstances that would justify allowing new isolated homes in the countryside, assessed whether the proposed development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting and concluded that for the proposed development this issue would not constitute special circumstances.
    [Quote: “But re-use as a dwelling would be likely to have a greater impact on the surrounding countryside than the insubstantial remnant of the agricultural building. The character and appearance of a residential use and associated domestic paraphernalia are likely to be significantly more intrusive in this countryside location and my visit showed that, at least in the winter months, the site is not well screened from the road.”].

November 2014 - Code P3CQ-008 (appeal dismissed):

  • This appeal decision was assessed against the issues specified by paragraph Q.2 as follows:
    - “transport and highways impacts” = no assessment.
    - “noise impacts” = no assessment.
    - “contamination risks” = no assessment.
    - “flooding risks” = no assessment.
    - “location or siting ... impractical or undesirable” = unacceptable (detailed assessment).
    - “design or external appearance” = no assessment.
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector concluded that the LPA did notify the applicant of the decision (i.e. as to whether prior approval was given or refused) within the 56 day deadline. (*)
    [Note: The application was received by the LPA on Tue 06/05/2014. The Inspector counted this date as day 0, and therefore day 56 was Tue 01/07/2014].
    [Quote: “In his grounds of appeal the appellant argues that the LPA did not give notice of its decision within the required 56 day period. However the application was registered on 6 May 2014 and notwithstanding the LPA’s letter of 9 May 2014 advising that the 56 day period commenced on 6 May, paragraph N(9)(c) makes it clear that the 56 days ‘follow’ the date on which the application was received by the Local Planning Authority. Accordingly, as the Notice of Refusal is dated 1 July 2014, I conclude that the Council gave its decision within the statutory 56 day period, albeit on the 56th day.”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering “whether the location or siting of the building makes it otherwise impractical or undesirable for the building to change from agricultural use to [C3]”, concluded that the proposed development would constitute new isolated homes in the countryside. (*)
    [Quote: “In my view the conversion of the three buildings in this location can reasonably be regarded as falling within the definition of ‘isolated homes’ as they are well outside any village or town”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering “whether the location or siting of the building makes it otherwise impractical or undesirable for the building to change from agricultural use to [C3]”, assessed the economic, social, and environmental impacts of the proposed development and concluded that this would be unacceptable.
    [Quote: “In this context I have therefore considered the proposal in terms of the economic, social and environmental aspects but concur with the conclusion of the LPA’s analysis in these terms that the negative impacts of the proposal would outweigh any positive attributes”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering “whether the location or siting of the building makes it otherwise impractical or undesirable for the building to change from agricultural use to [C3]”, assessed the impact of the proposed development upon the natural environment and/or the character and appearance of the surrounding area and concluded that this would be unacceptable.
    [Quote: “It would comprise an unsightly sporadic development that would be visible from a number of vantage points in the locality and harmful to the protected landscape of the designated Coastal Preservation Area within which the site lies. This would conflict with the first bullet point in paragraph 109 in Section 11 of the Framework: ‘Conserving and enhancing the natural environment.’”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering “whether the location or siting of the building makes it otherwise impractical or undesirable for the building to change from agricultural use to [C3]”, assessed the amenity of occupiers of the resulting residential unit(s) and concluded that this would be unacceptable. (*)
    [Note: Inspector assessed amenity of occupiers in terms of noise, smell, and privacy].
    [Quote: “The proposal would also be impractical for the occupiers and likely to result in poor living conditions as regards noise, privacy and smell, contrary to the core land-use planning principle in paragraph 17 of the Framework”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering “whether the location or siting of the building makes it otherwise impractical or undesirable for the building to change from agricultural use to [C3]”, assessed whether there would be safe and suitable access to the site for occupiers, visitors, etc and concluded that this would be unacceptable.
    [Quote: “The access is via a field gate and the buildings are positioned well into the fields which for safety and practical reasons would necessitate off road vehicles for use by the occupiers and visitors, including deliveries. I consider this would be contrary to paragraph 32 of the Framework which includes a requirement for development to have a safe and suitable access for all people.”].

November 2014 - Code P3CQ-007 (appeal dismissed):

  • [Note: To view these conclusions, please log onto the website as a member].

November 2014 - Code P3CQ-006 (appeal dismissed):

  • [Note: To view these conclusions, please log onto the website as a member].

November 2014 - Code P3CQ-005 (appeal allowed):

  • [Note: To view these conclusions, please log onto the website as a member].

Notes:

  • To view the conclusions, full summaries, and decision notices for any of the above appeals, please view the Part 3 Class Q of the GPDO - Appeal Decisions document. As a member of the Planning Jungle website, you can view the decision notices for all of the appeals within the above document for no extra cost.
  • Any of the above conclusions marked with a "(*)" contradict other appeal decisions. The "Reference Section" within the above document indicates how many appeals have supported and contradicted each particular conclusion.
  • The above document also includes 6 "Potential fallback position" appeals, which are NOT summarised (only listed).