Appeal 6002745

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council changed the description of development from that set out in the banner heading above and in the application form to “application to determine if prior approval is required for a proposed change of use of agricultural buildings to 7No dwellinghouses (class C3) & for associated development (Class Q (a+b))”. I have determined the appeal on this basis.

The Planning Practice Guidance states that permitted development rights are a national grant of planning permission which allow certain building works and changes of use to be carried out without having to make a planning application. Permitted development rights are subject to conditions and limitations to control impacts and to protect local amenity.

Class Q of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the General Permitted Development Order (the GPDO) says that the change of use of a building that is part of an established agricultural unit or a former agricultural building and any land within that building’s curtilage to a residential use, together with reasonably necessary building operations, is permitted development.

There is no dispute the proposal amounts to permitted development. In these circumstances, paragraph Q2.(1) of the GPDO says development is permitted subject to the condition 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 will be required, amongst other things, as to (e) whether the location or siting of the building makes it otherwise impractical or undesirable for the change of use; and (g) the provision of adequate natural light in all habitable rooms of the dwellinghouses.

Due to the proximity of trees, these are the main matters in dispute between the parties. In all other respects, the Council is content that the proposal complies with other conditions or limitations within Class Q, and I find no reason to disagree.

The main issue is whether prior approval should be granted, with particular regard to the location of the buildings and natural light.

The Council is concerned that the health of nearby trees, including those the subject of Tree Preservation Orders could be compromised by a residential use. It claims the likely tropic growth, increased shading, overhanging and seasonal debris fall would lead to pressure for crown reduction or felling by future occupants, rendering the proposal undesirable. Conversely, the appellant asserts that there is no evidence this would occur and that the Council would retain control over future works to protected trees to ensure their longevity.

Some controls over works to trees would remain in place, and the development could be progressed without physical disturbance to them. However, prospective house purchasers may be unaware of such constraints imposed on trees when deciding to buy a house. Equally, they may, initially, place a high value on the contribution the trees make to the setting of a property, failing to appreciate the implications of living next to large trees, until it is too late.

In that context, there are several very tall and imposing trees next to Barn 3 with overhanging branches. Although these trees were not in leaf at the time of my visit, it is likely that their dominating presence would be greatly enhanced at other times of the year. It is acknowledged that Class Q does not explicitly require any formal tree assessment, though I share the Council’s concerns that the pressure from future occupiers to cut back or fell could result. Without an understanding of the condition, quality, life expectancy, or an ability to cope with cutting back or crown lifting, it is simply not known if nearby tree health would be maintained. There are also uncertainties in respect of potential root spread, and in circumstances where safety is at issue, it would be difficult for the Council to resist applications to prune or fell.

For these reasons, a residential use would be undesirable which conflicts with Q2.(1) (e) of the GPDO.

The appellant has provided an analysis report of the likely levels of daylight reaching the proposed properties, amongst other things. An extract from BR209 guidance within this report highlights that simple modelling, using height and spread data and assuming a circular tree, will give inaccurate results. It adds that a special survey on site is generally needed to produce required data. The guidance does indeed state that it is usual to ignore the effect of existing trees, though this relates to the effect of a new building on existing buildings, which does not apply here.

The submitted report concludes that adequate levels of daylight would be received when considering circumstances with and without trees. However, the predicted scenario with trees appears to be based on indicative modelling, rather than any site-specific analysis. This runs contrary the aforementioned guidance, limiting the reliability of the findings.

Given the proximity, height, and dense tree cover so close to barn 3, it is not known how much natural light would actually reach habitable rooms of the proposed properties. Consequently, the evidence does not go far enough to convincingly demonstrate that adequate natural daylight would be achieved for the development as a whole. As such, there would be conflict with Q2.(1) (g).

The appellant says that the parish council did not raise any objections regarding the impacts on trees. However, the absence of an objection would not alter the appeal outcome.

Taking all matters into consideration, based on what has been presented to me and my own observations, the appeal proposal fails to demonstrate compliance with Q2.(1) (e) and (g) of the GPDO. Prior approval is refused and the appeal is therefore dismissed.