“Part 3 Class Q of the GPDO – Appeal Decisions” – 16 additional appeal decisions (total = 61) …

The Part 3 Class Q of the GPDO - Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 16 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 Part 3 Class Q of the GPDO - 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.

February 2015 - Code P3CQ-061 (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 comply with Q.1(g). [Note: In other words, the development would result in the external dimensions of the building extending beyond the external dimensions of the existing building at any given point].
    [Note: The works include the erection of a porch (i.e. a canopy with pillars)].
    [Quote: “Moreover the proposed porch would evidently extend beyond the external dimensions of the existing building and so the development is not permitted by virtue of criterion (g).”].
  • 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: The works include the erection of a porch (i.e. a canopy with pillars)].
    [Quote: “The proposal here includes addition of a porch at the main entrance. While an external porch may be desirable, I do not consider it to be a necessity. Many dwellings function without porches. Accordingly, the development is not permitted under Class MB(b) and in any it event falls within the exclusion in para MB.1 criterion (i).”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the site is within a safety hazard area.
    [Note: Site is within the 1.5km “inner zone” around Burghfield Atomic Weapons Establishment].

February 2015 - Code P3CQ-060 (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 comply with Q.1(g). [Note: In other words, the development would not result in the external dimensions of the building extending beyond the external dimensions of the existing building at any given point].
    [Note The works include the installation of a concrete raft foundation].
    [Quote: “Provided that the works to create a concrete raft foundation are done in accordance with the Method Statement and the height of the building is not raised, I conclude that this aspect would be permitted development which would comply with Class MB.1(g) of the GPDO.”].
  • 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)].
    [Quote: “The Council’s delegated report indicates that the insertion of a raft foundation to provide a satisfactory form of support for the internal cavity walls falls outside the scope of these works and the development is therefore not permitted under MB.1(i). The list of works specified in this paragraph relate primarily to works that would affect the external appearance of the building and to the provision of services. However, there is no provision to override the provisions of this part of the GPDO and the consequence is that the conversion of the building to a dwellinghouse is not permitted development under Class MB. Consequently, planning permission is required for the change of use to a dwellinghouse.”].

February 2015 - Code P3CQ-059 (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 the lawful use of the site (i.e. the building and any land within its curtilage) is not agricultural use. [Note: In other words, the proposed development would not comply with the combination of article 3(5) of the GPDO and the heading of Part 3 Class Q].
    [Quote: “The intensity of use of the appeal building for agriculture varies. That is not uncommon. However, reference has been made to part of the barn may be used to store a non-agricultural vehicle or other equipment at certain times of the year. Also, other activities take place within the barn such as the parking of cars and a van. These comments have been made in relation to establishing the primary use of the building. However in this appeal, as referred to above, specifically in relation to Part 3 of Schedule 2, to be an agricultural building it has to be in agricultural use. Any element of non agricultural use indicates that the appeal building may not accord with this specific definition.”].
  • 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: “Limitation MB.1(a) also requires the site to be solely in agricultural use. Given that non-agricultural items are sometimes stored, even though I have read the other evidence about the single agricultural use of the building over a year, the submitted information does not establish exactly that the site was solely in agricultural use on the material date.”].

February 2015 - Code P3CQ-058 (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 the site (i.e. the building and any land within its curtilage) was 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 comply with Q.1(a)].
    [Quote: “The appellant has acknowledged that the building is ‘redundant’ for agricultural purposes and has been used for storing other items alongside agricultural equipment. The building is part of an agricultural unit, still looks like, and would function as, an agricultural building, was empty other than for a tractor at the time of my site visit and there is no suggestion that its lawful use has changed (albeit I note that the appellant has secured, but did not appear to have implemented, Prior Approval for B1 use). Consequently, I am not persuaded that it would not meet the relevant requirements of MB.1 with regard to its past use.”].
  • 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)].
    [Quote: “The appellant notes that any agricultural building will need to undergo extensive conversion works in order to meet building regulations and that all works proposed should be regarded as reasonably necessary. However, in my judgment, the works to the rear of the building, involving the demolition and relocation of the rear wall, could not reasonably be considered as ‘replacement’ of exterior walls. Nor could the introduction of the roof terrace be regarded as works reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwelling house. The absence of any detailed information about the works proposed also precludes an assessment of whether structural works beyond those permitted under MB.1(i) would be required to facilitate a conversion, given that the metal framework and foundations only currently support a relatively lightweight structure.”].
  • This appeal decision states, or implies, that it is not possible for works consisting of the erection of a new building to fall within the scope of Q(b) and Q.1(i). [Note: This conclusion typically relates to the situation where the existing building is relatively insubstantial (e.g. it was designed as such, or it has deteriorated, etc)].
    [Quote: “No guidance is provided on what ‘reasonably necessary’ may mean, but in my judgment it is reasonable to consider that, to be converted, a building should be sufficiently substantial that it is capable of accommodating any works proposed without being re-built. Similarly, such works should not be so extensive that they amount to re-building rather than conversion.”].
  • For the purposes of the 06/04/2014-14/04/2015 version of Q.1(c) (i.e. MB.1(c)), a dwellinghouse (within the established agricultural unit) that was developed by means other than under Part 3 Class Q does count towards the cumulative limit of three. (*)
    [Note: It appears that the 2 existing houses were converted following PP by the Council in 2009].

February 2015 - Code P3CQ-057 (appeal dismissed):

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

February 2015 - Code P3CQ-056 (appeal dismissed):

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

February 2015 - Code P3CQ-055 (appeal dismissed):

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

February 2015 - Code P3CQ-054 (appeal dismissed):

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

February 2015 - Code P3CQ-053 (appeal allowed):

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

February 2015 - Code P3CQ-052 (appeal dismissed):

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

February 2015 - Code P3CQ-051 (appeal allowed):

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

February 2015 - Code P3CQ-050 (appeal dismissed):

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

February 2015 - Code P3CQ-049 (appeal allowed):

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

February 2015 - Code P3CQ-048 (appeal dismissed):

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

February 2015 - Code P3CQ-047 (appeal allowed):

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

February 2015 - Code P3CQ-046 (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).