Appeal 6002651

The appeal is allowed and prior approval is granted under the provisions of Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q (a) and (c), and paragraph Q2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) for change of use from agricultural building to create five dwellings at Portal frame barn to the east of [site address] Farm, [site address] , Depden, [postcode] , in accordance with the application DC/25/0812/P3QPA, and the details submitted with it including plan nos. 24-228-BCRI-XX-00-DR-A-100, 24-228-BCRI-XX-00-[name]-090, 24-228-BCRI-XX-00-DR-A-001 [name], 24-228-BCRI-XX-00-DR-A-010 [name], 24-228-BCRI-XX-01-DR-A-011 [name], 24-228-BCRI-XX-XX-DR-A-020 [name] and 24-228-BCRI-XX-XX-DR-A-021 [name], and subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

In the header above I have used the address given on the original application form as that more accurately describes the appeal site than the address on the decision notice.

Under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (the ‘GPDO’), planning permission is granted for a change of use of a building that is part of an established agricultural unit and any land within that building's curtilage, to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses), along with building operations reasonably necessary to convert that building. It is not disputed that the proposal would constitute this form of development.

Paragraph Q1 sets out criteria which must be met for proposals to constitute permitted development. There is no dispute between the parties that the scheme would meet these too.

Paragraph Q2(1) sets out that development is permitted on the condition that an application is made for a determination as to whether prior approval is required in respect of seven matters and, thereafter, if it is, that prior approval is given. Part (e) of this paragraph sets out that one such matter is whether the location or siting of the building makes it otherwise impractical or undesirable for the building to change from agricultural use to dwellinghouses.

The main issue is whether the location or siting of the building makes it otherwise impractical or undesirable for the building to change from agricultural use to dwellinghouses in respect of the effect on the setting of [name], which is a [name] listed building.

The agricultural building on the appeal site sits within a cluster of former agricultural buildings. Of these, it is understood that permission has been granted for the demolition of the grain store, the grain dryer and the silo1. These buildings are sited on land between the appeal site and [name] but do not wholly interrupt views between the listed building and the appeal building.

[name], is a 16th century former agricultural barn associated with [site address] . It has been converted into residential use, but still retains some agricultural style detailing such as its black timber weatherboarding, tall openings and large roof. Its significance lies largely in its historic and aesthetic value. Given its historic use, its setting in proximity to [site address] and the open farmland which surrounds all the buildings here, contributes to that significance.

As the proposal would involve the conversion of the building with no increases in its size, the spatial relationship the listed building has with [site address] and the surrounding countryside would be maintained. Originally, it is likely that the listed building would have had a stronger relationship with its rural surrounds, particularly to the south, before the appeal building and the other more modern buildings in the cluster were built. But clearly that was some time ago, and the proposal would not worsen that prevailing relationship. Furthermore, although the Council suggest the works would enable the long term preservation of the building, the structural report confirms the building is structurally sound with no defects. There is therefore no reason to consider the building as it currently stands would not be retained for many years even if the conversion were not to occur.

The proposed conversion would involve the insertion of more openings into all four elevations of the building, reflecting the residential use. However these would mostly be hidden from the listed building by virtue of the tall hedge on the intervening boundary, with only two small rooflights likely to be visible above the hedge. Also the materials to be used in the conversion works, particularly the black metal cladding, would be comparable in appearance to the asbestos currently in place on the building. As such, whilst the resultant building may differ from the more traditional appearance of [name], it would not materially alter the visual relationship between the two buildings. Therefore, the design of, and alterations to, the external appearance of the building would not harm the setting of [name].

The Council raise no objection to the effect on the setting of [site address] or the moat which is a scheduled ancient monument. Given the dense and tall conifer 1 [name]/25/0726/DE1 hedge which separates the appeal building from these heritage assets I agree that there would be no harm to their setting.

In summary, there would be no harm to the setting of [name]. [name] consider the location or siting of the building does not make it undesirable for the proposed change of use.

I note the concerns relating to the access to the development. [name] have no reason to consider the access is not physically suitable to serve the development or the conversion works, nor that the modest increase in traffic which would result from the occupation of the building would be harmful. Furthermore the narrowness of the road itself would discourage high speed traffic. The lack of objection from the highways authority supports my view.

The boundary screening would prevent any unacceptable loss of privacy between the site and the neighbouring properties. In addition, though the site is in a location which may have poor access to local facilities, that is not a consideration before me under the prior approval process.

In the officer report, the Council advised a number of conditions, suggested by consultees, could be imposed. Although the GPDO does not provide any general authority for imposing conditions, it would be appropriate to do so in this case, insofar as they reasonably relate to the prior approval matters.

I have imposed three conditions relating to site contamination, and a condition requiring the removal of the silo, grain store and grain dryer, in the interests of protecting the living conditions of future occupiers of the development from noise. Also, in the interests of protecting the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers from noise, I have imposed a condition relating to hours of construction.

I have not imposed the suggested conditions relating to the provision of electric car charging points, the recommendations of the [name] or external lighting as these would not relate to the prior approval matters. Other conditions suggested by the Council’s Environmental Health section, relating to the burning of waste, asbestos and insulation would all be more appropriately addressed by other legislation given there are no unusual site circumstances. Two conditions have been suggested relating to the provision of car parking and manoeuvring space, and refuse and recycling storage. The reason given for these conditions is to prevent obstructions on the public highway. Given the appeal site is far from the public highway, I see no reason why these would be necessary.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed and prior approval be granted.

No development shall commence until the following components to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site has each been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority: i) a site investigation scheme; ii) the results of a site investigation based on i) and a detailed risk assessment, including a revised Conceptual Site Model; and iii) based on the risk assessment in ii), a remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken. The strategy shall include a plan providing details of how the remediation works shall be judged to be complete and arrangements for contingency actions.

No occupation of any part of the permitted development shall take place until a verification report demonstrating completion of works as set out in the remediation strategy is submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority.

If, during the course of development, any contamination is found which has not been previously identified, work shall be suspended until: i) additional measures for the remediation of the site have been carried out in accordance with details that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority; and ii) a verification report for all the remediation works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Prior to the occupation of the development, the grain store, grain dryer and silo subject of application ref DC/25/0726/DE1 shall be demolished and all materials resulting from the demolition shall be removed from the site.

All demolition or construction works shall take place only between 0800 hours and 1800 hours on Monday to Fridays, 0800 hours and 1300 hours on Saturdays and shall not take place at any time on Sundays or on Bank or Public Holidays.