Appeal 6003075

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 the conversion of a large agricultural building to a single C3 dwellinghouse at [site address] , [site address] , Purton [postcode] in accordance with the application PL/2025/04177 and the details submitted with it including plan numbers 0961/PL/01 and 0961/Ex/01, and subject to the following conditions:

No development shall take place until an assessment of the risks posed by any contamination, carried out in accordance with [name] 10175: Investigation of potentially contaminated sites - Code of Practice and the Environment Agency‚ [name] (LCRM) (or equivalent [name] and [name] if replaced), has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. If any contamination is found, no development shall take place until: i) a report specifying the measures to be taken, including the timescale, to remediate the site to render it suitable for the development hereby permitted has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority; ii) the site has been remediated in accordance with the approved measures and timescale; and iii) a verification report has been 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.

No development shall take place until details / samples of the materials to be used in the repair of the existing and the new external surfaces of the building 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 / samples.

No windows or doors shall be installed/inserted/constructed in the development hereby approved, until their design and details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Prior to occupation of the dwelling hereby approved, a vehicular access to the dwelling and an area for the parking of cars within the curtilage of the dwelling shall be provided, surfaced, and drained in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The access and car parking area shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the approved details.

On 21 May 2024, [name] 2024 No 579 (the SI) came into force amending Article 3(1), Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (GPDO) (as amended). Article 10 sub paragraph 1 of the SI allowed a transitional period until the 21 May 2025 whereby an application could be determined either under the original or amended Class Q of the GPDO. The appellant has indicated that they sought consent under the Order as it stood prior to 21 May 2024. The Council considered the application on that basis and so shall I.

In the interest of clarity, I have amended the description of development in the heading above to remove superfluous wording which does not form a description of development.

The required ‘supplementary information template’ was not submitted as part of the prior approval application but has been submitted as part of the appeal. The Council was given an opportunity to comment. I am satisfied that accepting the information would not cause procedural unfairness to interested parties and as such, I have taken it into consideration.

The application was made under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q, of the GPDO (as amended) (as of August 2020), (hereafter referred to as ‘Class Q’). The Council’s case does not dispute the proposal would comply with all the limitations and restrictions set out in [name].1. Based on the available information, I have no reason to reach a different finding.

The deemed permission under Class Q is conditional upon the applicant first applying to the local planning authority for a determination as to whether its prior approval would be required as to the matters set out in.

The main issue is whether the proposal would be permitted development under the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 3, [name].2(1)(e) with particular respect to siting and location with regard to noise, access and land use.

The building is located at the edge of the farmstead of [address] which comprises the farmhouse and several other agricultural buildings. Access to the site would be from an existing farm access off [site address] , some 80m from the farmhouse. The farmhouse and some of the other farm buildings are accessed from [name].

The Council’s concerns relate to the potential conflict between the proposed dwelling and the adjacent farm with particular regard to noise and access resulting in an impractical and undesirable location or siting for the proposed dwelling.

The test of ‘Impractical or undesirable’ is not defined in statute and are deemed to be ascribed a reasonable ordinary dictionary meaning by the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). Paragraph 13-109-20150305 of the PPG identifies that ‘impractical’ reflects that the location and siting would “not be sensible or realistic” and undesirable reflects that it would be “harmful or objectionable”. As discussed in the PPG, a conversion may be impractical where an agricultural building is on the top of a hill with no road access, power source or other services.

Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 3, Class W, paragraph 10) (b) of the GPDO (as amended) states that regard should be had to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) so far as relevant to the subject matter of the prior approval, as if the application were a planning application. Paragraph 135 of the Framework advises that a high standard of amenity for future users should be sought.

The appellant states that the agricultural holding ceased trading in October 2024 and most of the farmland has been sold as the farm holding was unviable. Subsequently, no livestock has been in the appeal barn, adjacent barns, or the accompanying yard since then and all farm machinery has either been sold or is in the process of being sold. The appellant also identifies that the remaining land, which lies to the west and north of the farmyard, is of an insufficient size to form a viable farm moving forward. This land is let to another farm for the grazing of sheep in the spring and a crop of hay or silage in the summer.

The accompanying financial evidence supports the stated viability position of the holding. The Council has not disputed the appellant’s evidence. During my visit, whilst only a snapshot in time, there were no visible signs within the appeal or wider site, of farming activities taking place. Consequently, I see no reason not to accept the appellant’s stated position.

I note that the application form states that the barn is still in agricultural use. However, from my site observations, whilst the barn is not in use for non-agricultural purposes, it is no longer in active agricultural use. I also acknowledge that the Council considers that the adjacent agricultural buildings could be used for future farming purposes including livestock as the buildings are not the subject of any restrictions. However, the appellant advises that the remaining farm buildings are too small to accommodate modern farm machinery and would not reach the necessary health and hygiene standards for food production. A point which is undisputed by the Council, and I see no reason to disagree.

Consequently, as the farming use of the appeal building and the wider farm holding has ceased, the remaining buildings are not appropriate for modern farming, and the accompanying agricultural land has been sold or leased, I consider that the operational integrity of the farm, including any future viability has already been established. Accordingly, a grant of prior approval for the appeal barn would be of little to no consequence to the operational integrity of the farm now or in the future and the potential for the adjacent barns and yard to be used for agricultural purposes in the future is low.

Whilst the adjacent leased fields may be used for agricultural activities including livestock, noise and odour from these activities would not be over and above that which future occupiers within the open countryside, and those adjacent to the appeal site, are already subject to. The existing farm buildings are unlikely to be reused for agricultural purposes, and the leased land is not accessed from the current farmyard but from two field entrances on [name] and further along [site address] to the west of the site.

As a result, noting that the Council’s Public Protection Officer raised no objection, I consider that the proposed dwelling would not be subject to levels of noise and odour from adjacent uses that would reduce the high level of amenity that would be expected by future occupiers. The access from [site address] is also considered acceptable, and in noting the Council’s Highway Officer raised no objection, I consider that the risk of conflict with agricultural vehicles and/or livestock would be negligible.

Consequently, the proposed dwelling would not be subject to levels of noise, odour or conflict with existing agricultural uses and/or vehicle movements sufficient to conclude that the conversion of the appeal building would be impractical or undesirable due to its siting or location.

The Council is satisfied that the proposal complies with the other restrictions and limitations specified in [name].1. Based on the information provided, I have no reason to take a different view. I therefore conclude that the proposal would be permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO, as amended.

The Council does not raise any specific objections in relation to the transport and highways impacts, any specific noise impacts of the development, flooding risks on the site or the design or external appearance of the building. Based on the information before me, I have no reason to take a different view.

Where the Council raised concerns regarding noise and access this was raised under [name].2 (e) and has been addressed above. With regards to contamination risks on site ([name].2 (c)), the Council confirms that such matters could be addressed by the imposition of a condition. I concur that a suitably worded condition could address any potential land contamination concerns.

Accordingly, the proposal would be permitted development under the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 3, [name].2(1)(e) with particular respect to siting and location with regard to noise, access and land use. Subject to appropriate conditions being imposed, the proposal would provide a high standard of amenity for future occupiers in accordance with the Framework and prior approval is granted.

Section 66 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that the decision maker, in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, has special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

However, the s66(1) duty as outlined above, does not generally apply to prior approval applications because Article 3(1) of the General Permitted Development Order grants planning permission. Nonetheless, where the prior approval matters include amenity, siting or location, or design and external appearance, the impact of a development on the setting of a listed building will need to be considered as in this case under Class Q.2 (e).

The appeal property is located within the setting of 3 [name] listed buildings comprising [name], the Granary at [address] and the Stables at [address]. The main house of the Farmhouse is 2- storey with Limestone rubble walls under slate pitched roofs. It directly fronts onto Pavenhill and towards the agricultural land to the south. The L-shaped structure includes a brick rear wing which fronts [name]. According to the statutory list description, it dates to the 17th and 18th century, with a front brick porch having been added in the 19th Century.

To the rear of the farmhouse and accessed via [name] are a group of buildings arranged around a courtyard. These include the Granary, a 2-storeybrick structure with stone slate pitched roof, which dates to 1765 and lies immediately behind the Farmhouse. The farm buildings also include the Stables building, a 2- storey pitched roof brick and stone structure sited which dates to 1777 and lies to the north of the Farmhouse, directly alongside [name].

The significance and special interest of the Farmhouse, Granary and Stables as designated heritage assets derive, in part, from their age, architectural form, and historic fabric. The proposed development’s external appearance is not in dispute, and the proposal would retain its agricultural scale and appearance. Regarding the proposed development’s location, I consider that the proposal would not harm the setting of the heritage assets, thus preserving their significance.

The appeal site is located within the North Meadow Special Area of Conservation (SAC) recreational buffer zone, which is designated for its lowland hay meadow habitat.

The grant of planning permission under Article 3(1) of the GPDO is subject to the provisions of the GPDO for each class of development and compliance with Regulations 75 to 78 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) (Habitats Regulations). Effectively, Article 3(1) provides a pre-commencement condition which must be met, where the development would affect a European protected habitat, such as a SAC, before the works can be undertaken as permitted development. This includes a separate application to the Council under Regulation 77 of the Habitats Regulations to allow the Council to undertake an appropriate assessment and, depending on the outcome, this would determine whether, in terms of that matter, the scheme could be undertaken as permitted development under the GPDO.

Article 3(1) and Regulations 75-78 secure a separate process by which development only proceeds where it has been confirmed via a Regulation 77 approval from the Council that there would be no adverse effect on the integrity of designated sites. Therefore, it is not necessary for me to consider whether there would be any likely significant effects on the integrity of the SAC or undertake an Appropriate Assessment.

The Framework states that conditions should be kept to a minimum and only imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise, and reasonable in all other aspects. I have considered the conditions put forward by the Council and the appellant against the Framework.

[name] (13) of Schedule 2, Part 3 of the GPDO states that conditions which are “reasonably related to the subject matter of the prior approval” may be applied. [name].2(3) stipulates that development under Class Q is permitted subject to the condition that development must be completed within a period of 3 years starting with the prior approval date.

[name] (12) of Schedule 2, Part 3 of the Order identifies that development must be carried out in accordance with the details provided in the application. Consequently, a plans condition is unnecessary in this instance.

As there could be a range of contaminants present on site due to its agricultural use, I consider it necessary to include a contaminated land condition to ensure that risks from contamination to the future occupiers are minimised. Conditions relating to materials for the external surfaces (both new and those to be repaired) and the design and materials of doors and windows, are also necessary to ensure that they are appropriate for the site and surrounding area.

Access to the proposed dwelling can be provided using the access to the barn as currently exists on site. However, this access is not surfaced or drained to an appropriate level that would be suitable for residential development. I therefore consider it necessary, to restrict occupation of the dwelling until access and the parking area for the dwelling has been provided, surfaced, and drained in accordance with details to be submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

The proposal would satisfy the requirements and limitations set out in Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO. I therefore find that the appeal should be allowed, and prior approval is granted, subject to the standard conditions set out in paragraph Q.2 of Class Q and to the additional conditions specified in the attached schedule.