Appeal 6001166

The appeal is allowed and prior approval is deemed to be 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) for the change of use of an agricultural building to 4no one bed dwelling houses (Use Class C3) including building operations, at [site address] , Bath and [name] [postcode] in accordance with the application 25/01562/ADCOU and the details submitted with it.

For clarity I have taken the description of development from the application form for the banner heading above. However, I have used the description from the decision notice in my formal decision, removing words that do not relate to an act of development, as this more accurately describes the proposal.

Amendments to Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO) came into force on 21 May 2024 under [name] (SI) 2024/579. Article 10 of this SI sets out transitional arrangements allowing for a determination as to prior approval either under the previous provisions of Class Q of the GPDO (2020), or under the amended GPDO (2024), the transition period ending on 21 May 2025. The appellant indicated that they sought consent under the GPDO (2020) as it stood prior to 21 May 2024. As the application was submitted prior to the 21 May 2025 transition deadline, the Council determined the application based on the GPDO (2020), and so have I.

Under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the 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 may refuse the application where it considers that the proposed development would not comply with, or that the developer has provided insufficient information to the Council to establish whether the proposed development would comply with, the requirements set out in paragraphs Q.1 and Q.2 of Part 3 of the GPDO. The condition at paragraph Q.2(1) states that the provisions of paragraph W apply.

The procedure under Part 3 contained in [name].(11) explains that development must not begin before the occurrence of one of the following: a) the LPA provides a written notice that prior approval is not required, or b) the LPA provides written notice that prior approval is given, or c) the expiry of 56 days following the date on which the prior approval application under sub paragraph W.(2) was received without the LPA notifying the applicant as to whether the prior approval is given or refused. The appellant contends the LPA failed to provide written notice as to whether the prior approval was given or refused within 56 days following the date of the application being received by the LPA. They therefore consider the proposal to have deemed consent. The LPA does not agree it failed to notify its decision within the prescribed time. I will deal with this matter in my determination below.

There is dispute between the main parties regarding whether the proposal would have an unacceptable transport and highways impact. The Council contends that the site cannot be accessed safely by non-vehicular highway users. They consider it therefore fails to comply with [name].2(1)(a) of Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO, and therefore, that the proposal is not permitted development. However, where prior approval is deemed to have been granted by reason of the timing of the LPA’s decision, whether or not the proposal is permitted development, is not a matter for me to consider when determining this appeal, which solely relates to the prior approval process.

Having regard to the relevant requirements of Class Q and paragraph W of the GPDO, the main issue is whether prior approval is deemed to be granted.

[name] of the GPDO sets out the information which applications for prior approval must be accompanied by. This includes at paragraph W.(2)(b), in relation to development proposed under Class Q, a plan indicating the site and showing the proposed development. The application included plan no. 1554-13 – Proposed Site Plan. The Council considered this plan did not adequately define the site location.

Via correspondence dated 25 April 2025, the Council acknowledged receipt of the application, but notified the appellant the application was not valid, requesting a site location plan. No other perceived deficiencies in the submitted information were noted by the Council in this correspondence, or during the consideration of the application. The Council issued further correspondence dated 14 May 2025, again requesting the site location plan and noting the application was not valid, and would not be processed, until the requested site location plan was received, or if not received within 7 days, would be treated as withdrawn.

Following the submission of plan no.1154-10 – Location and Block Plan, the Council acknowledged validation of the application on 20 May 2025, noting a decision would be made by 14 July 2025. The Council’s Notification of Decision letter was dated 14 July 2025. The Council therefore considers it determined the application within the required timescale.

The GPDO does not contain a requirement or provision for prior approval applications to be validated. However, the statutory period for determination as to whether prior approval is required, does not start until all required information has been received. As the crux of the matter is whether the submitted plan no.1554-13 would meet the criteria of paragraph W.(2)(b), and therefore whether the timescale for determination of the application ran from the date of submission of the application, it is necessary to examine the GPDO’s requirements and definitions.

[name].(2)(b) requires the submission of ‘a plan indicating the site and showing the proposed development’. For the purposes of Class Q, Schedule 2, Part 3, the ‘site’ is defined in [name]. as ‘means the building and any land within its curtilage’. [name] also defines the curtilage as ‘(a) the piece of land, whether enclosed or unenclosed, immediately beside or around the agricultural building, closely associated with and serving the purposes of the agricultural building, or (b) an area of land immediately beside or around the agricultural building no larger than the land area occupied by the agricultural building’. The GPDO does not specify a requirement for the submission of a site location plan.

Plan no.1554-13 - Proposed Site Plan, submitted with the application, identifies within a red line boundary, the agricultural building, which is the subject of the proposed development, together with its curtilage. It identifies the building to be converted and describes its footprint as being [address] metres in area. Further, it identifies the total outside area as being [address] metres, thus confirming its curtilage to be compliant with sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of the curtilage definition. The plan identifies the wider site within the applicant’s ownership by a blue line boundary, together with the proposal’s vehicular access to and from the B3130 [name] to Pensford road. The plan is drawn to a defined scale, has a scale bar and includes a north point.

Whilst the Council states its request for the site location plan was to allow the location of the proposal to be satisfactorily identified for notification purposes, both the application form and submitted drawings identify the postal code for the application site. Further, the application form contains national easting (x) and northing (y) co-ordinates to identify the location of the application site. [name] acknowledge that the Council may request additional information under the provisions of paragraph W.(9) of the Part 3 of the GPDO, such requests do not affect the statutory period for determination.

Having examined the evidence before me, I find that plan no.1554-13 - Proposed Site Plan, submitted with the application, meets the definitions of paragraph X and therefore complies with the requirements of paragraph W.(2)(b) of Schedule 2, Part 3 of the GPDO. It therefore follows that, notwithstanding the Council’s standard validation requirements for planning applications, I find that the prior approval application was compliant with the requirements of the GPDO at the time of its submission. Accordingly, the timescale for determination of the application ran from the date of submission of the application.

The appellant notes the application as being submitted on 22 April 2025. At the latest, the application is acknowledged by the Council as having been received by the 25 April 2025 within their correspondence of that date. Therefore, having regard to the wording and requirements of the GPDO, the prior approval application period (56-days) would commence as ‘day 1’ being on 26 April 2025. It therefore expired on 20 June 2025, before the Notification of Decision letter dated 16 July 2025 was issued by the Council. I therefore conclude that in the absence of the Council providing a written notice within the application period, in accordance with paragraph W.(11)(c), planning permission is deemed to have been granted.

The GPDO sets out at paragraph W.(12), that the development must be carried out, where prior approval is not required, or where sub-paragraph (11)(c) applies, in accordance with the details provided in the application, unless the local planning authority and the developer agree otherwise in writing. Also, [name].(13) provides for additional conditions to be attached that are reasonably related to the subject matter of the prior approval. However, since I have found that prior approval is deemed to have been granted, there is no facility to attach further conditions in addition to the standard ones outlined in the GPDO.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal is allowed, and prior approval is deemed to be granted.