“Part 3 Class Q of the GPDO – Appeal Decisions” – 14 additional appeal decisions (total = 23) …

The Part 3 Class Q of the GPDO - Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 14 additional appeal decisions relating to agricultural-to-residential conversions, for which the conclusions are as follows:

December 2014 - Code P3CQ-023 (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” = acceptable (minimal assessment).
    - “design or external appearance” = no assessment.
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that a condition (on a previous planning permission), which restricts the use of the property but doesn’t refer to the GPDO, does remove permitted development rights under Part 3 of the GPDO. (*)
    [Note: Inspector rejected an application for costs against the Council in relation to this issue].

December 2014 - Code P3CQ-022 (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” = acceptable (short assessment).
    - “design or external appearance” = no assessment.
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that it was not necessary for the submitted information to indicate the “curtilage”. (*)
    [Quote: “However, with regard to the plan showing the curtilage of the buildings, I do not consider that its absence had any real consequences because paragraph O defines the curtilage and limits its size and location relative to the building”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the submitted information was sufficient to comply with the requirements of Part 3 paragraph N(2).
    [Note: Submitted plan did not indicate the curtilage of the building].
    [Quote: “However, with regard to the plan showing the curtilage of the buildings, I do not consider that its absence had any real consequences because paragraph O defines the curtilage and limits its size and location relative to the building”].
  • When assessing an application for prior approval, the impact of the development upon protected species is not a material consideration. (*)
    [Quote: “As for the bat survey, this does not appear to me to have any relevance to the matters for which prior approval may be required. As the application is limited to consideration of the matters set out in Conditions MB.2(1) and (2), it must be the case that paragraph N(7) only authorises the LPA to seek additional information on those matters, since there are no other matters they can consider. Nevertheless, the requirements of other legislation relating to the protection of bats and their habitats would not be overridden by the provisions of Class MB.”].
  • 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 acceptable. (*)
    [Note: Inspector assessed amenity of occupiers in terms of facilities and amenity space].
    [Quote: “The plans submitted with the application show that each dwelling would have adequate facilities for residential use. There clearly is space about the building as a matter of fact and external amenity space would be available in the curtilage provided in accordance with the definition in paragraph O. The location of the building next door to another dwelling suggest that it is a suitable location for a dwelling house.”].
  • 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)].
    [Quote: “There is a suggestion that the site may have been used for non-agricultural use since the appellant acquired the land in 2013. That might not matter as long as it was in agricultural use as part of an established agricultural unit and used for the purposes of an agricultural trade or business before the relevant date. Whilst I saw no evidence of any current use of the building, the application contains insufficient information to enable me to conclude with any certainty that those restrictions are met.”].

December 2014 - Code P3CQ-021 (appeal allowed):

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

December 2014 - Code P3CQ-020 (appeal dismissed):

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

December 2014 - Code P3CQ-019 (appeal dismissed):

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

December 2014 - Code P3CQ-018 (appeal dismissed):

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

December 2014 - Code P3CQ-017 (appeal allowed):

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

December 2014 - Code P3CQ-016 (appeal allowed):

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

December 2014 - Code P3CQ-015 (appeal dismissed):

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

December 2014 - Code P3CQ-014 (appeal dismissed):

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

December 2014 - Code P3CQ-013 (appeal dismissed):

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

December 2014 - Code P3CQ-012 (appeal dismissed):

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

December 2014 - Code P3CQ-011 (appeal allowed):

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

December 2014 - Code P3CQ-010 (appeal dismissed):

  • [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 7 "Potential fallback position" appeals, which are NOT summarised (only listed).