Appeal 6002783

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 “[name] of Use of [name] and Building Operations to form One no. Dwellinghouse” at [site address] in accordance with the application 25/00492/PACUAR, subject to the conditions set out in the attached schedule.

An application for costs was made by [name] against Maldon District Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

The appeal is accompanied by additional information including a bat emergence survey, and a [name] dated 20 February 2026 to secure a mitigation payment with regard to the scheme’s effect on the integrity of European designated sites. What is considered at appeal should be essentially the same scheme that was considered by the local planning authority. I am satisfied that the additional documents do not result in a different scheme to that originally determined and that no party has been prejudiced giving rise to any procedural unfairness. The Council were given the opportunity to comment on the information, and I therefore proceed to determine the appeal on the updated documents.

On 21 May 2024, [name] 2024 No 579 came into force amending Article 3(1), Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO), with transitional arrangements set out under Article 10 of the amending Order. The transitional arrangements applied to applications submitted until the end of 20 May 2025. The appellant sought prior approval under the transitional provisions.

The Council maintain that the prior approval application was received in a valid form until after 20 May 2025 as they had requested drawings with written dimensions. It was therefore determined under the ‘new’ Class Q arrangements put in place by the GPDO as amended on 21 May 2024.

In determining the prior approval under the ‘new’ Class Q arrangements, the Council determined that prior approval was required and refused as the appellant had failed to satisfactorily demonstrate and prove that the proposed barn is or was part of an established agricultural unit, and that the proposed floorspace exceeded [address] metres pursuant to Q1 (a), (b) and (c).

In light of the above, the main issues are: • having regard to the relevant requirements of Class Q and [name] of the GPDO, whether the prior approval should be determined under the transitional arrangements; • whether the appeal site forms part of an established agricultural unit; • whether the location or siting of the building makes it otherwise impractical or undesirable to be used as a dwellinghouse, with particular regard to protected species and their habitats and the effect upon the integrity of European designated sites.

The Council’s decision notice and officer report states that the prior approval application was received on 22 May 2025. The transitional arrangements were no longer in place on this date.

The appellant has provided evidence in the form of a receipt from the planning portal, timed at midday on 20 May 2025. A screenshot from the Council’s website indicates a ‘received’ date of 20 May, and a ‘validation’ date of 22 May. Having received the prior approval application on 20 May, the Council requested additional information in a letter dated 21 May, requiring written dimensions to be provided on the proposed plans. The Council’s acknowledgement letter indicated a determination date by 16 July, which would have been consistent with the prior approval being accepted on 20 May (allowing 56 days following receipt including the Whitsun bank holiday).

The GPDO does not contain a requirement or provision for prior approval applications to be validated, but [name].(2) requires an application to include a range of information. Amongst other things, this includes at W.(2)(bc) “a floor plan indicating ... the dimensions and proposed use of each room, the position and dimensions of windows, doors and walls, and the elevations of the dwellinghouses”. There is no specific requirement for written dimensions within [name].

The plans provided by the appellant on 20 May 2025 were scaled, with a scale bar provided. The drawing number 23-0063-004 [name] clearly shows the use of each room, along with the position of the windows, doors and walls. The size of the windows, doors and rooms could reasonably be scaled from the drawings provided. Whilst the appellant provided a drawing (23-0063-004 rev C) showing written dimensions in response to the Council’s request of 21 May, the original drawing contained adequate information.

Based on the information before me, the prior approval application was accompanied by sufficient information in line with the requirements of [name].(2)(bc) on 20 May 2025. It should therefore be determined under the transitional arrangements.

Under the transitional arrangements, the upper limit of [address] metres for a single dwelling does not apply. I shall not therefore consider this further.

Under the transitional arrangements, 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), development is permitted for the change of use of a building and any land within its curtilage, from use as an agricultural building to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses) together with building operations reasonably necessary to convert that building, subject to limitations and conditions. Q.1 sets out limitations to the development permitted under Class Q. Q.1 (a) states that development is not permitted by Class Q if the site was not used solely for an agricultural use as part of an established agricultural unit (i) on 20 March 2013, or (ii) in the case of a building which was in use before that date but was not in use on that date, when it was last in use, or (iii) in the case of a site which was brought into use after 20 March 2013, for a period of at least 10 years before the date of development under Class Q begins. In this case, Q.1(a)(iii) is the relevant provision. The appellant provides a statutory declaration confirming that the barn was brought into use in April 2014, following the purchase of the land in 2012.

The statutory declaration confirms that the barn was constructed pursuant to a planning permission granted in 2013 (ref FUL/MAL/13/00821). It includes an area for lambing, sheep isolation area, equipment storage, medical storage, boiler cupboard and a hay loft. The declaration confirms the land has been used for lamb rearing, hay crops and horse grazing. Sheep have been kept for every year except 2025, and evidence includes sheep movement records, lambing notes and vet’s invoices. Records of hay bale production have also been provided. I note that in a previous application for prior approval under Class Q (reference 24/00575/PACUAR) was refused in September 2024. It was not refused on the basis that the site was not in agricultural use.

The Council’s view is that the photographs contained in the [name] (PEA) do not show any agricultural use taking place, but show stables/animal pens, hay and horses, potentially indicating an equestrian use. At the Council’s site visit, some items being stored were visible through the open barn doors. The evidence from the Council’s site visit is a snapshot in time. It is unclear when the PEA photographs were taken and, in my view, they do not provide substantive evidence that there has been a material change of use following the 2024 Class Q decision where the Council accepted that an agricultural use was taking place.

On the basis of the evidence provided by the appellant, I am satisfied that agricultural use has been demonstrated for the purposes of Q.1(a)(iii).

The submitted PEA concludes that the site is of limited ecological value and the likelihood of supporting protected species is low. However, it acknowledged that a precautionary method statement regarding great crested newts would be required, along with external lighting to be designed to minimise light spill onto adjacent habitat areas. The Council’s delegated report acknowledges these matters could be dealt with by appropriate conditions and the evidence does not lead me to a different conclusion.

Taken together, the evidence within the PEA and the bat activity survey satisfactorily addresses the concerns stated in the officer report regarding the potential for bat roosts. It does not lead me to conclude that the presence of bat roosts would be likely.

The appeal site falls within the Zone of Influence of European designated sites scoped into the [name] disturbance [name] (RAMS), namely the [name] and the Dengie Special Protection Areas (SPA) and Ramsar sites. The site is designated due to the internationally important numbers of breeding and non-breeding birds and their coastal habitats.

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) (the Habitats Regulations) require the decision maker to undertake an Appropriate Assessment (AA) where there are likely significant effects from the proposal, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects. This responsibility falls to me as the competent authority in the context of this appeal.

It would be a reasonable assumption that occupiers of the proposed dwelling would be likely to visit local European protected coastal areas for recreation, as evidenced by the visitor research carried out in support of the Essex Coast RAMS Supplementary Planning Document 2020. Any increase in visitor numbers to these sites would result in recreational pressure requiring mitigation. I therefore consider that the effect of the proposed dwelling, both on its own and in combination with other development projects, is such that it is likely to have significant effects on the integrity of the sites.

The Essex Coast RAMS sets out a strategic approach to mitigation by several councils across the wider area. It details mitigation measures that would be funded by financial contributions at a specified tariff per dwelling, which increases with indexation each financial year. Since these include a range of habitat-based measures such as education, communication, and monitoring, and have been endorsed by Natural England, I am satisfied that the measures would adequately overcome any adverse effects of the appeal scheme on the SPA and Ramsar sites. The Council indicates that the proposal would attract a RAMS tariff of £169.45.

The Unilateral Undertaking dated 20 February 2026 accompanying the appeal secures the payment to fund the [name] prior to commencement of development. It specifies that the funds may only be used for their intended purposes as set out in the deed. As such, I am satisfied that the mitigation measures would be secured, would be used for their intended purpose and would count as mitigation toward maintaining the integrity of the sites. It would meet the necessary tests under Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations.

I am therefore satisfied that with the funding for the proposed mitigation measures in place, the appeal scheme would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA and Ramsar sites identified, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects. The proposals would therefore comply with the Habitats Regulations.

In conclusion on this issue therefore, I am satisfied that the conversion of the barn to a dwelling would not be impractical or undesirable with particular regard to its effect on protected species or upon the integrity of European designated sites.

The proposed dwelling would use the existing vehicular access; the Council are satisfied that the residential use of the barn would not cause a significant increase in vehicular movements to and from the site or would result in a material change in the character of the traffic in the vicinity. I see no reason to disagree.

The Council are also satisfied that the noise impacts, contamination risks, and flood risk arising from the development would be acceptable. The design and external appearance are appropriate, and there would be sufficient provision of natural light to habitable rooms. The evidence does not lead me to conclude otherwise.

GPDO paragraph W13 allows the local planning authority to grant prior approval unconditionally or subject to conditions reasonably related to the subject matter of the prior approval. The Council has provided a list of suggested conditions which I have considered against advice in the Framework and Planning Practice Guidance; as a consequence I have amended or omitted some of the suggested wording.

Q.2-(3) permits development under Class Q subject to its completion within a period of 3 years starting with the prior approval date. It is not necessary to repeat this in an additional condition.

Condition 1 regarding the approved plans is necessary in the interests of certainty. I have amended the wording of the materials condition (2) from the Council’s suggestion, since the materials are not indicated on the drawings. Details of these materials will be required to be agreed prior to commencement to ensure an appropriate appearance. The appellant has provided written agreement to this pre-commencement condition.

I have omitted the Council’s suggested condition regarding a construction management plan. It would not meet the test of necessity given the site is well separated from other dwellings, and the wording is not precise or enforceable with regards to ‘noisy activities’.

I have revised the wording of conditions 3 and 4 concerning the submission of details of surface water drainage and foul drainage in the interests of conciseness. Condition 3 is a pre-commencement condition to which the appellant has agreed in writing. The conditions are necessary to ensure satisfactory drainage and to minimise flood risk.

Following the conclusions of the PEA, I have added a condition (5) requiring a precautionary method statement with regards to great crested newts, this is necessarily required prior to commencement of development. I have also attached a condition (6) requiring details of external lighting. These are necessary in the interests of ecology.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed and prior approval should be granted.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans: 23-0063-001 rev C; 23-0063-002 rev C; 23-0063-004 rev B.

No development shall take place until details of the materials and finish of new doors, windows and rooflights have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

The dwelling shall not be occupied until details of a surface water drainage scheme to serve the dwelling have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The agreed drainage scheme shall be implemented in full prior to the first occupation of the dwelling, and thereafter retained.

The dwelling shall not be occupied until details of foul drainage for the dwelling have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The agreed drainage scheme shall be implemented in full prior to first occupation of the dwelling and thereafter retained.

No development shall take place until a precautionary method statement in relation to great crested newts has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved method statement.

Prior to the installation of any external lighting, a lighting plan with consideration for biodiversity shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. All external lighting shall be installed in accordance with the specifications and locations set out in the plan, and these shall be maintained thereafter in accordance with the plan.