Appeal 6000510

The appeal is allowed and prior approval is granted under the provisions of Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (GPDO) for the change of use of agricultural buildings to 4no. dwellinghouses (Class C3) and associated development (Class Q (a + b)) at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 0878/25/PDM, dated 24 March 2025, and the details submitted with it, including [name] P1295-101, P1295-01.B, and P1295-02.B, pursuant to Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q. The approval is subject to conditions set out by [name].2(3) of Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO in that development must be completed within a period of 3 years from the date of this decision as well as the provisions specified in paragraph W.

The address in the heading above has been taken from the decision notice as it more clearly identifies the site than the address used on the application form which was: [address], [address] to Challonsleigh, [address], Devon [postcode] .

A signed [name] (the UU) dated 6th August 2025 was provided by the appellant and copied to the Council. The UU is for financial obligations in relation to the [name] and Estuaries European Marine Site. Based on the submitted UU the Council no longer seeks to defend the second reason for refusal as it is satisfied that the adverse effects of the European site and protected species can be avoided. I will refer to this in more detail later in my decision.

On 21 May 2024, the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) (Amendment) Order 2024/579 came into force. Transitional arrangements in place until 20 May 2025 allowed applications to be determined against the provisions of Class Q in effect prior to 21 May 2024; those of the 2020 version of the Order. The original application, dated 24 March 2025, relied on this earlier version of Class Q, and was determined on this basis by the Council.

Under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q GPDO, development is permitted for the change of use of a building and any land within its curtilage, from use as an agricultural building to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses) together with building operations reasonably necessary to convert that building, subject to limitations and conditions.

The Council refused the application on the basis that the building does not benefit from permitted development under the above regulations as development has been carried out under Part 6, Class A of the GPDO within the agricultural holding in the last ten years.

Based on the submissions of the main parties, there is no reason for me to believe that the other criteria of Class Q are not satisfied. Consequently, there is no need to give them further consideration in this decision.

The main issue is whether the proposal would be permitted development, with particular regard to the requirements of Section Q.1(g) of Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the Order.

The appeal relates to a large barn currently in operation as part of [address] which is proposed to be converted into four dwellings. Nearby is another agricultural barn within the same holding which was constructed between late 2020 and early 2021.

Section Q.1(g) of Class Q of the GPDO establishes that rights under Class Q cannot be exercised where development under class A(a) or Class B(b) of Schedule 2 Part 6 of the GPDO have been carried out on the established agricultural unit since 20 March 2013, or within 10 years before exercising the change to residential use, whichever is the lesser.

In this case Class A(a) is relevant and refers to the carrying out on agricultural land comprised within an agricultural unit of 5 hectares or more in area, of works for the erection, extension, or alteration of a building.

A prior notification (ref: 2138/20/AGR) was submitted in 2020 for an agricultural barn under Part 6 of the GPDO. In the decision notice dated 10 August 2020 the Council determined that based on the description and information provided prior approval was not required. Further to this, it states that Class A.2 (7) requires the developer to notify the Local Planning Authority within seven days of substantial completion.

It is agreed between the parties that a prior notification has been given within the agricultural holding within the last 10 years and that a barn has been erected within that time period. The area of dispute arises from whether the barn that has been erected is the result of the prior notification being ‘carried out.’

There is no definition within the GPDO for the term ‘carried out.’ It is of note that this section of the GPDO does not use the term ‘commenced’ which is used in other sections of the order. The Council take the view that to have been ‘carried out’ it does not mean that the works need to have been completed. Its view is that works appear to have initially been constructed in accordance with the plans approved under the prior approval and this constitutes ‘carrying out.’

The barn that has been erected is in the same location as the one permitted under the prior notification. However, its footprint, height, and roof form differ. [name].2., regarding conditions where prior approval is not required, as is the case here, the development must be carried out in accordance with the details submitted with the application, and this has not occurred in this instance. Furthermore, I have not been provided with evidence from either party that the Council was notified within 7 days of the building being substantially complete, as required by the regulations.

The appellant also points to the fact that not only does the erected barn differ in appearance to the barn proposed under the prior notification the fact that it has been used for livestock is also relevant. A.1. provides a list of where development is not permitted under Class A. Part (i) states that development which would consist of, or include, the erection of or construction of, or the carrying out of any works to, a building, structure or an excavation used or to be used for the accommodation of livestock or for the storage of slurry or sewage sludge where the building, structure or excavation is, or would be, within 400 metres of the curtilage of a protected building is not permitted. The GPDO defines a ‘protected building’ as any permanent building which is normally occupied by people. However, it excludes buildings within the agricultural unit or a dwelling or other building which is used for or in connection with agriculture.

The appellant states that the barn is within 400m of several protected buildings, no specific details have been provided, however this is not disputed by the Council. At the time of the site visit there were livestock in the barn and on the basis of the evidence provided, including the design of the building, photographs and the statement from [name] and the absence of any evidence to the contrary I am satisfied that the building has been used for the housing of livestock since its completion.

Bringing all of the above together, the barn that has been constructed has a different footprint, is taller and is materially different in appearance to the barn proposed under the prior notification and has been used for a purpose which is expressly not permitted under Part 6. As a result, I do not find that the development proposed under the prior notification has been ‘carried out.’

Even if the building started with the same footprint but changes were made during construction, the differences in other aspects of the building mean it does not match the approved plans. Therefore, I cannot conclude that it is the development permitted under the prior notification. As a result, it would not amount to carrying out that development.

Consequently, given the conclusions above, I find that the proposal would comply with the requirements of Section Q.1(g) of Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO. As such, this part of the proposal would constitute permitted development as set out under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO.

The site falls within the Zone of Influence of the Tamar European Marine Site (comprising the Plymouth Sound Estuaries Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Tamar Estuaries Complex Special Protection Area (SPA). New residential development within this zone of influence is likely to have a significant effect on the Marine Site through increased recreational pressures. The Council confirm that a scheme to secure financial mitigation has been agreed by Natural England. In this case a UU has been provided and accepted by the Council.

The grant of planning permission under Article 3(1) of the GPDO is subject to the provisions of the GPDO for each class of development and compliance with regulations 75 to 78 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) (Habitats Regulations). Effectively, Article 3(1) provides a pre-commencement condition which must be met, where the development would affect a European protected habitat, such as an SAC or SPA, before the works can be undertaken as permitted development. This includes a separate application to the Council under regulation 77 of the Habitats Regulations to allow the Council to undertake an appropriate assessment and, depending on the outcome, this would determine whether, in terms of that matter, the scheme could be undertaken as permitted development under the GPDO.

Although a UU has been provided, based on the evidence before me, it does not appear that an application to the Council under regulation 77 has been made. However, as the regulation 77 application can be submitted and potentially approved after the grant of prior approval, it is not determinative in respect of the main issues that I have examined and, therefore, I do not need to consider this matter further as part of this appeal.

Accordingly, with Article 3(1) and Regulations 75-78 securing a separate process by which such development only proceeds where it has been confirmed via a Regulation 77 approval from the Council that there would be no adverse effect on the integrity of designated sites, it is not necessary to secure the financial mitigation as part of this appeal.

The process in this instance nevertheless still requires the developer to submit a Regulation 77 application and receive written notification of the approval from the Council prior to commencement of development. This process also allows me to be satisfied that the appeal proposal would not adversely affect the integrity of the Marine Site.

Other matters have been raised by interested parties including the structural soundness of the barn, that the building is inappropriate for occupancy and the increase in traffic along with a lack of passing spaces.

The Council accepted that the building was suitable for conversion and that it was acceptable on highways grounds. I have not been presented with any evidence which would lead me to reach a different conclusion.

Prior approval for the development under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO is subject to the condition under Q.2(3) which specifies that the development shall be completed within a period of 3 years starting with the prior approval date, as well as the provisions of paragraph W.

In respect of conditions the only condition suggested by the Council is that the development be carried out in accordance with recommendations within the [name] submitted with the application.

[name] (13) of the GPDO allows prior approval to be granted subject to conditions reasonably related to the subject matter of the prior approval. As there is no prior approval matter relating to ecology it is not reasonable to specifically impose this condition. It has not been necessary to impose any further conditions other than those specified in the GPDO.

For the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal is allowed and prior approval is granted subject to conditions.