“Part 3 Class Q of the GPDO – Appeal Decisions” – 27 additional appeal decisions (total = 270) …

The Part 3 Class Q of the GPDO - Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 27 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.

October 2015 - Code P3CQ-270 (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” = no assessment.
    - “flooding risks” = no 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 the Inspector, when granting prior approval, decided that a particular condition (or s106 agreement) should be imposed.
    [Note: Conditions requiring compliance with the approved drawings, and relating to area for parking and manoeuvring].
  • 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: “The conversion would involve the addition of brickwork to the lower section of the walls, together with timber cladding above and pitched and slated roofs. These works would enhance the general appearance of the building and are permissible by virtue of the exceptions set out at paragraph Q.1 (i) of the 2015 Order.”].
  • This appeal decision provides an example of where the Inspector, when considering the “transport and highways impacts of the development”, assessed vehicle parking and concluded that this would be acceptable.
    [Note: Appeal was allowed subject to condition relating to vehicle parking].
    [Quote: “Condition 1 will ensure the availability of adequate car parking to serve the development.”].
  • 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.
    [Note: This appeal decision implies (rather than states) this conclusion].
    [Quote: “The amenity areas to the rear are totally screened in views from the road and the surrounding countryside by the existing structure and by an earth bund and mature hedge between the building and the main road. The creation of parking spaces to the front will enable the existing unkempt appearance of this small area of land to be enhanced. The six car parking spaces proposed will not be out of keeping given the existence of adjacent car parking facilities used in conjunction with the holiday letting use. The activities associated with a residential use of the building would be largely screened by existing structures and by an earth bund to the rear and would not be out of place having regard to the extensive tourist accommodation which adjoins the building to the south. For all of these reasons and subject to the use of suitable materials as indicated on the submitted drawings, the scheme before me will enhance the appearance of the building and its immediate setting.”].

October 2015 - Code P3CQ-269 (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].

October 2015 - Code P3CQ-268 (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 have had regard to letters submitted from local people indicating that the barn has only been used by the appellants for agricultural purposes. However, I consider that those letters alone are inconclusive as to the use of the barn solely for agricultural purposes, in the absence of more substantive evidence such as signed declarations. [...] The photographic submissions do not clearly demonstrate sole agricultural use either. At best, they are also snapshots of use of the site at dates other than on 20 March 2013. My site visit observation that the surrounding field was being used for the grazing of sheep, with un-segregated access to the open barn, which itself was devoid of any evidence of non-agricultural activity, was also a snapshot, significantly later than the above critical date, carrying little weight.”].
  • 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 not 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 GPDO 2015 came into force on 15 April 2015 replacing the previous GPDO. I have therefore had regard to the GPDO 2015 in determining this appeal. In terms of the section which is relevant to this appeal, Class Q of Schedule 2, Part 3, has replaced the old Class MB. The key difference which is relevant to this case relates to there no longer being provision for applying separately for the change of use under Class Q(a) and the conversion works under Class Q(b) where both are applicable.”].

October 2015 - Code P3CQ-267 (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 (short assessment).
    - “design or external appearance” = acceptable (minimal assessment).
  • 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: “It was clear from my inspection that the building works required in order to make the building habitable would be extensive. Notwithstanding this, the works being proposed would all fall within the list of operations set out in paragraph Q.1(i). There is no evidence before me to indicate a requirement for new structural elements, neither has the Council demonstrated that the existing steel frame cannot continue to function in a primary supporting role for the roof. The intention to replace the corrugated metal roofing with an equivalent lightweight sheet material reinforces my view on this point.”].
  • 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 accepted amended drawing on which the “curtilage” is not larger than the building].
  • Part 3 Class Q does not apply a test in relation to sustainability of location. (*)
    [Quote: “Since the application was determined the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) has been revised in relation to permitted development rights for the change of use of agricultural buildings. The new guidance [Reference ID: 13-108-20150305 and 13-109-20150305] makes clear that the permitted development right does not apply a test in relation to sustainability of location.”].

October 2015 - Code P3CQ-266 (appeal dismissed):

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

October 2015 - Code P3CQ-265 (appeal allowed):

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

October 2015 - Code P3CQ-264 (appeal allowed):

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

October 2015 - Code P3CQ-263 (appeal dismissed):

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

October 2015 - Code P3CQ-262 (appeal dismissed):

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

October 2015 - Code P3CQ-261 (appeal allowed):

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

October 2015 - Code P3CQ-260 (appeal allowed):

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

October 2015 - Code P3CQ-259 (appeal allowed):

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

October 2015 - Code P3CQ-258 (appeal dismissed):

[Note: This appeal decision is a redetermination of the appeal decision "March 2015 - Code P3CQ-065"].

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

October 2015 - Code P3CQ-257 (appeal dismissed):

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

October 2015 - Code P3CQ-256 (appeal dismissed):

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

October 2015 - Code P3CQ-255 (appeal allowed):

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

October 2015 - Code P3CQ-254 (appeal dismissed):

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

October 2015 - Code P3CQ-253 (appeal dismissed):

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

October 2015 - Code P3CQ-252 (appeal allowed):

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

October 2015 - Code P3CQ-251 (appeal allowed):

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

October 2015 - Code P3CQ-250 (appeal dismissed):

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

October 2015 - Code P3CQ-249 (appeal dismissed):

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

October 2015 - Code P3CQ-248 (appeal dismissed):

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

October 2015 - Code P3CQ-247 (appeal dismissed):

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

October 2015 - Code P3CQ-246 (appeal dismissed):

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

October 2015 - Code P3CQ-245 (appeal dismissed):

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

October 2015 - Code P3CQ-244 (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 13 "Potential fallback position" appeals, which are NOT summarised (only listed).