Appeal 6002250

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council refused the proposal on four grounds. Reason for Refusal (RfR) 2 related to whether the building had the potential to be occupied by bats. The site is within the ‘[name] and Mendip Bats Special Area of Conservation’. As a protected species, it was necessary for the applicant to demonstrate whether bats would be adversely affected by the proposal. The appellant has demonstrated that the building has a low suitability for bat habitat and that bats are not present in the building, presenting allow likelihood that vats would be affected by the proposal. Furthermore, the grant of planning permission under Article 3(1) of the GPDO is subject to it requiring compliance with Regulations 75 to 78 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended). As such, the appellant would need to satisfy these regulations before any work could proceed under permitted development rights. On this basis of these two important points, the Council no longer seeks to defend RfR2. I see no reason to disagree with these findings and shall therefore not consider this issue further.

Furthermore, RfR3 of the Council’s Decision Notice relates to the effect of the proposal on an area of contaminated land, located close to the barn. To address this the Council sought a phase 1 desktop study. Nonetheless, the appellant has advised that the identified potentially contaminated area is only a small section of hardstanding and that the proposal would not involve any intrusive ground works. On this basis, the Council no longer maintains its contamination concerns. I see no reason to disagree with these points and shall also consider RfR3 to be resolved.

This appeal relates to Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (GPDO) as amended. Class Q (a) relates to (i) a building that is part of an established agricultural unit and any land within that building’s curtilage, or (ii) a former agricultural building that was (but is no longer) part of an established agricultural unit and any land within that building’s curtilage. This permits a change of use of scenario (i) or (ii) to a use falling within Class C3, allows extension (at (b)) and building operations reasonably necessary (at (c)).

Part Q1 explains that development is not permitted by Class Q if (a) as part of an agricultural unit, the site was not an agricultural unit (i) on 24 July 2023 or (ii) where the site became part of an established agricultural unit after 24 July 2023, to be in agricultural use for a period of at least 10 years before the date development under Class Q begins.

Furthermore, part Q1(b) explains that if it was, but is no longer part of an established agricultural unit, (i) the site was part of an agricultural unit 24 July 2023, or (ii) if ceased by this time the site had not been part of an agricultural unit for at least 10 years before the proposed development begins, or (iii) since ceasing to be part of an agricultural unit, the site has been used for non-agricultural purposes. The Council asserts that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the barn was in agricultural use on 24 July 2023 in conflict with Q1(a)(i). Paragraph Q1(b) to (p) relate to matters not in dispute between main parties.

Paragraph Q2 refers to Conditions of the permitted development right. This explains that where development is permitted by Part Q1(a) and (c) an applicant is required to apply to the Council as to whether [name] would be required. Whilst most parts of condition Q2(1)(a) to (f) are undisputed, provision (b) requires regard to be had to the noise impacts of the development. Furthermore, paragraph W, includes at (10)(b) a requirement to consider the effect of development on the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), so far as it is relevant to the subject matter of the prior approval, as if the application were a planning application. The Council has identified that the proposal would experience noise disturbance from the adjacent business threatening the ongoing operation of the business through the ‘agent of change’ principle.

Consequently, based on the submitted evidence I conclude that, the main issues are: • whether the proposal would be permitted development under the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 3, Paragraph Q1(a)(i) with regard to the building’s use at the time, and • If Q1 is satisfied, whether the proposed development would gain prior approval under the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 3, Paragraph Q2(1)(b) and the provisions of paragraph W(10)(b), with respect to matters of noise effects on future occupiers.

The barn is a single storey wooden structure with a shallow pitched roof. It stands at the bottom of a sloping field. Its frontage, addressed by double doors, is partly enclosed by a post and rail fence. Inside the building the space is subdivided into areas as animal pens that appeared suitable to be occupied by horses. At the time of my visit the pens were being used to store a range of items including hay, agricultural equipment and construction materials.

The Council identify that a Certificate of Lawfulness (LDE), for an existing change of use from agricultural use to equestrian use, was granted in 2012. It appears that the barn was used as a horse stable in the past, an assertion confirmed by the appellant’s recent structural survey.

The appellant explains that the barn has been used for both agricultural and equestrian use in the past. Whilst acknowledging that the barn was subject to a LDE in 2012, establishing an equestrian use, it is asserted that it changed to agricultural use in 2013. The appellant states that the barn has been used to store agricultural equipment and feed since 2013 and was therefore in agricultural use 24 July 2023. Photographs have been provided showing the field surrounding the site has been used for hay making and therefore has been in agricultural use, although these are undated.

It has been established that the barn was in lawful use for equestrian purposes in 2012 and no further planning history or other evidence has been provided to indicate that an alternative use has become established since then. As a sui generis use this is distinctly different to agricultural use. Therefore, it is unclear when an agricultural use commenced.

Nonetheless, the Council has also provided no evidence that a use other agricultural has taken place following the issuing of the LDE. It is therefore conceivable, in evidentiary terms, that the site has only been used for agricultural purposes since the appellant took ownership of the land, stated as being around

Moreover, the provision of paragraph Q1(a) allows for barns to convert to dwellings under permitted development rights even if their original use, or a different use over a temporary and historic period, was not agricultural in use terms.

The requirement to demonstrate that the building was in agricultural use, in satisfaction of Part Q1(a) requires a balance of probability taking all stated matters into consideration. There is no requirement to provide a Certificate of Lawfulness to demonstrate that an agricultural use exists, or has become established, although this may have been useful in this case. The appellant has demonstrated that the barn is in agricultural use, and was in 2023, and I have no contrasting evidence to refute this assertion. As such, on the balance of probabilities I find that the site was in agricultural use on 23 July 2023. As a result, the proposal would comply with paragraph Q1(a)(i).

The appeal site is within the open countryside, it is separated from the nearby main road and accessed via an access track. It this location, and as observed on site during my visit, the site is within a quiet and tranquil location, with audible background noise levels deemed to be low. Nonetheless, the site is adjacent to a ground and civil works business (Taylor Plant Ltd) that includes a warehouse and parking areas for commercial vehicles. The business includes the use of a range of vans, trucks and heavy plant. This business is located adjacent to the immediate north of the barn, with a small separation distance between the barn and the adjacent land, separated by a field boundary hedge.

The appellant’s Noise Impact Assessment, October 2025, explains that the business operates from 06:00 and ends at 18:00 Monday to Friday, with weekend activity confined to Saturday mornings between 06:00 and 13:00. The Assessment identifies that the business experiences a focus of activity in the early mornings, between 06:00 and 07:00 while drivers collect materials and depart for off-site work.

Noise monitoring equipment was located on the north and south side of the barn. This found that noise levels started around 06:00, creating noise levels of around 43dB. This is reported to rise to around 52-55dB, as trucks began moving and idling, with short periods rising to 63-65dB, between the times of 06:30-06:40, during loading events. Between 06:50 and 07:00 noise levels receded to 48-50dB as activity subsided on the site. The highest recorded noise levels were therefore around 65dB during loading of the trucks.

Furthermore, figure 4.1 of the Assessment demonstrates that whilst high noise levels were recorded from 06:00, significant noise levels were also recorded throughout the day between 15:00 and 17:00. This second peak presumably relates to when vehicles generally returned to the site and were unloaded. The Assessment shows that future occupiers would experience a significant adverse noise effect without mitigation. It is also demonstrated that due to the barn’s screening effects, the southern noise monitoring equipment recorded a noise reduction, from the recorded northern monitoring equipment, by around 18dB.

The proposed layout of the barn would place the windows of bedrooms 2 and 3 alongside its northern elevation. The Assessment identifies that bedrooms should achieve an internal ambient noise level of 35dB LAeq,16hr in the daytime (07.00- 23:00) and 30dB LAeq,8hr at night (23:00-07:00). With enhanced internal design targets, the proposed glazing design, with the incorporation of acoustically rated trickle vents, would achieve the required levels with a noise reduction of 34dB.

However, if a suitable sound reduction can only be achieved with the windows closed, occupants would be unable to sleep with the windows open or would be disturbed at times which are regarded as peaceful times. Throughout warmer weather this would be likely to cause material changes to a residential occupier’s normal behaviour, where access to a fresh breeze would be a reasonable expectation in a countryside setting.

Also, a mechanical ventilation system to achieve low internal temperatures, whilst feasible, would create a sterile and a poor living environment in this setting. Such ventilation would not therefore suitably mitigate an occupier’s inability to open windows at night. I am also unconvinced that external mitigation, such a [address] boarded fence or wall, would be sufficient to mitigate the effects and this type of measure has not been explored in the Noise Assessment.

The Assessment explains that the adverse noise effect identified would be inevitable based on the type of business operating here. It suggests that existing dwellings within the area have not made noise complaints and the proposed dwelling is intended to be occupied by the appellant’s family member meaning that the risk of complaints arising would be negligible. The closest housing appears to be across fields at the end of [address], along [site address] and [address] itself. However, these are all a significant distance from Taylor Plant Ltd and hence the absence of current complaints does not provide robust reassurance that complaints would not be generated by future occupiers of the barn.

Moreover, whilst I accept the appellant’s family member may first occupy the converted barn, this is not certain and could not be required by a reasonable condition. Also, this statement only addresses the first occupant of the property, a second occupier may not be as understanding. Consequently, this assurance provides only limited reassurance that the Council would not receive complaints about the business in future years.

The Framework requires planning decisions to ensure that new development can be integrated effectively with existing businesses and community facilities and that these “should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of development permitted after they were established”. Furthermore, the Framework states that such businesses “should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of development permitted after they were established. Where the operation of an existing business... could have a significant adverse effect on new development in its vicinity, the applicant (or ‘agent of change’) should provide suitable mitigation before the development has been completed”.

Planning Practice Guidance is clear that the Agent of Change principle requires mitigation to be considered to prevent adverse effects to the business, this includes considering reducing the noise at source, optimise the distance between the source and noise sensitive receptors, using planning conditions to restrict activities allowed at certain times and mitigating the impact through noise insulation. As the noise source is an existing adjacent business, and the proposal consists of the conversion of an existing building, the first three measures would be unable to be achieved without collaboration with the neighbouring occupiers. The fourth measure, for sound attenuation, would be insufficient to address the identified significant adverse effects. As such, the proposal would put the business operator at risk of a statutory noise complaint that may result in a need for the business to substantially change the nature of its operation, in conflict with the Agent of Change principle.

Accordingly, the Noise Assessment fails to demonstrate that the proposed dwelling would provide a suitable living environment for future occupiers. As a result, the proposal fails to satisfy Schedule 2, Part 3, Paragraph Q2(1)(b) and the provisions of paragraph W(10)(b), with respect to matters of noise effects on future occupiers.

For the above reasons, the appeal is dismissed.