Source: https://planningjungle.com/2015/06/07/part-3-class-q-of-the-gpdo-appeal-decisions-29-additional-appeal-decisions-total-103/
Timestamp: 2018-09-23 01:26:11
Document Index: 627874494

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3']

“Part 3 Class Q of the GPDO – Appeal Decisions” – 29 additional appeal decisions (total = 103) … | The Planning Jungle website
“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:
April 2015 - Code P3CQ-103 (appeal allowed):
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.”].
[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):
[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).”].
[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):
- “noise impacts” = unacceptable (detailed 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.”].
[Note: Inspector assessed amenity of occupiers in terms of noise and disturbance].
[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):
For the purposes of Part 3 Class Q, it is necessary for the resulting residential unit(s) to have a “curtilage”. (*)
[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.”].
[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):
April 2015 - Code P3CQ-098 (appeal dismissed):
April 2015 - Code P3CQ-097 (appeal allowed):
April 2015 - Code P3CQ-096 (appeal allowed):
April 2015 - Code P3CQ-095 (appeal dismissed):
April 2015 - Code P3CQ-094 (appeal allowed):
April 2015 - Code P3CQ-093 (appeal allowed):
April 2015 - Code P3CQ-092 (appeal dismissed):
April 2015 - Code P3CQ-091 (appeal allowed):
April 2015 - Code P3CQ-090 (appeal dismissed):
April 2015 - Code P3CQ-089 (appeal dismissed):
April 2015 - Code P3CQ-088 (appeal allowed):
April 2015 - Code P3CQ-087 (appeal allowed):
April 2015 - Code P3CQ-086 (appeal allowed):
April 2015 - Code P3CQ-085 (appeal allowed):
April 2015 - Code P3CQ-084 (appeal dismissed):
April 2015 - Code P3CQ-083 (appeal dismissed):
April 2015 - Code P3CQ-082 (appeal allowed):
April 2015 - Code P3CQ-081 (appeal dismissed):
April 2015 - Code P3CQ-080 (appeal dismissed):
April 2015 - Code P3CQ-079 (appeal dismissed):
April 2015 - Code P3CQ-078 (appeal dismissed):
April 2015 - Code P3CQ-077 (appeal allowed):
April 2015 - Code P3CQ-076 (appeal dismissed):
April 2015 - Code P3CQ-075 (appeal allowed):
This entry was posted in Part 3 Class Q of the GPDO - Appeal Decisions on 7 June 2015 by Steve Speed.
← New Legislation – relating to changes to Development Consent Orders for nationally significant infrastructure projects (14/07/2015) … The effect of the 05/03/2015 updates to the “Planning Practice Guidance” website upon the interpretation of Part 3 Class Q of the GPDO … →