Appeal 6003247

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 prior approval (Class Q) for a change of use of an agricultural building on an existing agricultural unit to 1no.dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) at [site address] in accordance with the application Ref 25/01003/PNCOU and the details submitted with it, subject to the following

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos 24136 SLP01; 24136.Hutchings.PL02; and 24136.Hutchings.PL03.

It is understood that a noise report was purposefully not previously carried out due to a lack of farming activity taking place at the time the application was made. Since the Council made its decision, the available evidence indicates new owners have rekindled farming activity. A noise report has been submitted with the appeal to attempt to address this change in circumstances and Council’s reason for refusal. Accordingly, the noise report does not make a fundamental change to the scheme. The Council and interested parties have had an opportunity to comment on it. Therefore, in accepting the report, having had regard to the [name], I am satisfied that there would be no unlawful procedural unfairness to anyone involved in the appeal.

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. The Council and interested parties raise concerns that noise and other nuisances, including odour and flies generated from a working dairy farm, means the proposal would conflict with paragraph (e). In all other respects, the Council is content that the proposal complies with the conditions and limitation of Class Q, and I find no strong reason to disagree.

The main issue is whether the location of the proposal would be undesirable or impractical for a residential use.

The appeal site includes a modest sized agricultural building with a small area of associated land. It is part of a much larger ‘L’ shaped area within the appellant’s ownership. Adjoining this wider landholding is a working dairy farm, where I observed cattle comfortably spaced and grazing within a large nearby paddock. There is a calf rearing shed that is said to be about 45m from the appeal building. This is separated by a small parcel of unmanaged land which I observed to contain a greenhouse. It is conceivable this land could be used for additional paddock space as suggested in the evidence.

The Council is concerned that the noise report does not enable an accurate assessment of likely associated impacts. It was however undertaken over a 24‐hour period and included attended observations, during which the sound environment was noted and measured. The report confirms that ambient noise levels were dominated by natural sources such as birdsong and wind in vegetation, but it also records occasional bovine vocalisations from land to the north of the site.

Consistent with the appellant’s claims, this clearly indicates that an agricultural use of the surrounding land was taking place at the time of the survey. It also demonstrates that farming-related noise was present and observed, even if mechanical plant or vehicle movements were not audible during the monitoring period. The absence of such activity at that time does not undermine the validity of the baseline survey but rather reflects the intermittent nature of these particular rural farming operations. While the Council notes that background noise levels are not presented explicitly as LA90 values, the report nevertheless provides measured daytime and night-time sound levels that demonstrate a low and stable rural noise climate, albeit over a short period.

It is accepted that changing farming practices, including vehicular activity linked to possible revised access arrangements, may see a more intensive use of land immediately adjacent to that within the appellant’s ownership. However, the calf rearing shed did not feel uncomfortably close to the appeal site. Even if sick cows might require periods of prolonged monitoring, the generous, surrounding open land and additional space potentially available to cattle would be unlikely to cause a concentration of sound emanating from a single point near the appeal building. Additionally, the paddock’s location beyond other land within the appellant’s ownership adds to the sense of separation between the cattle shed and appeal site. Furthermore, it is not unusual for residential properties in rural areas to be located next to lanes used by farm vehicles, or indeed fields containing cattle.

In the absence of any compelling evidence to the contrary, for the reasons given, it is very unlikely that noise generated by plant machinery, vehicles, or cattle within an extended ‘calving paddock’ would be so intensive, as described in the Planning Practice Guidance, to make a residential use undesirable in the terms set out in the GPDO.

Turning to the effects of odour, the appellant has provided an assessment that is based on worst case scenario modelling for 250 dairy cows and associated slurry, broadly reflective of the current operations. The report concludes that while not free from odour, the effects of the farm and nearest cattle shed would be likely to be slight and not enough to cause nuisance of significant loss of amenity for future occupiers. This is consistent with my own site observations that the open and generous grazing spaces surrounding the appeal site did not create an environment where odour was noticeable. Having said this, it is also recognised that this was just a snapshot in time, and there may be periods where odour would register. While the personal experience of the Council’s public health officer is acknowledged, there is however little substantive evidence that odour emanating from the farm would make a residential use impractical or undesirable.

Perhaps not to the same extent as those farming land, potential future occupiers would probably be expecting to live alongside degrees of noise, odour, or the presence of insects in a countryside location such as this. That said, and having had regard to an appeal referenced by the main parties1, significant harmful effects to living conditions ought not to be tolerated by any occupier. The Council says that it is common to see significant numbers of flies in and around farm buildings that inevitably invade close-by dwellings, though I did not notice any at the time of my visit. In any case, the separation distance between the appeal building and calving shed is not so small that such ‘invasions’ would be inevitable. I agree with the Council that a lack of objection by residents on these grounds does not, in itself, demonstrate a problem does not exist. Even so, while the presence of flies would undoubtedly be irritating, it is not clear in these particular circumstances that the effects would be so severe to render a residential use undesirable.

For the reason above, I conclude that the location of the proposal would not be undesirable or impractical, which meets the terms of Q2.(1)(e) of the GPDO.

Any prior approval and planning permission granted for development under the GPDO is subject to the condition that it must be completed within a period of 3 1 APP/G2713/W/20/3248196 years starting with the prior approval date, as well as the provisions of paragraph [name] provision also allows for the grant of prior approval unconditionally or subject to conditions reasonably related to the subject matter of the prior approval. A time limit condition is not therefore necessary, though I have included a plans condition in the interests of clarity.

For the reasons given, the appeal should succeed.