“Part 3 Class Q of the GPDO – Appeal Decisions” – 29 additional appeal decisions (total = 103) …

The Part 3 Class Q of the GPDO - Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 29 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.

April 2015 - Code P3CQ-103 (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 (minimal assessment).
    - “design or external appearance” = acceptable (short assessment).
  • For the purposes of the post-15/04/2015 version of Q.1(c), a dwellinghouse (within the established agricultural unit) that was developed by means other than under Part 3 Class Q does not count towards the cumulative limit of three.
  • 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: “As I have noted in the previous appeal the structure of the building is sufficiently strong to allow the proposed conversion without the construction of new structural elements. Paragraph Q.1(i) identifies which building operations to enable the conversion of a building to a dwelling house are permitted development. The replacement of the barn’s corrugated steel walls with new timber clad walls and the installation of such walls to fill in the existing openings is permitted. The infilling of openings would change the character of the building.”].
  • When assessing an application for prior approval, the development plan (e.g. the LPA’s Local Plan, etc) is not a material consideration. (*)
    [Quote: “However, when assessing the design of a proposal under the GDPO the policies of the development plan do not apply.”].

April 2015 - Code P3CQ-102 (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 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: “Comments from third parties suggest that sheep have been kept on the land at some time in the past, although they conflict considerably as to when or if the appeal building itself was used for agricultural purposes. A previous owner indicates that the building was used for housing agricultural equipment, animal feed, and as an animal shelter between 2007 and 2010, although there is no other substantive evidence before me to support that assertion and it is disputed by neighbouring occupiers. The appellant refers to the skeletal remains of sheep being collected in sacks from within the barn, which I saw during my site visit. However, this by itself, or considered cumulatively with the other information before me, is insufficient to establish compliance with paragraph Q.1(a)(ii).”].
  • 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 new floor that would be required would clearly be a new structural element. Moreover, taken together with the extensive works of replacement of the roof and external walls, the resultant building would be tantamount to the construction of a new building, rather than operations reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwelling house. As such, I conclude that the proposed works would fail to satisfy the requirements of paragraph Q.1(b)(i) and the PPG. Therefore it would not be permitted development under Class Q(b) of the GPDO.”].

April 2015 - Code P3CQ-101 (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” = unacceptable (detailed 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 the Inspector, when considering the “noise impacts of the development”, assessed the amenity of occupiers of the resulting residential unit(s) and concluded that this would be unacceptable.
    [Quote: “The proximity of the proposed dwelling to the large farm buildings and timber storage areas to the east and south, in their current use, would give rise to significant levels of noise and disturbance to future occupiers of the proposed dwelling. The domestic use of the dwellinghouse and the garden to the rear would be disturbed by activity within the yard, by vehicles using the main driveway and entering or leaving the sheds, and by the delivery, movement and collection of timber and other products stored in and around the sheds.”].
  • 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 and disturbance].
    [Quote: “The proximity of the proposed dwelling to the large farm buildings and timber storage areas to the east and south, in their current use, would give rise to significant levels of noise and disturbance to future occupiers of the proposed dwelling. The domestic use of the dwellinghouse and the garden to the rear would be disturbed by activity within the yard, by vehicles using the main driveway and entering or leaving the sheds, and by the delivery, movement and collection of timber and other products stored in and around the sheds.”].
  • 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 proposed main entrance to the dwelling off the existing vehicular access into the yard would present a danger for pedestrians exiting the door when farm vehicles were passing.”].

April 2015 - Code P3CQ-100 (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.
  • 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].
  • For the purposes of Part 3 Class Q, it is necessary for the resulting residential unit(s) to have a “curtilage”. (*)
    [Note: This appeal decision implies (rather than states) this conclusion].
    [Quote: “The appellant has also advised that the garden curtilage would be within the envelope of the barn but in these circumstances there would be no land around the building and this would be impractical as there would be no outside area.”].
  • Part 3 Class Q does not apply a test in relation to sustainability of location. (*)
    [Quote: “Nevertheless, the recent revision of the PPG (paragraph 108) states that “The permitted development right does not apply a test in relation to sustainability of location. This is deliberate as the right recognises that many agricultural buildings will not be in village settlements and may not be able to rely on public transport for their daily needs.” I therefore conclude that it has not been demonstrated that the development would be impractical or undesirable as provided for in paragraph Q.2 (1)(e) and expanded upon in the PPG.”].

April 2015 - Code P3CQ-099 (appeal dismissed):

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

April 2015 - Code P3CQ-098 (appeal dismissed):

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

April 2015 - Code P3CQ-097 (appeal allowed):

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

April 2015 - Code P3CQ-096 (appeal allowed):

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

April 2015 - Code P3CQ-095 (appeal dismissed):

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

April 2015 - Code P3CQ-094 (appeal allowed):

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

April 2015 - Code P3CQ-093 (appeal allowed):

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

April 2015 - Code P3CQ-092 (appeal dismissed):

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

April 2015 - Code P3CQ-091 (appeal allowed):

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

April 2015 - Code P3CQ-090 (appeal dismissed):

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

April 2015 - Code P3CQ-089 (appeal dismissed):

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

April 2015 - Code P3CQ-088 (appeal allowed):

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

April 2015 - Code P3CQ-087 (appeal allowed):

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

April 2015 - Code P3CQ-086 (appeal allowed):

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

April 2015 - Code P3CQ-085 (appeal allowed):

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

April 2015 - Code P3CQ-084 (appeal dismissed):

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

April 2015 - Code P3CQ-083 (appeal dismissed):

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

April 2015 - Code P3CQ-082 (appeal allowed):

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

April 2015 - Code P3CQ-081 (appeal dismissed):

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

April 2015 - Code P3CQ-080 (appeal dismissed):

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

April 2015 - Code P3CQ-079 (appeal dismissed):

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

April 2015 - Code P3CQ-078 (appeal dismissed):

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

April 2015 - Code P3CQ-077 (appeal allowed):

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

April 2015 - Code P3CQ-076 (appeal dismissed):

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

April 2015 - Code P3CQ-075 (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 8 "Potential fallback position" appeals, which are NOT summarised (only listed).