Source: https://planningjungle.com/2015/07/21/part-3-class-q-of-the-gpdo-appeal-decisions-31-additional-appeal-decisions-total-150/
Timestamp: 2019-01-18 17:04:33
Document Index: 18829931

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 3', 'art 1']

“Part 3 Class Q of the GPDO – Appeal Decisions” – 31 additional appeal decisions (total = 150) … | The Planning Jungle website
“Part 3 Class Q of the GPDO – Appeal Decisions” – 31 additional appeal decisions (total = 150) …
The Part 3 Class Q of the GPDO - Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 31 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.
June 2015 - Code P3CQ-150 (appeal dismissed):
- “location or siting ... impractical or undesirable” = 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, and refused to accept amended drawing showing a smaller “curtilage”].
[Quote: “I note the appellant considers the grazing of equines an agricultural use. However, from the evidence before me the use of the appeal building and the land around it is for the keeping and exercising of horses and ponies, with grazing being incidental. Moreover, the planning history provided by the Council shows the use of the appeal site and the surrounding land as an equestrian centre. Thus the appeal building was not used solely for an agricultural use as part of an established agricultural unit. The conversion would not meet the requirements of Class Q, and would not be development permitted by it.”].
June 2015 - Code P3CQ-149 (appeal dismissed):
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 information provided by plan SC14.107/01 Rev P01 is in my view insufficient to assess whether the building operations would exceed those defined by Class Q as it provides no information regarding the condition of the existing structure. In my judgement, given that the existing frame and foundations only support an agricultural storage structure, the works required are likely to be significant. Although I accept there is no explicit requirement for a structural survey, Paragraph W.(3) notes that the Local Planning Authority may refuse an application where the developer has provided insufficient information to enable the authority to establish whether the proposed development complies with any conditions, limitations or restrictions specified in Part 3.”].
June 2015 - Code P3CQ-148 (appeal dismissed):
[Quote: “It is clear that part of the combined building is in use for non-agricultural purposes – in relation to the other holiday cottages at the farm. It appears that this has continued for some time. This is not contested by the appellant (although of course her position is that this area falls outside the appeal site). On that basis, the appeal site was not used solely for an agricultural use as part of an established agricultural unit on 20 March 2013, and the proposal is not permitted development.”].
June 2015 - Code P3CQ-147 (appeal dismissed):
[Quote: “Having carefully considered all of these conflicting views, there is insufficient evidence to disprove the appellant’s assertions. However, without any persuasive supporting evidence I conclude that there is insufficient information to demonstrate that the relevant GPDO conditions, limitations and restrictions have been met in respect of the agricultural use of the buildings.”].
[Quote: “The appellant acknowledges that for the installation or replacement of windows, doors, roofs and exterior walls to comply ‘to current exacting building regulations’ they ‘will inevitably call for the construction of new structural elements as those in place in an old building are highly unlikely to be sufficient’. The implication of this statement that new structural elements would be required in this case, along with my own observations leads me to conclude that structural works would be required to support the proposed conversion. This would be contrary to the restrictions applying to residential conversions under Class Q.”].
June 2015 - Code P3CQ-146 (appeal allowed):
June 2015 - Code P3CQ-145 (appeal dismissed):
June 2015 - Code P3CQ-144 (appeal dismissed):
June 2015 - Code P3CQ-143 (appeal allowed):
June 2015 - Code P3CQ-142 (appeal dismissed):
June 2015 - Code P3CQ-141 (appeal allowed):
June 2015 - Code P3CQ-140 (appeal allowed):
June 2015 - Code P3CQ-139 (appeal dismissed):
June 2015 - Code P3CQ-138 (appeal dismissed):
June 2015 - Code P3CQ-137 (appeal dismissed):
June 2015 - Code P3CQ-136 (appeal dismissed):
June 2015 - Code P3CQ-135 (appeal dismissed):
June 2015 - Code P3CQ-134 (appeal dismissed):
June 2015 - Code P3CQ-133 (appeal allowed):
June 2015 - Code P3CQ-132 (appeal dismissed):
June 2015 - Code P3CQ-131 (appeal dismissed):
June 2015 - Code P3CQ-130 (appeal allowed):
June 2015 - Code P3CQ-129 (appeal dismissed):
June 2015 - Code P3CQ-128 (appeal allowed):
June 2015 - Code P3CQ-127 (appeal allowed):
June 2015 - Code P3CQ-126 (appeal allowed):
June 2015 - Code P3CQ-125 (appeal dismissed):
June 2015 - Code P3CQ-124 (appeal dismissed):
June 2015 - Code P3CQ-123 (appeal dismissed):
June 2015 - Code P3CQ-122 (appeal dismissed):
June 2015 - Code P3CQ-121 (appeal allowed):
June 2015 - Code P3CQ-120 (appeal dismissed):
The above document also includes 8 "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 21 July 2015 by Steve Speed.
← The Government announces its intention to make further changes to the planning system, including PD rights … “Part 1 of the GPDO – INCIDENTAL Appeal Decisions” – 3 additional appeal decisions (total = 153) … →