Appeal 6004065

The appeal is allowed and prior approval is granted under the provisions of Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 3, Class MA of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GDPO) to convert an office (Class E) to provide 2no. 1 bedroom studio apartments in accordance with the terms of the application reference TA/2025/679/NC and subject to the conditions at paragraph MA.2. of Part 3 of the GPDO.

Applications for costs were made by Fuller Consultancy Limited against Tandridge District and Surrey County Councils. These are the subject of separate decisions.

The description of development on the decision notice differs from that referred to on the application form. I have no evidence of agreement to the change and so have used the description referred to on the form in the banner heading above.

The appellant has stated that, prior to the implementation of the change of use for which prior approval is sought, a permitted development right under Part 7 Class A of the GPDO would be exercised to insert a window to the northern end of the building to ensure adequate natural light to all the habitable rooms.

The submitted drawings of the proposal include a window in that location, but the right relied upon in this appeal does not include operational development.

Prior approval was not refused in relation to the provision of adequate natural light, and it would be for the Council to determine whether (i) any the insertion of the window would be an exercise of the permitted development right relied upon and (ii) any permission resulting from this appeal is capable of implementation.

Class MA of the GPDO permits a change of use of a building and any land within its curtilage from a use falling within Class E (commercial, business and service) to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses).

However, paragraph MA.2 sets out that development under Class MA is permitted subject to, amongst other aspects, an application to the local planning authority for a determination as to whether prior approval is required in relation to the subject matters set out in paragraph MA.2(2).

These include subject matter MA.2 (2) (a) ‘transport impacts of the development, particularly to ensure safe site access.’ The Council found that prior approval was required and refused on this basis. The main issue is therefore whether safe access could be provided to the site.

The site contains a long, single-storey building in flint rubble and timber boarding with a clay tiled dual-pitched roof, set low behind a grass verge alongside a lane, to which it has no windows. The building is currently used as offices and faces into the site towards a bungalow across a shared driveway.

The lane has no footways or streetlights and, other than the verge, is lined with hedgerows. It starts at a junction about 75 metres from the site and has centre markings as far as the driveway access but then narrows alongside the site and turns steeply uphill. It is subject to the national speed limit.

A public bridleway runs parallel to the lane, but there is no access to it through the hedgerow opposite the site. The nearest footway is on the main road passing the junction, from which a railway station with regular services to London and [name] is a kilometre walk, albeit along a narrow footway.

The proposal would convert the offices into two dwellings, and a new window is shown at the northern end of the building. No changes are proposed to the access, from which the appellant considers visibility complies with standards in the Manual for Streets (MfS), citing the results of a vehicle speed survey.

This reports 85th percentile speeds past the site of 30.2mph southbound and 30.9mph northbound. MfS requires stopping sight distances (SSDs) of 40m at 30mph and 43m at 31mph, adjusted to 43m and 45m for car bonnet length. The adjusted distances match or slightly exceed the visibility shown on drawings.

Figure 4-1 of the County Council’s design guidance ‘[name] for Surrey’ requires the [name] for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) standards to be used outside of towns and villages, which the access would not achieve. Manual for Streets 2 states that for any scheme affecting non-trunk roads, designers should start with MfS, but the accompanying Table 1.1 clearly indicates that local context should determine standards for roads with speed limits over 40mph.

Consequently, MfS is only a starting point and the County Council’s guidance refers to a ‘transition zone’ between the two. The local context is such that the appeal site has one of only two residential accesses on this section of the lane, which otherwise has clear rural character. [name] is more directed to urban environments with frequent accesses and lower speed limits, I conclude that DMRB standards are at least of transitional relevance here.

The access only just achieves [name], which are considerably shorter than the SSDs in DMRB. On balance, I conclude that the access is sub-standard. However, it already exists and there is no evidence of accidents resulting from its use. It is therefore necessary to consider whether its use would intensify.

[name] (TRICS) data predicts that each dwelling would generate one departure and arrival per day. [name] am not convinced that the samples are representative of sites with no footway access where even the most basic facilities are only reachable by car, because the trip rates would need to be twice those predicted for more intensive use of the access to be likely, I am satisfied that the proposal would not increase risk.

Warlingham Parish Council objects that very special circumstances do not exist for the development in the Green Belt and an interested party is concerned about the privacy impact of the proposed window. However, prior approval was neither refused nor required on these issues, which are therefore not before me.

The Council has not suggested any conditions, and I have not imposed any other than those related to the relevant permitted development right.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed, and prior approval should be granted.