The "GPDO Part 3 Class Q - Prior Approval Appeal Decisions" document has been updated to include 13 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.

March 2015 - Code P3CQ-074 (appeal dismissed):

• This appeal decision was assessed against the issues specified by paragraph Q.2 as follows:
  - “transport and highways impacts” = unacceptable (detailed 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 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: “I have no detailed evidence of its history which demonstrates that these limitations have been met. Even if I accept that there is no clear evidence to indicate that it has been the subject of an intervening storage use (and the third-party evidence is unclear on that point), I still have no way of knowing whether, when it was last in use, it was part of an established agricultural unit.”].
• For the purposes of Part 3 Class Q, the area of the “curtilage” (i.e. excluding the building) can not be larger than the area of the building. (*)
  [Note: Inspector dismissed the appeal on this basis].
• Where the submitted information indicates that the area of the “curtilage” (i.e. excluding the building) would be larger than the area of the building, then it is possible to grant prior approval subject to a condition that would reduce the area of the “curtilage” to comply with this restriction. (*)
  [Quote: “However, it is open to me to require by means of a condition attached to a grant of prior approval a curtilage for the proposed dwelling which would be more restricted in area, provided that that would not involve a material change to the proposal.”].
• Part 3 Class Q does not apply a test in relation to sustainability of location. (*)
  [Quote: “In particular, the updated PPG makes clear that the prior approval provisions do not apply a test in relation to sustainability of location”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector indicated that significant weight should be attached to the advice within the DCLG “Planning Practice Guidance” website.
  [Note: Significant weight attached to paragraphs 108 & 109 of the PPG].
• 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: “I do, however, have concerns relating to the extent to which the gap would need to be widened and/or the hedgerow removed or re-aligned and the impact of such operations on its visual integrity. It is a mature hedgerow and a strong and consistent feature on the eastern side of Main Street leading to and from the village.”
  “Any realignment of the hedgerow which involves removing and re-planting sections of it would take several years to mature. While it might meet the requirements of local plan Policy TR1 as regards provision of a safe access, its effect on the character and appearance of the open countryside is much less clear.”].
• This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering the “transport and highways impacts of the development”, assessed the manoeuvring of vehicles on the site (e.g. entering, exiting, and moving within the site) and concluded that this would be unacceptable.
  [Quote: “Even if I accept, in the light of the updated guidance in the PPG, that it is not necessarily a consequence of the siting or location of the building, it remains the case that I must be satisfied as to the proposal’s highways impacts in order for prior approval to be granted.”].
• When assessing an application for prior approval, the development plan (e.g. the LPA’s Local Plan, etc) is a material consideration. (*)
  [Note: This appeal decision implies (rather than states) this conclusion].
  [Quote: “While it might meet the requirements of local plan Policy TR1 as regards provision of a safe access, its effect on the character and appearance of the open countryside is much less clear.”].

March 2015 - Code P3CQ-073 (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 states, or implies, that the successful completion of the prior approval process is not legally equivalent to confirmation that the proposed development would be lawful (i.e. confirmation that it would comply with all of the other limitations and conditions of Part 3 Class Q). (*)
  [Note: Inspector dismissed appeal after Council failed to issue decision within 56 days].
  [Quote: “However, even though the statutory period has expired in this case, I must be satisfied that the proposal falls within the scope of development permitted by Class MB. If I am not satisfied that proposal falls within the scope of permitted development, then even though the statutory period has expired, the appeal must fail.”].
• 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. (*)
• 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: “Therefore, whilst I do not dismiss lightly evidence that has been given under affirmation, as in the case of the 2011 enforcement appeal I consider there are too many contradictions and areas open to doubt to persuade me that the use of the site (which comprises the building and any land within it curtilage) was solely in agricultural use at the qualifying date.”].

March 2015 - Code P3CQ-072 (appeal dismissed):

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

March 2015 - Code P3CQ-071 (appeal allowed):

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

March 2015 - Code P3CQ-070 (appeal dismissed):

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

March 2015 - Code P3CQ-069 (appeal dismissed):

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

March 2015 - Code P3CQ-068 (appeal dismissed):

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

March 2015 - Code P3CQ-067 (appeal dismissed):

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

March 2015 - Code P3CQ-066 (appeal dismissed):

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

March 2015 - Code P3CQ-065 (appeal dismissed):

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

March 2015 - Code P3CQ-064 (appeal allowed):

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

March 2015 - Code P3CQ-063 (appeal dismissed):

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

March 2015 - Code P3CQ-062 (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 8 "Potential fallback position" appeals, which are NOT summarised (only listed).