Source: https://planningjungle.com/2016/01/03/part-3-class-q-of-the-gpdo-appeal-decisions-10-additional-appeal-decisions-total-280/
Timestamp: 2018-08-20 06:43:03
Document Index: 314635889

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” – 10 additional appeal decisions (total = 280) … | The Planning Jungle website
“Part 3 Class Q of the GPDO – Appeal Decisions” – 10 additional appeal decisions (total = 280) …
The Part 3 Class Q of the GPDO - Appeal Decisions document has been updated to include 10 additional appeal decisions relating to agricultural-to-residential conversions, for which the conclusions are as follows:
November 2015 - Code P3CQ-280 (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: “In the present case, it has not been shown that the existing structure of the appeal buildings would be sufficient to support the loading required by the proposed conversions. In particular it has not been demonstrated that the additional floors now proposed, along with new roof and wall insulation, could be supported by existing structural elements. Given that the agricultural buildings are of a less substantial construction than the dwellings now proposed, the evidence before me indicates that the proposed conversion would be likely to require the erection of new structural elements. Bearing in mind the terms of the PPG, the works would therefore amount to building operations in excess of that listed in GPDO paragraph Q.1(i). The resulting development would not be permitted under class Q.”].
For the purposes of Q.1(b), the phrase “the cumulative floor space of the existing building or buildings changing use” refers to the existing floor space (i.e. rather than the original floor space or the resulting floor space). (*)
For the purposes of the post-15/04/2015 version of Q.1(h), the phrase “would result in a building or buildings having more than 450 square metres of floor space having a use falling within Class C3” refers to the resulting floor space (i.e. rather than the original floor space or the existing floor space).
[Conclusion: It’s not possible to convert less than 450m2 of agricultural floor space to more than 450m2 of residential floor space by inserting new floors, etc].
This appeal decision provides an example of where it was concluded that works to the property would comply with Q.1(g). [Note: In other words, the development would not 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 application states that the external dimensions of the existing building would not be exceeded” but that “The Council considers that the height of the building ... would not be sufficient to permit the creation of full-height first floor living accommodation without an increase in height of the existing building.”].
[Quote: “The Council considers that the height of the building that is proposed for conversion to the plot 1 dwelling would not be sufficient to permit the creation of full-height first floor living accommodation without an increase in height of the existing building. However, I have no reason to doubt the appellant’s assertion that the existing height of the building, some 6 metres to eaves level, would be sufficient to accommodate the additional floor proposed. The Council has not supplied an alternative measurement. The application states that the external dimensions of the existing building would not be exceeded. Accordingly, I am satisfied that paragraph Q.1(g) would be complied with.”].
November 2015 - Code P3CQ-279 (appeal dismissed):
[Quote: “Paragraph W of the GPDO makes it clear that the onus is on the developer to provide sufficient information to enable the local planning authority to establish whether the proposed development complies with any conditions, limitation or restrictions imposed by the Order. In this case there is no evidence which demonstrates that the existing foundations and frame could support the first floor and other works to insert door and window openings without further structural changes. On the face of it I consider that the conversion would necessitate structural works which go beyond the installation or replacement of windows, doors, roofs or exterior walls to the extent reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwellinghouse as set out in the GPDO.”].
November 2015 - Code P3CQ-278 (appeal dismissed):
November 2015 - Code P3CQ-277 (appeal allowed):
November 2015 - Code P3CQ-276 (appeal dismissed):
November 2015 - Code P3CQ-275 (appeal allowed):
November 2015 - Code P3CQ-274 (appeal allowed):
November 2015 - Code P3CQ-273 (appeal allowed):
November 2015 - Code P3CQ-272 (appeal dismissed):
November 2015 - Code P3CQ-271 (appeal allowed):
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.
The above document also includes 14 "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 3 January 2016 by Steve Speed.
← “Part 3 Class O of the GPDO – Appeal Decisions” – 6 additional appeal decisions (total = 133) … “Part 3 of the GPDO – Information about Appeal Decisions” – 1 additional appeal decision (total = 14) … →