“Part 3 Class Q of the GPDO – Appeal Decisions” – 25 additional appeal decisions (total = 243) …

The Part 3 Class Q of the GPDO - Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 25 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.

September 2015 - Code P3CQ-243 (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 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 works include the installation of “a link between the two buildings”].
    [Quote: “In any event, development is not permitted by Class Q if the development would result in the external dimensions of the building extending beyond the external dimensions of the existing building at any given point. Given what I have said above regarding the existence of two buildings separated by a yard, the proposal clearly includes at least one structural element, namely a link between the two buildings. Even if the curtilage limitation were not exceeded, the proposal would therefore still not be permitted development in the light of Section Q.1(g).”].

September 2015 - Code P3CQ-242 (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 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 proposal is described on the application form as the conversion of a derelict barn. According to the Council this structure comprises a single stone wall and a small return. My site inspection confirmed this to be the case. I have no reason to doubt that the wall was once part of a building. It appeared to me to be structurally sound. However, in order to facilitate occupation as a dwellinghouse the three missing walls would need to be reinstated and a roof structure provided. New load bearing elements would need to be introduced in order to support the latter.”].
  • 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: “Core to the appellant’s argument is the fact that the regulations make provision for the installation of roofs and exterior walls. However, taken to its extreme this could mean the provision of a completely new building. A degree of common sense must therefore be applied. In my view, the extent of the building operations necessary in this particular case would go well beyond that which could be reasonably expected in a conversion. In effect, the proposal would amount to substantial reconstruction requiring the provision of new structural elements for the building. I therefore conclude that the proposal would not be permitted development within the scope of Class Q.”].

September 2015 - Code P3CQ-241 (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” = no assessment.
    - “contamination risks” = acceptable (short assessment).
    - “flooding risks” = no assessment.
    - “location or siting ... impractical or undesirable” = acceptable (short assessment).
    - “design or external appearance” = acceptable (detailed assessment).
  • 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: Condition relating to area for parking and manoeuvring].

September 2015 - Code P3CQ-240 (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 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, the appellant has referred in his submissions to the proposed partial replacement of the rear (eastern) wall of North Cottage in order to replace the section which is presently leaning. The appellant has not refuted that such works would be required for structural reasons and no evidence, such as a structural survey, has been submitted to demonstrate otherwise. As such, having regard to paragraph 105 of the PPG, the proposed development would not meet the criteria set out in paragraph Q.1(i).”].
  • 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 might include the raising of the porch roof].
    [Quote: “The Council and appellant dispute whether the proposed new porch roof for North Cottage, as shown on the submitted plans, would be higher than the existing porch roof. The appellant claims that the plans have been checked against the existing structure and that there is no height discrepancy. However, I have not received any substantive evidence, such as measured dimensions, to demonstrate this and it remains unclear on the plans as to whether or not the new roof would be higher.”].

September 2015 - Code P3CQ-239 (appeal allowed):

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

September 2015 - Code P3CQ-238 (appeal allowed):

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

September 2015 - Code P3CQ-237 (appeal allowed):

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

September 2015 - Code P3CQ-236 (appeal allowed):

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

September 2015 - Code P3CQ-235 (appeal dismissed):

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

September 2015 - Code P3CQ-234 (appeal dismissed):

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

September 2015 - Code P3CQ-233 (appeal dismissed):

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

September 2015 - Code P3CQ-232 (appeal allowed):

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

September 2015 - Code P3CQ-231 (appeal dismissed):

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

September 2015 - Code P3CQ-230 (appeal dismissed):

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

September 2015 - Code P3CQ-229 (appeal dismissed):

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

September 2015 - Code P3CQ-228 (appeal dismissed):

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

September 2015 - Code P3CQ-227 (appeal dismissed):

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

September 2015 - Code P3CQ-226 (appeal dismissed):

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

September 2015 - Code P3CQ-225 (appeal dismissed):

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

September 2015 - Code P3CQ-224 (appeal allowed):

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

September 2015 - Code P3CQ-223 (appeal dismissed):

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

September 2015 - Code P3CQ-222 (appeal dismissed):

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

September 2015 - Code P3CQ-221 (appeal allowed):

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

September 2015 - Code P3CQ-220 (appeal dismissed):

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

September 2015 - Code P3CQ-219 (appeal dismissed):

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

Notes:

  • To view the conclusions 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 11 "Potential fallback position" appeals, which are NOT summarised (only listed).