Appeal 6002637

The appeal is allowed and prior approval is granted under the provision 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 building from agricultural to 1no. dwellinghouse, at [site address] , in accordance with the application 25/01985/PRIOR and the details submitted with it, pursuant to Article 3(1), Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q, and subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The description of development in the banner heading above is taken from the application form, except for the reference to [address] Farm as it is not an act of development and is superfluous.

Class Q(a) of the GPDO1 permits development consisting of 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 (dwellinghouses), and under Class Q(b), building operations reasonably necessary to convert the building for that purpose. There is no dispute that the proposal would be permitted development taking into account the limitations and conditions in paragraph Q.1 and Q.2 of the GPDO. Based on all that I have seen and read, I have no reason to take a different view.

The Council’s reason for refusal relates to insufficient information to assess the potential impact on protected species. Protected species are not specifically referred to in the GPDO. However, paragraph Q.2(1) of the GPDO does require consideration of whether the location or siting of a building makes it otherwise impractical or undesirable to create a dwellinghouse. Moreover, Regulation 9 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (habitat regulations) imposes a duty to consider relevant Directives and whether there is a reasonable 1 The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended. likelihood of protected species being present and affected by a proposal. Therefore, although not mentioned in Class Q of the GPDO, the potential effect on protected species must be considered as part of the prior approval process.

The appellant has submitted additional information as part of their appeal in the form of a summer dusk emergence bat surveys and barn owl surveys report dated October 2025 (emergence survey report) and a bat hibernation survey report dated December 2025 (hibernation report). The procedural guide for planning appeals advises that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme as it is important that what is considered by the Inspector at appeal, is essentially the same scheme that was considered by the local planning authority and by interested parties at the application stage.

However, in this case, the additional information is intended to address the Council’s reason for refusal, and it does not materially alter the nature of the development proposed. No interested party comments were made at the time the Council considered the application, and none have been received during the appeal process. Furthermore, the Council have been provided with opportunity to comment on the additional material. I am therefore satisfied that no party would be prejudiced by taking this information into account. There is now common ground between the parties regarding the reason for refusal on the Council’s decision notice.

Having regard to the above and the Council’s reasons for refusal of prior approval, the main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development upon protected species.

The Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) report submitted with the application found that the barn had a high suitability for bat roosts and, that a live barbastelle bat was confirmed roosting on the north-eastern wall. The PEA recommended that further bat surveys be completed prior to determination of the proposal. Circular 06/20052 advises that ecological surveys should only be left to a planning condition in exceptional circumstances. I am satisfied that such surveys could not have been dealt with by planning condition, particularly given that any required mitigation would not have been known.

The subsequent emergence survey and hibernation reports confirmed the presence of one roosting pipistrelle bat beneath external cladding on the western elevation. No other roosts were identified. The hibernation survey also found no evidence of bats using the building during winter months.

The survey work concludes that, although roosts are present, the risk of significant harm occurring during the conversion works can be avoided through a suite of mitigation measures. These include the timing of works, the installation of bat boxes, supervision by a licensed ecologist during the stripping of cladding, and sensitive external lighting. These measures are proportionate to the scale and nature of the roosts.

The Council has confirmed that in light of the additional surveys, it no longer seeks to defend the reason for refusal. On the evidence presented I have no reason to 2 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – statutory obligations and their impact within the planning system, 2005. disagree with the submitted PEA and emergence survey and hibernation reports, or the Council’s position, subject to conditions relating to the proposed mitigation measures. I am satisfied that the mitigation hierarchy has been followed and that there would be no significant harm to the long-term conservation status of the bat species that are present.

For these reasons I find that the proposal would not result in any significant harm to bats or their roosts. Consequently, the proposal would not conflict with Regulation 9 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. The proposal would constitute permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the Order.

[name].2.(4) of the GPDO states that development under Class Q is permitted subject to the condition that development under Class Q(a), and under Class Q(b) or (c), if any, must be completed within a period of 3 years starting with the prior approval date. I have attached a time limit condition for the avoidance of doubt.

[name] (13) of the GPDO allows prior approval to be granted subject to conditions that are reasonably related to the subject matter of the prior approval. I have considered the Council’s suggested conditions and where necessary I have amended the wording to ensure compliance with paragraph 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance. The parties have had the opportunity to comment on the revised wording during the appeal process.

A condition specifying the approved drawings is necessary for reasons of certainty. Conditions relating to contaminated land are reasonable and necessary given the former agricultural use and sensitivity of the proposed dwelling. A condition securing details of external materials is needed to ensure an appropriate appearance for the historic barn. In the interests of protected species, a condition is required to ensure compliance with the bat mitigation measures set out in the emergence and hibernation reports. A separate condition regarding the preclusion of erecting lighting unless a scheme has first been submitted to the Council for approval, is also necessary for precision and enforceability to safeguard protected species.

For the foregoing reasons, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans; location plan drawing number DR-A-0010 Rev P6, proposed site block plan drawing number DR-A-1000 Rev P7, proposed ground floor plan drawing number DR-A-1001 Rev P7, proposed first floor plan drawing number DR-A-1002 Rev P6 and proposed elevations drawing number DR-A-2000 Rev P5.

Prior to any works above slab level, details and/or samples of all external facing materials including the treatment of any external timber shall have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and retained as such thereafter.

No development (or phase of) shall take place until; a) The application site has been subject to a detailed scheme for the investigation and recording of contamination, based on the Xplor Environmental Tier 1 Contamination Assessment, and remediation objectives have been determined through risk assessment. The resulting Phase 2 Intrusive Site Investigation Report is to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. b) A Remediation Method Statement containing proposals for the removal, containment or otherwise rendering harmless any contamination, based upon the Phase 2 Intrusive Site Investigation, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The dwelling (or each phase of the development where phased) hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the works specified in the approved [name] are complete and a [name] demonstrating compliance with the approved [name] has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Any contamination that is found during the course of construction of the development hereby permitted that was not previously identified, shall be reported in writing immediately to the local planning authority. Development on the part of the site affected shall be suspended until a risk assessment has been carried out and submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Where unacceptable risks are found, the development [or relevant phase of development] shall not resume or continue until remediation and verification schemes have been carried out in accordance with details that shall first, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

No development shall commence until schemes for the provision and implementation of surface water and foul drainage have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The schemes shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted.

The development shall be carried out in full compliance with the bat mitigation measures set out in ‘[name] & [name] by Skilled Ecological Consultancy Ltd including the timing of works and the provision of bat boxes.

No external lighting shall be installed within the site or on the dwelling hereby permitted, unless full details including height, design, number, location and luminance levels have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The lighting shall be installed in accordance with the approved details and retained as such thereafter.