Appeal 6003328

The appeal is dismissed.

Prior approval was granted in September 2020 under Schedule 2 Part 3 Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (GDPO) to convert what was formerly an agricultural building into a dwellinghouse. Class W of the same part of the GPDO allows for the granting of prior approval subject to conditions reasonably related to the subject matter of the prior approval.

The condition that was imposed restricts the occupation of the approved dwelling to a person(s) solely or mainly working, or last working, on the agricultural unit shown within the blue-line on approved drawing A0649-103, or a widow or widower of such a person, and to any resident dependants. The reason for imposing this condition relates to the prior approval matter of whether the location or siting of the building makes it otherwise impractical or undesirable for the building to change from agricultural use to a dwellinghouse.

The main issue is whether the condition is necessary to safeguard the living conditions of the occupiers of the approved dwelling, with particular reference to noise and disturbance.

The appellant accepts that they stated at the time the notification was submitted that the dwelling would be occupied by the farmer and that an agricultural occupancy condition would be acceptable. It is in my view reasonable to consider that, in living conditions terms, there should be a different threshold applied to persons living close to the agricultural buildings where they work or did work, than to a member of the public unconnected to the farm or even farming in general. Indeed, by way of an example it is commonplace for farmers to live amongst their farm holding, and they would in all likelihood have a degree of control over operations that took place and their timings. I find there to be no conflict with the tests set out in paragraph 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) in terms of the approach that the Council took at that time. What occurred is not the same as an applicant merely agreeing to an unnecessary or unreasonable condition just to obtain an approval, as the condition has a sound planning rationale.

No information has been provided as to what level of noise and disturbance might be experienced by the occupants of the new dwelling from the farming operations. There are two large agricultural barns in very close proximity along with hard surfaced areas around them. The appeal site is surrounded by extensive fields shown to be under the appellant’s control. No details as to the use of the barns has been provided nor of the frequency/intensity of the cropping that takes place on the fields or the general use of the wider site. The Planning Practice Guidance1 is clear that proximity to other uses can, in principle, render the location of a new dwelling undesirable. There is no substantive information before me to allow for a judgement to be made on this matter in the scenario where the condition is removed.

For these reasons, I do not consider that the imposition of the condition has served to undermine or frustrate the permitted development right that exists. And, as I have noted above, the GDPO allows for the imposition of conditions reasonably related to the subject matter of the prior approval, which includes whether the location or siting of the building would be otherwise impractical or undesirable.

In conclusion, I find that the imposition of the condition met with the tests set out in paragraph 57 of the Framework. Furthermore, in terms of whether the condition could be removed without rendering the location as undesirable, there is an absence of any substantive information or evidence before me to enable a judgement to be made on this. The removal of the condition cannot therefore be supported.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed.