Appeal 6003607

The appeal is dismissed.

Under 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 on an agricultural unit, and any land within its curtilage, to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses) together with building operations reasonably necessary to convert that building, subject to limitations and conditions.

Before prior approval under Class Q can be evaluated, it is necessary to determine whether or not the proposal is permitted development. Article 3(5) of the GPDO states that permission granted by Schedule 2 does not apply if, in the case of permission granted in connection with an existing building, the building operations involved in the construction of that building are unlawful.

The main issues are: • whether the proposal would be permitted development under Class Q, with particular regard to the lawfulness of the agricultural building, and if so: • whether the proposed works to the building are reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwellinghouse; and • the transport and highways impact of the development.

The appeal relates to an agricultural building granted planning permission in 2021 (ref. 11/21/0111). Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) requires a planning application to include a location plan showing the site in relation to its surroundings, with the application site edged clearly with a red line. It also sets out that additional plans and drawings will, in most cases, be necessary to describe the proposed development, and these must be drawn to an identified scale.

The original application for the agricultural building included plans showing the building as a rectangle, positioned with its short side facing the nearby access track. Shortly after submission, an amended site plan (ref. TA-20-02-21) was provided to the Council which showed the building rotated through 90 degrees so that its long side ran parallel to the track. However, no amended location plan was submitted. As a result, the red‐edged site boundary continued to reflect the building’s original orientation rather than the amended layout that was ultimately approved. Although the GPDO does not specify that a red edged site location plan is required for prior approval applications under Part 3, the PPG makes clear that such a plan is required for a planning application.

The appellant has provided a comparison of the position of the building as shown on the site plan and an aerial photograph and has also set out that the building still falls within the red edge of the approved drawing (ref: TA-30-05-25-PROP). However, this site plan is taken from the prior approval application to convert the agricultural building to 2 dwellings, which is the subject of this appeal. The evidence does not indicate that this plan formed part of the application relating to the construction of the agricultural building.

The approved site plan (ref: TA-20-02-21) shows the building’s position relative to a group of dwellings to the west. On this plan, the northern end of the building extends further north than the dwellings. As constructed, the building sits to the south of most of those dwellings. Whilst the location plan, submitted with the application for the agricultural building, does not reflect the building’s orientation, it provides base mapping showing the location of the nearby buildings. This differs from the base mapping used for the site plan. By comparing the location of nearby development as shown on these 2 plans and from observations made during my site visit, it is evident that the approved site plan does not correctly represent the building’s actual position. As established in caselaw1, the relationship between a proposed development and nearby structures must be accurately depicted on plans accompanying planning permission, and should be assumed to be accurate unless explicitly stated that elements are not to scale.

The building, as constructed, is not parallel to the access track, contrary to the approved site plan. The distances between the track and the 2 front corners of the building differ significantly. Given the observations about the building’s position relative to the dwellings to the west, the aerial image provided by the appellant appears distorted and does not provide a reliable comparison to be able to accurately determine the similarities and differences between the constructed building and the approved plan. Based on the evidence before me, and having regard to the caselaw cited by the appellant2, the constructed building’s position is materially different from that shown on the approved site plan. 1 Choiceplace Properties Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing Communities And Local Government [2021] EWHC 1070 (Admin) 2 Lever (Finance) Ltd v City of Westminster (1970) 3 WLR 732, Southwood v Buckinghamshire Council [2024] EWHC (Admin)

A later application under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (ref. 11/25/0240), was approved in 2025, removing a condition restricting the building’s use. That application did not seek to amend the approved plans, so the location and site plan, which formed part of the original application, still apply. Although the discrepancies were not identified during the consideration of either application, this does not change the position that the building as constructed does not accord with, and materially departs from, the approved plans.

On the evidence before me, I conclude that the proposal would not be permitted development under Class Q, with particular regard to the lawfulness of the agricultural building. The findings in respect of the lawfulness of the building relate solely to this prior approval appeal.

As the proposal would fail to constitute permitted development, it is not necessary to consider whether the proposed building operations are reasonably necessary or if prior approval is required.

This appeal must be determined under the provisions of the GPDO. As such, whether planning permission would be granted for the building as constructed is not a matter within the scope of this appeal.

For the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed.