Appeal 6000741

The appeal is dismissed.

I have dealt with another appeal1 at the same location as this. The appeals have been assessed on their individual merits and in the context of the relevant legislation applicable to them.

Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO) was updated on 21 May 2024. Transitional arrangements allow for a prior approval application to be determined in accordance with the 1 August 2020 version of the GPDO as long as it was made before the 21st of May 2025. At the request of the appellant, the appeal has been determined in this way. All references to the GPDO in this decision therefore relate to the 2020 version of it.

Schedule 2, Part 3, paragraph W.10(b) of the GPDO sets out the prior approval process. It requires the local planning authority to consider the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), insofar as it is relevant to the subject matter of the prior approval, as if the application were a full planning application.

However, prior approval is not an application for express planning permission. It relates to development already permitted by the GPDO, specifically to support the increase in housing supply. Therefore, planning judgments should be made in the context of the purpose behind creating this class of development. Additionally, development plan policies can be material considerations, though these should support a planning judgement rather than form the basis of it. 1 Ref 6000742

The Planning Practice Guidance states that permitted development rights are a national grant of planning permission which allow certain building works and changes of use to be carried out without having to make a planning application. Permitted development rights are subject to conditions and limitations to control impacts and to protect local amenity. This is effectively a 2-stage process where it is necessary in the first instance to determine whether or not the proposal is permitted development.

Class Q of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the GPDO states that development consisting of Q(a) a change of use of a building and any land within its curtilage from a use as an agricultural building to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses) of the Schedule of the Use Classes Order; and Q(b) building operations reasonably necessary to convert the building, is permitted development. There is no dispute that the proposal meets the criteria set out above, making it permitted development.

Where development is found to be permitted, conditions set out in Q.2-(1) of the GPDO require the developer to apply for a determination as to whether the prior approval of the authority will be required as to (a) transport, highways, and (b) noise impacts; (c) contamination and (d) flood risks; (e) whether the location or siting of the building makes it otherwise impractical or undesirable for the building to change from agricultural use to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses) of Schedule 1 to the Use Classes Order; (f) the design or external appearance of the building; and (g) the provision of natural light in all habitable rooms.

The Council refused the application for prior approval on the grounds it considered the change of use would have an undesirable effect on the character and appearance of the Ludwell Valley Park; thus, failing to meet part of criterion (e). In that context, the Council does not claim the change of use would be ‘impractical.’ Citing conflict with criterion (f), it also raises objection to the design and external appearance of the building. Subject to conditions in some respects, the Council is not concerned with (a)-(d) or (g) above and having paid regard to the representations in these respects, I find no strong reason to disagree.

Accordingly, I consider the main issue in this case to be whether prior approval should be granted, with particular regard to the location of the building and its design or external appearance.

The appeal building is a small redundant store which was part of a former nursery. Although close to a small group of properties, it is positioned on elevated ground above these. The location, amongst other former nursery buildings, exudes a strong sense of rurality when compared with the residential development below. This is of particular relevance given the surrounding wider area is characterised by its bountiful publicly accessible multi use trails, set within a rolling natural landscape. These qualities are recognised by its local designation as a Valley Park, which is part of the city’s wider green infrastructure network.

It is acknowledged that such local designations do not fall within the list of exclusions in Q.1(k) that would prevent prior approval. That said, even though the term ‘undesirable’ is not defined in the Order, there is no substantive evidence before me that demonstrates impacts on the character and appearance of an area cannot be included as part of an assessment as to the suitability of the location. To my mind, this would be a matter of planning judgement.

Having paid regard to other appeal decisions2 at this site, it is acknowledged that the small garden area, mostly unaltered building, and likely introduction of the lawful fencing would significantly reduce the perception of additional residential development when viewed from elevated ground to the south.

The minimal proposed alterations, use of existing materials and openings would sympathetically retain much of the building’s simple, small scale, utilitarian appearance. Even though it is of limited architectural quality, the building already exists in the landscape, and for the reasons given I do not agree with the Council that the proposed design or external appearance would be objectionable. As such, it would comply with Q.2-(1)(f).

However, the relatively close views from [site address] to the east at a field gate, and from numerous breaks in vegetation along the public footpath that runs adjacent to the appeal site, are of notable significance. From these vantage points, the appeal building is clearly discernible as a distinct element within the landscape, contrasting with the houses situated below. That said, its presence currently draws only fleeting attention due to its subdued and somewhat redundant character.

By contrast, the introduction of a residential use, regardless of the minimal proposed interventions, would inevitably bring with it increased levels of activity, movement, paraphernalia, and domestic features that do not always require planning permission. In practice and over time, there would nevertheless be likely to be pressure to expand beyond the confines of the current appeal site, with the possibility that future occupiers may wish to maximise opportunities to enjoy their property. Even in the absence of this, and in recognition that any future alterations to the building would require express consent, the additional residential use on this exposed valley slope would not go unnoticed. This would irrevocably disturb the rather tranquil setting the appeal building sits within, resulting in the harmful urbanisation of a finite and valued resource that is the Valley Park.

For these reasons, although the design and external appearance of the proposal would be acceptable, and in recognition of the purpose behind Class Q, the harm to the character and setting of the area means that the conversion to a dwelling would be ‘undesirable.’ There would be conflict with paragraph 135 of the Framework which says, in part, that decisions should ensure developments are sympathetic to local character and landscape setting.

For the reasons given, the appeal is dismissed.