“Part 3 Class Q of the GPDO – Appeal Decisions” – 16 additional appeal decisions (total = 119) …

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.

May 2015 - Code P3CQ-119 (appeal allowed):

  • This appeal decision was assessed against the issues specified by paragraph Q.2 as follows:
    - “transport and highways impacts” = acceptable (short assessment).
    - “noise impacts” = acceptable (minimal assessment).
    - “contamination risks” = acceptable (minimal assessment).
    - “flooding risks” = acceptable (minimal assessment).
    - “location or siting ... impractical or undesirable” = acceptable (short assessment).
    - “design or external appearance” = no assessment.
  • For the purposes of the post-15/04/2015 version of Part 3 Class Q, where the development would consist of a change of use (i.e. under Q(a)) and building operations (i.e. under Q(b)), it is possible to submit an initial application for only the change of use (i.e. on the basis that another application for the building operations will be submitted at a later stage). (*)
    [Quote: “The Appellant’s submission states that, should the appeal succeed, all works will be in accordance with a detailed scheme yet to be submitted for Prior Approval under Class MB (b), now Class Q (b). I shall therefore deal with the proposal on the basis that approval is sought simply for the principle of the proposed change of use (under Class Q (a)). Were approval to be granted, a further application would need to be made under Class Q (b) for any building operations reasonably necessary to facilitate the conversion. Any such application would include all exterior alterations and the design of the building.”].
  • Part 3 Class Q does not apply a test in relation to sustainability of location. (*)
    [Quote: “The PPG is the most up-to-date guidance on the interpretation of the Class Q provisions and it therefore carries substantial weight. It is also clear from the examples given in the PPG where impact cannot be mitigated, such as an agricultural building at the top of a hill with no road access, power source or other services, that the appeal site does not fall into this category of undesirability. Integral to the PPG’s stance, therefore, is whether the proposed conversion from agricultural use to a dwelling would be impractical. Whilst I agree with the Council that there are sustainability considerations that would be brought to bear in the case of a planning application, it cannot be argued that the appeal proposal would be impractical in the light of paragraph 109 of the PPG. I therefore consider that the isolated location of the appeal site would not be a justified ground to withhold prior approval.”].
  • 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, and requiring compliance with the approved drawings].

May 2015 - Code P3CQ-118 (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” = unacceptable (short assessment).
    - “flooding risks” = unacceptable (short assessment).
    - “location or siting ... impractical or undesirable” = acceptable (minimal assessment).
    - “design or external appearance” = no assessment.
  • For the purposes of the post-15/04/2015 version of Part 3 Class Q, where the development would consist of a change of use (i.e. under Q(a)) and building operations (i.e. under Q(b)), it is possible to submit an initial application for only the change of use (i.e. on the basis that another application for the building operations will be submitted at a later stage). (*)
    [Quote: “Class Q of the 2015 Order sets out two ‘stages’ of PA: Q (a) and Q (b). Applicants do not have to make one application with two parts. PA can be sought in respect of the change of use [Q (a)] before incurring further expense on design matters.”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering the “contamination risks on the site”, assessed whether the proposed development would increase contamination risks elsewhere and concluded that this would be unacceptable.
    [Quote: “However, the Environment Agency in its consultation response advised that details of foul drainage were required to assess the risk of pollution. It also advised that the buildings are within a Critical Drainage Area and that investigation would be necessary to ascertain if improvements could be made to surface water drainage for the site. [...] there is evidence before me to indicate that the proposals could increase the risk of contamination to the local water environment, as well as increase the risk of flooding.”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering the “flooding risks on the site”, assessed whether the proposed development would increase flooding risks elsewhere and concluded that this would be unacceptable.
    [Quote: “However, the Environment Agency in its consultation response advised that details of foul drainage were required to assess the risk of pollution. It also advised that the buildings are within a Critical Drainage Area and that investigation would be necessary to ascertain if improvements could be made to surface water drainage for the site. [...] there is evidence before me to indicate that the proposals could increase the risk of contamination to the local water environment, as well as increase the risk of flooding.”].

May 2015 - Code P3CQ-117 (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.
  • For the purposes of the post-15/04/2015 version of Q.1(h), the phrase “would result in a building or buildings having more than 450 square metres of floor space having a use falling within Class C3” refers to the resulting floor space (i.e. rather than the original floor space or the existing floor space).
    [Conclusion: It’s not possible to convert less than 450m2 of agricultural floor space to more than 450m2 of residential floor space by inserting new floors, etc].
  • 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 regardless of the claim that Council failed to issue decision within 56 days].
    [Quote: “Consequently, the appellant’s argument that the proposal benefits from a deemed planning permission, due to the alleged expiry of the 56 day period prior to being notified by the Council of its decision, is not therefore relevant because the proposal would not in any event be permitted development.”].

May 2015 - Code P3CQ-116 (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” = unacceptable (detailed 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)].
    [Quote: “In this case it appears to me that the submitted plans show the construction of all new structural walls internally to reinforce the present block and timber cladding of the exterior wall and the introduction of the whole first floor structure and stairway together with at least a new lining for the roof and a new floor to replace the existing earth floor. This amounts to a considerable degree of fundamental new building work. Further, I have considerable doubt about whether the existing building is structurally sound to enable it to be converted without substantial alteration tantamount to forming a second structure within the building to make it liveable and to provide structural support, including for the new upper floor, and for insulation.”].

May 2015 - Code P3CQ-115 (appeal dismissed):

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

May 2015 - Code P3CQ-114 (appeal dismissed):

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

May 2015 - Code P3CQ-113 (appeal allowed):

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

May 2015 - Code P3CQ-112 (appeal dismissed):

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

May 2015 - Code P3CQ-111 (appeal dismissed):

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

May 2015 - Code P3CQ-110 (appeal dismissed):

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

May 2015 - Code P3CQ-109 (split decision):

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

May 2015 - Code P3CQ-108 (appeal allowed):

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

May 2015 - Code P3CQ-107 (appeal allowed):

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

May 2015 - Code P3CQ-106 (appeal allowed):

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

May 2015 - Code P3CQ-105 (appeal dismissed):

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

May 2015 - Code P3CQ-104 (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 8 "Potential fallback position" appeals, which are NOT summarised (only listed).