Appeal 6003794

The appeal is dismissed.

Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q (a) of the GPDO permits development consisting of a change of use of a building and any land within its curtilage from a use as an agricultural building to a Class C3 use (dwellinghouse). This provision also includes, at (c) development referred to in Paragraph (a) together with any building operations reasonably necessary to convert the building.

The Council’s second reason for refusal refers to the extent of the curtilage of the building as a distinct issue. Though the appellant indicates that the curtilage could be revised to an area of no larger than the building itself which would meet the requirements under the GDPO, I have not seen a plan to this effect. However, I have assessed the appeal on the basis that the curtilage could be redefined as such and deal with the issue about the building’s location separately below.

The main issues in the appeal are, having regard to Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q, Q.1 (p) and Q.2 (1) (e), whether the building has suitable existing access to a public highway and whether the building’s location or siting render it impractical or undesirable for use as a dwelling.

The appeal building lies in a countryside position to the south of Coldridge. It is accessed via a field gateway from the B3220 which is a 60mph rural road and which, in the vicinity of the site, is straight, relatively level and enclosed on either side by established hedgerow.

The appeal building is set back approximately 40m from the edge of the highway. There is a short downward sloping section into the field immediately behind the gated access. There are some loose hardsurfacing materials along tyre tracks within the field which are presumably used as an access track to the barn. The depth and height of the hedges either side of the gateway limit emerging visibility and the straight alignment of the road mean that drivers have effectively no visibility in either direction.

The B3220 is a high-speed rural road and the Council’s evidence details that serious collisions have occurred on it within 3km of the appeal site within the recent past. The visibility splays necessary to offer safety to users of the highway would be 215 metres (m) from a 2.4m set back in both directions. Additionally, a suitable track into the site to serve a residential use, including access by emergency vehicles, would also be necessary. Without these works, the intensification of the access to an average of around 8 or more daily trips would result in consequential effects on highway safety.

The works suggested to improve the access would include the removal of lengths of hedgerow to provide the visibility splays. The alternative suggestion of the appellant includes reducing the height and trimming back of some hedgerow, providing a non-migratory surface to the point of access and adding additional hardsurfacing to the existing vehicle route across the field. The highways consultee has provided a caveated response with the appellant’s Statement that if these works were undertaken, the related objection to the scheme could be removed.

However, I am not persuaded that the trimming back and lowering of the hedge height would amount to much less than the entire removal of the hedgerows within the visibility splays. The works to provide a non-migratory surfaced entrance and improved track along the rest of the 40m length also necessitate relatively extensive works. In any event, Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q, Q.1 (p) requires consideration as to whether the building to be converted has suitable existing access to a public highway. It presently does not and the works to make it suitable do not fall under the scope of Q.1 (p) of Class Q, Part 3, Schedule 2 of the GPDO.

The building occupies a position around 40 metres into an existing field. Save for a relatively insubstantial hedge close to the building which runs in a southerly direction to the roadside hedge, there are no boundary features which separate the building from the wider field. The existing vehicle route to the building from the access is not separated by any form of enclosure either.

To provide some separation from the adjoining land uses, such as for livestock grazing, some form of enclosure would need to be provided around the building. A fence might well serve this purpose; however, my view is that the improved access track would also need to be enclosed, and then the land between the track and the aforementioned hedge would most likely be impractical to access for continued agricultural purposes. These aspects highlight that the building’s location makes it impractical and undesirable to be converted to a residential use under the GDPO and could not be practically and comprehensively addressed under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q, Q.2 (1) (e) given the limitations on the curtilage size means.

The Council’s evidence indicates that no structural stability report was submitted which would otherwise be expected. Whilst there is limited evidence on this point either way, it is not a decisive issue given that the appeal is failing for other reasons in any event.

For the reasons set out above and taking into account all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.