“Part 3 Class Q of the GPDO – Appeal Decisions” – 26 additional appeal decisions (total = 176) …

The Part 3 Class Q of the GPDO - Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 26 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.

July 2015 - Code P3CQ-176 (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: “I accept that storage is likely to have been necessary for farm machinery and feed in association with the keeping of alpacas but it seems to me that the buildings would have been generous in size given the number of animals on the land. As is demonstrated by their physical layout and form it appears on the balance of probability that the buildings were also used for non-agricultural uses. No other agricultural activity appears to have been taken place on the surrounding land, either presently or at the relevant date of 20 March 2013.”].
  • 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: Inspector states that "the submitted location plan does not show either the footprints of the buildings or their curtilage accurately"].
    [Quote: “The submitted location plan delineates the two buildings and includes an area to the south of Building A and to the west of Building B as curtilage. As I noted above, neither building is sited in the position shown. Nor does the area outlined in red as curtilage appear to relate to any physical/operational relationship visible on the ground. Although I accept that in both cases the area of land would be no larger than the land occupied by the subject buildings this is not definitive. This is because it has not been demonstrated that the external dimensions of the building would not be extended [GPDO Part 3 Class Q1 (g)] because the plans show them in a different position.”].

July 2015 - Code P3CQ-175 (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” = acceptable (short 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: “Based on the more convincing evidence, there is no reason to doubt that in accordance with Paragraph Q1 (a) the appeal site is and was used solely for an agricultural use as part of an established agricultural unit, albeit a small enterprise of some 3.34 hectares. This conclusion is reached notwithstanding that the appellant leased other neighbouring land and also carried out agricultural contract work elsewhere.”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that the proposed development would comply with Q.1(d). [Note: In other words, either 1) the site is not occupied under an agricultural tenancy, or 2) the site is occupied under an agricultural tenancy and the express consent of both the landlord and the tenant has been obtained].
  • 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 acceptable.
    [Quote: “In respect of the transport and highways impacts of the development, the appeal site would be reached by the existing access which is separate from the access to Sun Cottage. It joins the road where it is straight, providing suitable visibility in both directions at the point of access. The Highway Authority raises no objections to the proposal, noting that it is unlikely to lead to any significant increase in vehicle movements. There are no reasons to disagree with this conclusion.”].
  • 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 acceptable.
    [Quote: “The barn is part of a small group of dwellings in the countryside and the proposed residential use would be compatible with its neighbours. It has a metal frame and its external materials are predominantly metal and timber. The building would be converted without any alterations to its size and it would be re-clad in cedar, with the existing openings infilled with screens. The building would retain its agricultural form and appearance and would remain visually appropriate within its setting. The nearest residential occupiers support the proposal which they believe would improve the outlook from their property. For these reasons there is no basis to conclude that the location or siting of the building makes it otherwise impractical or undesirable to allow the permitted change of use.”].

July 2015 - Code P3CQ-174 (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” = unacceptable (detailed assessment).
    - “design or external appearance” = no 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]”, 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: “Use of the building for agricultural purposes, would be likely to give rise to noise and disturbance, which due to the immediate proximity of the proposed dwellings and the outdoor space would be likely to detract from the living conditions of occupiers of the proposed dwellings. Such disturbance would go beyond that normally expected from living in a rural environment and would intrude upon normal living conditions to a harmful degree.”].

July 2015 - Code P3CQ-173 (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 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].
  • 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: “It is an established position that the stabling of horses, other than for the farming of horses, is not an agricultural business in line with the definition contained in Section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Consequently, the stables are not an “agricultural building” as set out in paragraph X Interpretation of Part 3 of the GPDO and therefore the proposed development is not permitted development.”].

July 2015 - Code P3CQ-172 (appeal dismissed):

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

July 2015 - Code P3CQ-171 (appeal dismissed):

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

July 2015 - Code P3CQ-170 (appeal allowed):

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

July 2015 - Code P3CQ-169 (appeal allowed):

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

July 2015 - Code P3CQ-168 (appeal dismissed):

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

July 2015 - Code P3CQ-167 (appeal dismissed):

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

July 2015 - Code P3CQ-166 (appeal dismissed):

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

July 2015 - Code P3CQ-165 (appeal allowed):

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

July 2015 - Code P3CQ-164 (appeal allowed):

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

July 2015 - Code P3CQ-163 (appeal dismissed):

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

July 2015 - Code P3CQ-162 (appeal dismissed):

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

July 2015 - Code P3CQ-161 (appeal dismissed):

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

July 2015 - Code P3CQ-160 (appeal dismissed):

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

July 2015 - Code P3CQ-159 (appeal dismissed):

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

July 2015 - Code P3CQ-158 (appeal allowed):

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

July 2015 - Code P3CQ-157 (appeal dismissed):

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

July 2015 - Code P3CQ-156 (appeal dismissed):

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

July 2015 - Code P3CQ-155 (appeal dismissed):

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

July 2015 - Code P3CQ-154 (appeal dismissed):

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

July 2015 - Code P3CQ-153 (appeal allowed):

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

July 2015 - Code P3CQ-152 (appeal allowed):

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

July 2015 - Code P3CQ-151 (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).