Source: https://planningjungle.com/2015/09/20/part-3-class-q-of-the-gpdo-appeal-decisions-42-additional-appeal-decisions-total-218/
Timestamp: 2019-01-17 22:23:53
Document Index: 225480125

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

“Part 3 Class Q of the GPDO – Appeal Decisions” – 42 additional appeal decisions (total = 218) … | The Planning Jungle website
“Part 3 Class Q of the GPDO – Appeal Decisions” – 42 additional appeal decisions (total = 218) …
The Part 3 Class Q of the GPDO - Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 42 additional appeal decisions relating to agricultural-to-residential conversions, for which the conclusions are as follows:
August 2015 - Code P3CQ-218 (appeal allowed):
- “design or external appearance” = acceptable (minimal assessment).
[Note: Conditions relating to sewage drainage, agricultural occupancy, and contamination].
[Note: Conditions requiring the development to begin within 3 years, requiring compliance with the approved drawings, and relating to materials, vehicular access, and 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 Planning Practice Guidance says, ‘It is not the intention of the permitted development right to include the construction of new structural elements for the building. Therefore it is only where the existing building is structurally strong enough to take the loading which comes with the external works to provide for residential use that the building would be considered to have the permitted development right’. In this case, however, the structure of the building is provided by the steel frame, which is to remain. I have no evidence to suggest that it is not strong enough for the scheme and it appeared in sound condition when I saw it.”].
[Note: Appeal was allowed subject to condition relating to the amenity of occupiers].
[Quote: “Both parties consider that the location of the building on a working farm means that it would not provide satisfactory living accommodation for general occupation. However, the proposal is for it to be occupied by a worker at the farm. This is something which could be controlled with a planning condition. Accordingly, this matter does not undermine the suitability of the building for its intended use.”].
August 2015 - Code P3CQ-217 (appeal allowed):
- “location or siting ... impractical or undesirable” = acceptable (detailed assessment).
[Note: Conditions requiring the development to be completed within 3 years, requiring compliance with the approved drawings, and relating to area for parking and manoeuvring, samples of materials, and sewage and surface water drainage].
[Note: Conditions relating to landscaping, boundary treatments, and details of lintels, sills or means of fixing].
[Quote: “The Guidance is the most up-to-date interpretation of the Class Q provisions and it therefore carries substantial weight. In light of this, the Council’s concerns as regards sustainability of location cannot be regarded as a reason to withhold prior approval.”].
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 domestication of the land to the rear of the building would largely be seen within the context of the surrounding field walls, and with regard to its proximity to the garden and outbuildings of Lynford. Parking provision to the front can already occur, and a garage would provide a further opportunity to park. Consequently the siting, design and appearance of the conversion would have a limited effect on the landscape and would accord with the requirement of the Framework to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. The proposed dwelling would not appear so incongruous or unacceptably conspicuous as to justify overriding the principle of permitted change of use set within the GPDO.”].
August 2015 - Code P3CQ-216 (appeal dismissed):
[Note: Inspector concluded that, for this particular case, the “curtilage” is not larger than the building].
For the purposes of Part 3 Class Q, the access from the highway to the site does not need to be included within the “curtilage”.
For the purposes of Part 3 Class Q, any area to be used for vehicle parking (i.e. for the resulting residential unit(s)) does not need to be included within the “curtilage”. (*)
[Quote: “From my site inspection it was apparent that there is no defined existing curtilage to the site. The Council contends that the cumulative floor area of the building exceeds the cumulative curtilage as it does not include the driveway or parking area associated with the dwelling. However, there is a statutory definition for curtilage in Paragraph X, and the site shown on the submitted drawings meets those conditions. Whilst I accept the proposed drive, turning / parking area does not currently exist, and would be outside the site area, whether planning permission would be required for these works is not a matter before me. Thus, in this instance the proposed change of use would comply with the requirements of Class Q(a) with regard to curtilage.”].
[Quote: “In this instance, the building is located in an isolated and prominent location on a hillside. Apart from the access onto the road, the agricultural track is not surfaced, nor is there any parking or turning provision present. In practice, the activities associated with the residential use of the building would extend far wider than the area shown as curtilage on the submitted plan. The location of the dwelling would not be sensible or realistic, but would be impractical, and the impact could not be successfully mitigated due to the topography and isolation of its location. Whilst the proposal would create a desirable dwelling, this would not mitigate the effect of the change of use, and it would not accord with one of the core planning principles of the Framework, to recognise the intrinsic beauty of the countryside.”].
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 safety of occupiers of the resulting residential unit(s) and concluded that this would be unacceptable.
[Quote: “Furthermore, the track to the surrounding fields passes close to the southern side of the appeal building. Despite its unsurfaced nature, it was apparent from my visit that the track is well used, providing access to nearby fields and equine grazing. Even with the narrow path around the building, the pinch point between it and field boundary would mean vehicles would pass very close to the proposed dining room and lounge doors, with the potential to be an unacceptable danger to both future occupiers of the building and users of the track.”].
August 2015 - Code P3CQ-215 (appeal dismissed):
[Quote: “Whilst no threshold of agricultural activity is defined within Class Q, it is a requirement that the site has to be solely for agricultural use as part of an established agricultural unit. Under paragraph W the local planning authority may refuse an application where the developer has provided insufficient information to establish whether the development complies with any conditions, limitations or restrictions in Part 3. Whilst I note additional evidence could be available with regard to the vegetable box and egg sales business, it has not been provided. On the basis of the evidence before me, I find there is uncertainty as to whether the site was used solely for an agricultural use as part of an established agricultural unit on the 20 March 2013, and as such the proposal would not be development permitted by Class Q.”].
August 2015 - Code P3CQ-214 (appeal allowed):
August 2015 - Code P3CQ-213 (appeal dismissed):
August 2015 - Code P3CQ-212 (appeal allowed):
August 2015 - Code P3CQ-211 (appeal dismissed):
August 2015 - Code P3CQ-210 (appeal dismissed):
August 2015 - Code P3CQ-209 (appeal dismissed):
August 2015 - Code P3CQ-208 (appeal allowed):
August 2015 - Code P3CQ-207 (appeal dismissed):
August 2015 - Code P3CQ-206 (appeal dismissed):
August 2015 - Code P3CQ-205 (appeal dismissed):
August 2015 - Code P3CQ-204 (appeal dismissed):
August 2015 - Code P3CQ-203 (appeal dismissed):
August 2015 - Code P3CQ-202 (appeal dismissed):
August 2015 - Code P3CQ-201 (appeal dismissed):
August 2015 - Code P3CQ-200 (appeal dismissed):
August 2015 - Code P3CQ-199 (appeal dismissed):
August 2015 - Code P3CQ-198 (appeal allowed):
August 2015 - Code P3CQ-197 (appeal dismissed):
August 2015 - Code P3CQ-196 (appeal dismissed):
August 2015 - Code P3CQ-195 (appeal dismissed):
August 2015 - Code P3CQ-194 (appeal dismissed):
July 2015 - Code P3CQ-193 (appeal allowed):
July 2015 - Code P3CQ-192 (appeal dismissed):
July 2015 - Code P3CQ-191 (appeal dismissed):
July 2015 - Code P3CQ-190 (appeal dismissed):
July 2015 - Code P3CQ-189 (appeal dismissed):
July 2015 - Code P3CQ-188 (appeal dismissed):
July 2015 - Code P3CQ-187 (appeal allowed):
July 2015 - Code P3CQ-186 (appeal dismissed):
July 2015 - Code P3CQ-185 (appeal dismissed):
July 2015 - Code P3CQ-184 (appeal dismissed):
July 2015 - Code P3CQ-183 (appeal dismissed):
July 2015 - Code P3CQ-182 (appeal allowed):
July 2015 - Code P3CQ-181 (appeal dismissed):
July 2015 - Code P3CQ-180 (appeal dismissed):
July 2015 - Code P3CQ-179 (appeal dismissed):
July 2015 - Code P3CQ-178 (appeal dismissed):
July 2015 - Code P3CQ-177 (appeal dismissed):
The above document also includes 10 "Potential fallback position" appeals, which are NOT summarised (only listed).
This entry was posted in Part 3 Class Q of the GPDO - Appeal Decisions on 20 September 2015 by Steve Speed.
← “Part 3 Class O of the GPDO – Appeal Decisions” – 5 additional appeal decisions (total = 118) … STATISTICS for the first 200 appeals within the “Part 3 Class Q of the GPDO – Appeal Decisions” document … →