Appeal 6002819

The appeal is allowed and prior approval is not required 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) (the GPDO) for a proposed change of use of an agricultural building to 1no dwellinghouse and associated operational development at [address], [address], Wraxall [postcode] in accordance with the application 25/P/0916/CQA and the details submitted with it.

Under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q, of 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.

The local planning authority may refuse the application where it considers that the proposed development does not comply with, or that the developer has provided insufficient information to enable the LPA to establish whether the proposed development complies with the conditions, limitations or restrictions set out in paragraph Q.1.

Where an application is made for prior approval for development which is allowed by paragraph Q.1, paragraph Q.2(1) provides that the LPA determine as to whether its prior approval is required in relation to a) transport and highways impacts; b) noise impacts; c) contamination risks; d) flooding risks; e) whether the location or siting of the buildings is otherwise impractical or undesirable for the building to change from agricultural use to dwellinghouses; f) the design and external appearance; g) the provision of adequate natural light; and the provisions of paragraph W.

The Council initially refused the application for the reason that the building subject of the application was built unlawfully and therefore the proposal did not accord with the provisions of the GPDO. Since the refusal, the appellant has applied to the Council for a Certificate of Lawfulness for the building, which has been granted. On this basis, the Council states that it no longer wishes to defend the reason for refusal. Furthermore, there is nothing before me that would lead me to conclude that the building was unlawful at the time of the application.

The Council was asked for its views on the prior approval matters set out in Class Q and has made comments in respect of the transport and highways impacts of the development. Although it also states that is does not object to the development on these matters.

With the above in mind, the main issue is the acceptability of the development considering any likely transport and highways impacts.

The building is accessed via a private track that leads off the adjacent [address], which in turn joins the B3128 [address]. No concerns are raised in respect of the junction with the public highway and based on my own observations I see no reason to raise any at this stage.

The Council does however raise concern in respect of the condition and length of the private track, potential tree fall/detritus, that it is unlit and shared with agricultural vehicular movements. I observed that the track was formed from gravel but that this was a well compacted surface and was not loose. I also observed some machinery travelling along it and this resulted in no damage to the surface. In respect of its length, I was comfortably able to walk from the gateway with [address]. The surface and length of the access is therefore no barrier to the development.

There are trees positioned around the site and along the length of the access. However, this is not an unusual arrangement and in the absence of anything that convinces me otherwise, I consider that the presence of trees does not render the access unsuitable. In respect of the matters of lighting along the access and that it is shared with agricultural vehicles, I am particularly conscious that the permitted development right is aimed specifically at agricultural buildings on agricultural holdings. In my view, it is likely that many such occurrences will be in positions that are away from street lighting and which are required to share access with agricultural vehicles. Such issues in principle should not be used to resist such development. Particularly in this case, based on my observations of the site and the access arrangements, I saw nothing that would convince me that the access arrangements were unsafe or would result in such difficulties in individuals accessing the development that it would render the development unacceptable.

Accordingly, there is nothing before me to show that the development would result in unacceptable or harmful transport or highways impacts.

I note comments from the parish council in respect of there being planning applications on nearby land made by the appellant in this appeal. These include that an agricultural building is required at this location, and this is evidenced by the submission of a planning application for a new barn. However, the appellant has clarified that they do not own that land nor were they involved with these separate planning applications. In any event, this is not something that influences the determination of this appeal.

The Council has suggested two conditions, should the appeal be allowed. These are a condition requiring that the development be complete within three years and a plans condition. However, the GPDO specifically covers these matters and as such additional conditions as suggested are not necessary.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed and prior approval is not required.