Appeal 6001299

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs made by [name] against Cornwall Council is the subject of a separate decision.

The appeal relates to an agricultural building (the barn). Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO) is therefore pertinent. For the purposes of the appeal, it permits the change of use of a building that is part of an established agricultural unit and any land within that building's curtilage to dwellinghouses, together with building operations reasonably necessary to convert it.

This is subject to the prior approval of the Council in relation to several matters, including, as set out at Q2.(1)(e), whether the location or siting of the building makes it undesirable for its use to change, and, as set out at Q2.(1)(f), the design or external appearance of the building. These are the only matters in dispute between the main parties.

I have considered the appellant’s submissions regarding the scope of an appeal such as this. Plainly, the GPDO has permitted the change of use in question subject to the operative conditions. My determination is made in that context. I recognise that in addressing the meaning of “undesirable”, the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) gives examples in which an adjacent land use may affect the residential occupants of the building in question, and that no such concerns exist in relation to the barn.

At the same time, the PPG is clear that “undesirable” is not defined in the regulations and should simply be taken to mean “harmful or objectionable”. These are broad terms and do not, based on their ordinary meaning, exclude considerations of wider landscape character, or the effects thereupon of the change of use and alterations to the barn.

This approach is supported by paragraph W.(10) of Part 3 of the GPDO, which is clear that I must [my emphasis] have regard to the Framework when determining this appeal so far as it is relevant to the subject matter of the prior approval, as if I were dealing with a planning application. I have determined the appeal on that basis.

The appellant has supplied me with a [name] note, a Window and [name], and a Landscape Character Assessment based on the use of the Cornwall Council Landscape Character Toolkit. I am content that these serve to address the reasons for refusal rather than to evolve or alter the proposal. Given this, and in the absence of objection from the Council, I am content to accept them as part of the appeal.

The main issue is whether the location or siting of the barn makes it undesirable for it to change from agricultural use to dwellings, and the effect of the proposed design and external appearance of the barn, with particular regard in both respects to the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The area around the barn contains a scattering of dwellings and farm buildings. These, however, are sufficiently few and far between that the overriding characteristics of the local area are that it is rural and largely undeveloped. Indeed, it benefits from a picturesque quality derived from these characteristics.

The barn is a simple agricultural building, and immediately recognisable as such. At some 18m by 9m in width and depth and over 6m tall, it is a large structure. It’s modern, simple design and finish give it a somewhat stark, utilitarian appearance. The combination of its dimensions and design give the barn an imposing presence.

When seen from the road near the place marked VP2 in the [name] note, the barn is seen against a backdrop of sky, rather than any solid background into which it may blend. Even from the higher ground around the entrance, labelled VP1, the barn is still tall enough to protrude upwards past the far ridge of the land seen in the distance behind it. This, along with its imposing nature, make it prominent within those views.

From the road around the areas labelled VP4, 5, and 6, the barn is seen against a backdrop of green fields on the far side of the valley. Whilst it has slightly less presence in these views than when seen against the sky, it is still eye-catching; There are no trees or other structures near it, and it stands out as the only notable building in its section of the valley.

What is more, views of the barn are not restricted to those available from the public sphere, and I see little reason to limit my assessment in that way. The barn is visible from neighbouring land and buildings in the valley, including from the access to Penfontein. It is directly and wholly visible from the land immediately around the barn, which it dominates visually.

Even where only parts of the barn are visible, they are the tallest parts and draw most attention to it. Overall, given its size, design, and the context of its setting, the barn is a strikingly prominent feature in the landscape. Whether that means its location or siting makes the proposed change in its use undesirable depends, to my mind, on the design or external appearance of the building as proposed. I see no reason why these matters may not be interlinked.

The existing openings in the barn walls are typical of such rural buildings, in that they appear to exist only where they serve a practical purpose and not otherwise. They comprise such a modest proportion of the external elevations as to leave the barn with a somewhat featureless appearance. This emphasises its functional nature and connects it to its rural setting.

Whilst the appeal proposal would retain the basic shape and external materials of the barn, it would nevertheless result in 26 openings across the north and south elevations alone. That many openings, at consistent horizontal levels over two floors, would be highly unusual in a rural building generally, and so strikingly at odds with the existing character of the barn as to harmfully undermine its functional character and, consequently, its visual connection to its setting.

This would be exacerbated by the broadly symmetrical arrangement of the openings, which are highly redolent of semi-detached housing and would clearly identify the barn as such. Whilst the barn is already served by an access and parking area, the change of use would inevitably result in new domestic paraphernalia within the curtilage. This would further emphasise the overtly residential nature of the scheme. Overall, the existing practical, agricultural character of the barn would largely be replaced by a domestic, residential one harmfully at odds with its setting.

I recognise that the GPDO allows building operations reasonably necessary to convert the barn, including the installation of windows and doors. This, however, must be seen alongside the provision to consider the design or external appearance of the building. My assessment above is in that context.

I do not doubt that the proposed openings would be reasonably necessary to allow light into the dwellings. That, however, reflects the specific design of the appeal proposal. I see no reason to believe that such a number and arrangement of openings are reasonably necessary for the conversion of the barn per se. It is not evident to me therefore that refusal of this particular scheme is at odds with, or akin to frustrating, the permissive element of the GPDO.

Vertical louvres would be applied over some of the openings. The details of these, and of the window frames and glazing, could be controlled to mitigate visual impact. Even so, the size, location, and number of the openings would remain apparent, particularly in face-on views and when internal lighting was on.

Several previous appeals have been brought to my attention. I have little evidence that the scheme in appeal APP/J1860/W/24/3344968 involved a landscape setting of the same or similar characteristics to that before me, or a design resulting in the same or similar degree of change to the subject building. I see little reason to apply the same approach to the term ‘desirable’ therefore, or to reach the same conclusion regarding design and appearance.

Similarly, I have been provided with little evidence that the design of the scheme in appeal APP/J1860/W/24/3347554 is directly comparable to that before me, the details of which I have assessed above.

Appeal APP/P1805/W/18/3198818 turned solely on whether the conversion of the agricultural building in question was impractical. That is not a matter in dispute in this appeal.

The appellant considers appeal decision APP/C1570/W/21/3282677 to illustrate an appropriate approach to Class Q. I do not doubt it. I see very little, however, to show me that I may not reach a different conclusion by following much the same approach, based on the details of the scheme before me.

Indeed, appeal APP/W4705/W/20/3254772, also cited in the submissions, sets out that whilst the examples of ‘undesirable’ listed in the PPG do not include impacts on the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape, the list is not a closed one and could include an assessment against the policies of the Framework which, amongst other things, recognise the intrinsic beauty of the countryside.

Overall, I see nothing in these previous appeal decisions that conflicts with the approach I have taken above, or to directly influence my findings.

My attention is also drawn to some previous decisions of the Council. However, I have no evidence that any of the agricultural buildings in question are located so as to be as prominent as the barn. From the limited evidence before me, it is apparent that none of the approved schemes involve a design reflecting semidetached housing in the way the appeal scheme does.

I am told that alterations to an agricultural building shown in Viewpoint AP18(b) in the [name] note were found acceptable. I have nothing from the appellant, however, to show me what the building looked like before, and so cannot assess the impact of the change, much less see that it is comparable to that which the appeal scheme proposes. I can see, however, that the scale of the approved work is clearly incomparable to that proposed in the appeal.

It is not evident that any of the cited schemes are directly comparable to that before me, and I therefore attach minimal weight to them. I recognise that the appeal proposal represents a revision to an earlier scheme, but that has no bearing on its merits. I note that the appellant has used the Council’s Landscape Character Toolkit to find low landscape sensitivity and a high capacity to accommodate change. Whilst the toolkit, however, provides a framework for a judgement to be made on such matters, the outcome of its use depends upon the opinion of the user as to the various elements therein. Based on my findings set out above, I would reach a different conclusion to the appellant if I were to use the toolkit. I therefore attach minimal weight to it.

The Framework requires that my decision should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and that development should be sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting. Given this, I find that the location and siting of the barn make it undesirable for it to change from agricultural use to dwellings, given the proposed design and external appearance of the barn, as these would have an unacceptably harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

For the reasons given above the appeal is dismissed.