“GPDO Part 3 Class Q – Prior Approval Appeal Decisions” – 22 additional appeal decisions (total = 45) …

The "GPDO Part 3 Class Q - Prior Approval Appeal Decisions" document has been updated to include 22 additional appeal decisions relating to agricultural-to-residential conversions, for which the conclusions are as follows:

Note: This update contains a relatively large number of appeal decisions, which has significantly increased the size of the "GPDO Part 3 Class Q - Prior Approval Appeal Decisions" document. As such, instead of reading through this update, it's recommended that members open the above document and browse the topics within the "Reference Section", as the latter indicates how many appeals have supported and contradicted each particular conclusion.

January 2015 - Code P3CQ-045 (appeal dismissed):

  • This appeal decision was assessed against the issues specified by paragraph Q.2 as follows:
    - “transport and highways impacts” = acceptable (short 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” = unacceptable (detailed assessment).
  • 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: “For these reasons, I consider that the site is in an unsustainable location because future occupiers would be heavily reliant on the private car for most journeys. As such, the proposal conflicts with a core principle of the Framework, which is to ensure that patterns of growth are managed to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling.”].
  • 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: “Although the appellant would reside within the new dwelling and he frequently travels to the site to support the business operation, the proposal is not promulgated on the basis that it would meet an essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside.”].
  • 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 represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset or would be appropriate enabling development to secure the future of heritage assets and concluded that for the proposed development this issue would not constitute special circumstances.
    [Quote: “The appeal building is not a heritage asset nor would the scheme enable development to secure the future of such assets.”].
  • 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: “While the proposal would reuse the building, which appears to be in good condition, there would be no enhancement to its immediate setting as a result.”].
  • 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 design of the dwelling would have an exceptional quality or innovative nature and concluded that for the proposed development this issue would not constitute special circumstances.
    [Quote: “The design of the scheme cannot reasonably be described as being of exceptional quality or innovative in nature.”].

January 2015 - Code P3CQ-044 (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” = acceptable (minimal assessment).
  • 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: “Partridge Green includes services such as a post office, convenience shop and primary school but, given the nature of the route and the distance involved, it seems highly unlikely that occupiers of the proposed dwellings would access them other than in a private car. Whilst the Framework recognises that sustainable transport solutions will vary from urban to rural areas, rural areas themselves vary in character. That in which the appeal site is situated is isolated in my view, and so the proposed dwellings would be isolated homes in the countryside.”].
  • 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: “The barns in this case are somewhat dilapidated, but having traditional weatherboard sides and clay tiled roofs, they are not essentially unattractive. Nor is the covered storage area which presently links them an unusual or detrimental feature when seen in the context of the adjacent steel shed and other large agricultural buildings nearby. For these reasons, while the simple design of the converted buildings proposed would not give rise to an unreasonable appearance of domestication, I do not consider that the development would be justified by an enhancement of its immediate setting.”].

January 2015 - Code P3CQ-043 (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” = no assessment.
    - “design or external appearance” = no assessment.
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that works to the property would not fall within the scope of Q(b) and Q.1(i). [Note: In other words, either the works would not constitute “building operations reasonably necessary to convert the building” or the works would not fall within the list of building operations set out by Q.1(i)].
    [Note: Application form states that buildings are “in poor general condition”].
    [Quote: “Whilst no plans showing the converted buildings have been submitted, I note that the development has nevertheless been clearly described in the original planning application. This acknowledges that the existing fabric of the buildings is in poor condition and that it would largely be unsuitable for retention and reuse. The appellant also states that the existing external building fabric would be replaced. Given the nature of the insubstantial, salvaged materials that have been used, this can only equate to an extensive, almost complete, demolition in my judgement. This would lead to the replacement of most of the existing structures rather than anything that would be described, by a reasonable person, as a conversion of an existing building. I accept that the inherent nature of agricultural buildings is such that major alterations are often necessary but in this instance it would take a considerable stretch of the imagination to view the proposal as a conversion.”].
  • This appeal decision states, or implies, that it is not possible for works consisting of the demolition of an existing building and the erection of a new building to fall within the scope of Q(b) and Q.1(i).
    [Quote: “Where this involves either extensive or complete demolition, little or none of the original fabric would be retained. Whilst a matter of fact and degree, such a course of action would not, by definition, constitute a conversion thereby going beyond what might be considered reasonable necessity. Such a proposal would, to all intents and purposes, lead to the construction of a new dwelling rather than the re-use of an existing agricultural building, as intended under Class MB.”].
  • This appeal decision states, or implies, that it is not possible for the substantial destruction of a building to fall within the scope of Q(b) and Q.1(i). (*)
    [Quote: “Where this involves either extensive or complete demolition, little or none of the original fabric would be retained. Whilst a matter of fact and degree, such a course of action would not, by definition, constitute a conversion thereby going beyond what might be considered reasonable necessity. Such a proposal would, to all intents and purposes, lead to the construction of a new dwelling rather than the re-use of an existing agricultural building, as intended under Class MB.”].

January 2015 - Code P3CQ-042 (appeal allowed):

  • 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 (detailed assessment).
    - “design or external appearance” = no assessment.
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that works to the property would fall within the scope of Q(b) and Q.1(i). [Note: In other words, the works would constitute “building operations reasonably necessary to convert the building” and the works would fall within the list of building operations set out by Q.1(i)].
    [Quote: “The extent of the works as described by the appellant would include the installation of windows and doors, replacement of the roof of the barn, installation of block walls on the south and east faces of the barn where necessary, replacement of existing timber cladding, and a series of internal works and to bring the building up to a residential standard. In this respect, I am satisfied that the proposed works would not result in any extension to the building beyond the external dimensions of the existing building, and that taken in isolation, the identified works would accord with those allowed by paragraph MB.1(i)(i)”].
  • 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: “I have had regard to the appellant’s interpretation of ‘isolated’ in the context of the proximity of the appeal site to the existing dwellings and buildings of Aunsby. However, Aunsby itself is an isolated settlement by virtue of its lack of services and facilities, and its distance from, and linkages to, larger villages and settlements, and I am satisfied that in the context of the underlying objective of sustainable development as set out in the Framework, that this description would be reasonable.”].
  • 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 constitute special circumstances.
    [Quote: “Whilst the existing barn does not exhibit any particular signs of deterioration or dilapidation at this time, I accept that if it were to remain redundant and disused over an extended period of time, then its general condition would be likely to suffer as a result. In such a circumstance, I accept that the building and its immediate setting would at such time be likely to represent an eyesore with regards to the character and appearance of the area.”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when granting prior approval, decided that a particular condition (or s106 agreement) should be imposed.
    [Note: Conditions requiring the development to begin within 3 years, requiring compliance with the approved “Site Location plan”, and requiring materials to match existing].
  • 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: The submitted info included a plan showing the location of the building and a written description of the building operations, but did not include plans showing the proposed conversion (e.g. floor plans) or the proposed building operations (e.g. elevations). The Inspector allowed the appeal subject to conditions requiring compliance with the “Site Location plan” and requiring materials to match existing].
    [Quote: “The extent of the works as described by the appellant would include the installation of windows and doors, replacement of the roof of the barn, installation of block walls on the south and east faces of the barn where necessary, replacement of existing timber cladding, and a series of internal works and to bring the building up to a residential standard.”].

January 2015 - Code P3CQ-041 (appeal dismissed):

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

January 2015 - Code P3CQ-040 (appeal dismissed):

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

January 2015 - Code P3CQ-039 (appeal dismissed):

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

January 2015 - Code P3CQ-038 (appeal allowed):

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

January 2015 - Code P3CQ-037 (appeal dismissed):

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

January 2015 - Code P3CQ-036 (appeal dismissed):

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

January 2015 - Code P3CQ-035 (appeal dismissed):

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

January 2015 - Code P3CQ-034 (appeal dismissed):

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

January 2015 - Code P3CQ-033 (appeal allowed):

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

January 2015 - Code P3CQ-032 (appeal dismissed):

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

January 2015 - Code P3CQ-031 (appeal dismissed):

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

January 2015 - Code P3CQ-030 (appeal dismissed):

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

January 2015 - Code P3CQ-029 (appeal dismissed):

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

January 2015 - Code P3CQ-028 (appeal dismissed):

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

January 2015 - Code P3CQ-027 (appeal dismissed):

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

January 2015 - Code P3CQ-026 (appeal allowed):

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

January 2015 - Code P3CQ-025 (appeal dismissed):

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

January 2015 - Code P3CQ-024 (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 "GPDO Part 3 Class Q - Prior Approval Appeal Decisions" document. As a member of the Planning Jungle website, you can view the decision notices for all of the appeals on the website 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).