Appeal 6002214

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) for the proposed Change of use from 1 x agricultural building to 1 x dwelling (Class Q (a) and (b))’ at [site address] , [site address] , Manea, Cambridgeshire [postcode] in accordance with the application F/YR25/0543/PNC04, subject to the conditions set out in the attached schedule.

On 21 May 2024, the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) (Amendment) Order 2024 came into force. Applications under Class Q made on or after 21 May 2025 must be determined on the basis of the amended Class Q of the GPDO. For the avoidance of doubt, the Council considered the application on the basis of the new Class Q and so shall I.

The appellant lodged an additional drawing (PP1000B) with the appeal submission. This drawing includes a dedicated internal storage area but does not propose fundamental changes to the scheme and has been made available to other parties to the appeal for comment. I have accepted this drawing and had regard to it in my determination of the appeal.

Class Q of the GPDO refers to development relevant to this proposal 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 (dwelling houses) of the Schedule of the Use Classes Order 1; and Q(c) building operations reasonably necessary to convert the building, is permitted development. No extension of the building is proposed under Q(b).

Paragraph Q1 provides a list of exclusions as to when development would not be permitted by Class Q. In this regard the Council’s case is that the proposal would comply with all the limitations and restrictions set out in Paragraph Q1 other than stipulated at Q.1(o). Based on the available information, I have no reason to reach a different finding regarding provisions other than Q.1(o).

It is stipulated at Q.1(o) of Part 3, Class Q of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended that development is not permitted under Class Q where the existing building, excluding any proposed extension under Class Q(b) but including any proposed building operations under Class Q(c), would not be capable of complying with the [name] – [name] (NDSS) issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government on 27th March 2015 as read with the notes dated 19th May 2016 which apply to it.

In this case, the Council concluded that the proposed development would not meet prior approval requirements, of Part 3, Class Q of the GDPO as the proposed gross internal floor area and internal storage space fail to comply with the NDSS, the proposal therefore fails to accord with Q.1(o).

Deemed permission under Class Q is conditional upon the applicant first applying to the local planning authority for a determination as to whether its prior approval would be required as to the matters set out in Paragraph Q2(1). Of particular relevance to this case is Q2(1)(e). This relates to whether the location or siting of the building makes it otherwise impractical or undesirable for the building to change from agricultural use to a dwellinghouse.

There is no disagreement between parties that the proposal accords with the provisions of Q2(1) (a) transport and highways impacts, (b) noise impacts, (c) contamination, (d) flooding, (f) the design or external appearance of the building and (g) the provision of adequate natural light in all habitable rooms of the dwellinghouses. I have no reason to reach a different finding.

However, the Council concluded that the proposal fails to demonstrate that the location of the building is suitable or practical for it to change from agricultural use to a use falling with Class C3 (dwellinghouses) as required by Q.2(e). This is due to the requirement to raise the finished floor levels of the development to address floor risk associated with this location of the appeal site within [name] 3 and resulting harm to the character and appearance of the area.

Considering the above, the main issues in this appeal are • Whether or not, having regard to the requirements of the GPDO. the existing building would be capable of complying with the NDSS regarding the size of the proposed dwelling and provision of internal storage in order to provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers; and • Whether prior approval should be granted in relation to the location or siting of the building and if it makes it otherwise impractical or undesirable for the building to change from agricultural use to a dwelling due to harm to the character and appearance of the area.

Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 3, Class W, paragraph 10) (b) of the GPDO (as amended) states that regard should be had to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) so far as relevant to the subject matter of the prior approval, as if the application were a planning application. Paragraph 135 of the Framework advises that a high standard of amenity for future users should be sought.

The floorspace of the proposed dwelling is identified as 51.3 sq.m on the submitted planning application form. The Council have referred to the gross internal floor area of the building as approximately 48.63 sq.m. They have established this measurement by subtracting the stepped internal access and the redundant area behind the access door which it is stated do not contribute toward usable living space within the dwelling. When this area of 2.25 sq.m is subtracted from the total internal floor area stated to be 50.88 sq.m, a revised internal floor area of 48.63 is identified.

The NDSS states at paragraph 8 that the Gross Internal Area (GIA) of a dwelling is defined as the total floor space measured between the internal faces of the perimeter walls that enclose the dwelling. This measurement includes partitions, structural elements, cupboards, ducts, flights of stairs, and voids above stairs. In this context, the Council’s interpretation is incorrect, and the 2.25 sq.m area deducted should have been retained within the floorspace calculation. Based on the Council’s own calculations, this results in a defined floorspace of 50.88 sq.m. [name] note the discrepancy with the figure stated on the planning application form, which is 51.3 sq.m, I am satisfied that the gross internal area of the proposed dwelling would be in excess of 50 sq.m.

The NDSS identifies a minimum floorspace requirement of 50 sq.m for a one‐bedroom single storey dwelling intended for two persons. I am therefore satisfied that the proposal complies with this minimum standard. The appellant has also identified an internal storage area of 1.5 sq.m in the revised drawing submitted with the appeal. This means that the proposal now accords with the NDSS requirement to provide a 1.5 sq.m internal storage area for a dwelling of this size.

For these reasons I find that that the existing building would be capable of complying with the NDSS regarding the size of the proposed dwelling and internal storage space in order to provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers and therefore accords with the requirements of Q.1(o) of Part 3, Class Q of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended.

Accordingly, I conclude that, subject to appropriate conditions being imposed, the proposal would provide an acceptable standard of living conditions for future occupiers in accordance with the Framework. The scheme is acceptable having regard to the matters for which prior approval is required.

The Council considered that the requirement to raise the finished floor level of the building to address concerns relating to flooding would have a material impact on the design and appearance of the new dwelling to such a degree it would be visually jarring and therefore contrary to the provisions of Chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which seeks to achieve well designed places. The conclusion is that design changes necessary due to the location of the building and the requirement to address flood risk, renders the proposal contrary Q.2(e) which requires the appellant to demonstrate that the location of the building is suitable or practical for it to change from agricultural use to a dwelling.

It is proposed to raise the finished floor level within the building by 0.6 metres. This responds to the recommendations set out in Section 5.2 ([name]) of the Flood Risk Assessment. The proposed increase also represents the maximum achievable, given the height of the existing building, which is not being altered.

The window on the south‐east side elevation, which would serve the combined kitchen, living and dining room, is proposed to be retained in its current location within the building fabric. Raising the floor level by 600 mm will result in the bottom of the windowpane being approximately 470 mm above the new internal finished floor level, with the top of the pane positioned around 1300 mm above the new internal floor level.

This would result in an unusual internal configuration, as the window would appear low within the wall of the dwelling when viewed internally, providing a restricted outlook for any adult of average height or above, even when seated. However, the proposed large glazed door and window unit on the south‐west facing front elevation would serve as the primary source of outlook and natural light for this living space and would provide an acceptable level of both.

I do not agree with the Council’s assessment that the window on the south‐east elevation would appear visually discordant or have a material impact on the design and appearance of the proposed dwelling when viewed externally. In external views of the building, the window would appear as existing. It would not be repositioned within the fabric of the building and, when viewed externally, would present essentially the same appearance as it does at present. It would therefore not be visually jarring or contrary to the provisions of Chapter 12 of the Framework.

It would therefore not be impractical or undesirable for the building to change from agricultural use to a dwelling due to the location or siting of the building and it therefore does not result in the development being contrary to Q.2(e), due to the requirement to raise the finished floor levels of the development to address flood risk associated with this location of the appeal site within [name] 3 and corresponding harm to the character and appearance of the area.

The National Planning Policy Framework states that conditions should be kept to a minimum and only imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise, and reasonable in all other aspects. I have considered the conditions put forward by the Council against the Framework.

[name] (13) of Schedule 2, Part 3 of the GPDO states that conditions which are “reasonably related to the subject matter of the prior approval” may be applied. Paragraph Q2(4) stipulates that development under Class Q is permitted subject to the condition that development must be completed within a period of 3 years starting with the prior approval date.

[name] (12) of Schedule 2, Part 3 of the GPDO requires that the development must be carried out in accordance with the details that are approved, and a plans condition would not therefore be required. However, in the interest of certainty and following the submission of an amended floorplan, I have attached a condition requiring the development to be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans, which include the amended floorplan. As there could be a range of contaminants present on site due to its agricultural use, I consider it necessary to include a contaminated land condition to ensure that risks from contamination to the future occupiers are minimised.

To ensure a satisfactory method of foul and surface water drainage and to prevent any increased risk of flooding, I have imposed a condition relating to foul and surface water drainage. To further reduce flood risk to the proposed development, I have also included a condition requiring that the development be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the submitted FRA, including the raising of the finished floor level by 600 mm.

The proposal would satisfy the requirements and limitations set out in Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO as amended. I therefore find that the appeal should be allowed, and prior approval is granted, subject to the standard conditions set out in paragraph Q2 of Class Q and to the additional conditions specified in the attached schedule. In granting approval, the Appellant should note that in accordance with paragraph Q.2.(4) of the Order, the appeal development must be completed within a period of 3 years of the date of this

The development hereby permitted shall be undertaken in accordance with drawing numbers, 100 Existing Site Plan, Floor Plan and Elevations and PP- 1000B Location Plan, and Proposed Site Plan, Floor Plan and Elevations.

No development approved by this permission shall be commenced prior to a contaminated land assessment and associated remedial strategy, being submitted to the LPA and receipt of approval of the document/documents from the LPA. This applies to paragraphs a), b) and c). This is an iterative process and the results of each stage will help decide if the following stage is necessary: (a) The contaminated land assessment shall include a desk study to be submitted to the LPA for approval. The desk study shall detail the history of the site uses, the proposed site usage, and include a conceptual model. The site investigation strategy will be based on the relevant information discovered by the desk study. The strategy shall be approved by the LPA prior to investigations commencing on site. (b) The site investigation, including relevant soil, soil gas, surface and groundwater sampling, shall be carried out by a suitable qualified and accredited consultant/contractor in accordance with a quality assured sampling and analysis methodology. (c) A site investigation report detailing all investigative works and sampling on site, together with the results of the analysis, risk assessment to any receptors and a proposed remediation strategy shall be submitted to the LPA. The LPA shall approve such remedial works as required prior to any remediation commencing on site. The works shall be of such a nature as to render harmless the identified contamination given the proposed end use of the site and surrounding environment including any controlled waters. No development approved by this permission shall be occupied prior to the completion of any remedial works and a validation report/s being submitted to the LPA and receipt of approval of the document/documents from the LPA. This applies to paragraphs d), e) and f). (d) Approved remediation works shall be carried out in full on site under a quality assurance scheme to demonstrate compliance with the proposed methodology and best practice (e) If, during the works, contamination is encountered which has not previously been identified then the additional contamination shall be fully assessed and an appropriate remediation scheme agreed with the LPA. (f) Upon completion of the works, this condition shall not be discharged until a validation/closure report has been submitted to and approved by the LPA. The closure report shall include details of the proposed remediation works and quality assurance certificates to show that the works have been carried out in full in accordance with the approved methodology. Details of any post-remedial sampling and analysis to show the site has reached the required clean-up criteria shall be included in the closure report together with the necessary documentation detailing what waste materials have been removed from site, and what has been brought on to site.

Prior to work above ground level, a scheme and timetable for the provision and implementation of foul and surface water drainage shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The use of [name] (SuDS), or discharge to surface waters or sewers, shall be designed and implemented in accordance with the principles and standards set out in the National Standards for [name]. The approved scheme shall be constructed and completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications at such time(s) as may be specified in the scheme and shall thereafter be retained in perpetuity.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) (ref ECL1413, dated July 2025, updated) (Prepared by Ellingham Consulting Ltd) are adhered to. In particular, the FRA recommends that: • Finished floor levels will be set no lower than 0.6 m above existing ground levels. • Flood resistance and resilient measures will be incorporated up to 0.6 m above finished floor levels. **End of Schedule**