Appeal 6001431

The appeal is allowed and prior approval is granted under the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) for change of use of one agricultural building to five dwellinghouses at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application reference: 2025/0181.

An application for costs has been made by [name] against the Council. This matter is the subject of a separate decision.

Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (the Order) permits development of a change of use of buildings on agricultural units and former agricultural buildings to dwellinghouses.

Development under Class Q of the Order is permitted subject to that before beginning the development, the developer must apply to the local planning authority for a determination as to whether the prior approval of the authority is required. [name].2 of the Order lists conditions under which the developer must apply to the local planning authority as to whether prior approval would be required. One of these is (a), transport and highways impact of the development. The Council has identified that if it determined the application before an appeal was made, it would have refused the development on transport and highway impacts.

[name] of the Order sets out the procedure for prior approval under Part 3. [name].(11)(c) states that development must not begin before the expiry of 56 days following the date on which the application, under sub paragraph (2), was received by the local planning authority, without the authority notifying as to whether prior approval is given or refused. The appellant claims that the 56 days had expired before the refusal was issued.

In light of the matters identified above, the main issues are: • whether planning permission is deemed to have been granted by reason of the failure to issue a decision within the timeframe allowed; and if not, • whether the transport impacts of the development require refusal of prior approval under paragraph Q.2 (a) of the Order.

The Council received the [name] application on 20 February 2025. In review of the application plans and documents submitted, following the provisions of the Order, I am satisfied that the submitted information was reasonable as a means of enabling the Council to determine the application within the permitted timeframe.

The application was made valid on 17 March 2025. [name].(11)(c) is clear about the period in which a decision must be made. It states that the 56 days for the determination date starts ‘following the date on which the application was received by the Local Planning Authority’. If taken from the date the Council made the application valid, the 56 days expired on 17 April 2025. In my assessment of the appeal, I also note that the parties agreed to allow the Council additional time to determine the application, in which it failed to do so.

The Council, therefore, failed to provide the appellant with written notice of their decision within the 56-day period. The decision was not issued to any party by the Council on the 17 April 2025, or a latter agreed date. Any administrative processes or the request for amendments or further information must be factored into the 56 days to ensure that the written notice is received in time. These matters do not pause the timeframe given by the Order. If the application was deemed to be unacceptable on any of the conditions set out in [name].2, then a decision should have been reached against those matters. There is no clear reason for any delay in issuing the decision, whatever the outcome.

In the absence of written notice under paragraph W.(11) of the Order being received by the appellant, or their agent, by 17 April 2025 or a later date agreed between the parties, planning permission is deemed to have been granted, by reason of the timing of the Council’s absence of a notification of their decision.

In view of my findings above, I cannot consider any transport concerns.

The Order attaches standard conditions to this type of development, including that development must be completed within a period of 3 years, starting from the prior approval date and that the development must be carried out in accordance with the details provided in the application. I note the requests for conditions in the event that the appeal was allowed. Given the constraints of what I am able to consider under the Order and my findings on the matter above, I have no reason to impose any additional conditions.

The scheme is permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class MA of the Order. As notice was not received by the appellant within the 56 days required under paragraph W(11) planning permission is deemed to have been granted on the expiry of those 56 days, on 17 April 2025. For the reasons identified, I conclude that the appeal should succeed.