Appeal 6004263

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 for the change of use of an agricultural building and land forming the curtilage of the building to 5no. dwellinghouses (Use Class C3) and associated building operations including new infill walls, installation of new windows and doors at [site address] in accordance with the application 25/P/1858/CQA and the details submitted with it including plan No’s LP001 Site Location Plan, PP003 [name], PP101 [name], PP102 [name] and PP103 [name] and subject to the following conditions:

No development shall take place until details and/or samples of the materials to be used in the repair of the existing and all new external surfaces of the building have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and/or samples.

No structure, erection or planting exceeding 600mm in height above the adjoining carriageway shall be placed within the visibility splay as shown on drawing number 2024-F-027-004. The site access and visibility splay shall be maintained in accordance with the approved drawing thereafter.

Prior to the installation of external lighting, full details including type and location; existing site lux levels; proposed lux levels and lighting contour plans shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The lighting installation shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

An application for an award of costs was made by [name] against North Somerset Council. This application will be the subject of a separate decision.

The application was made under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q, of the GPDO (as amended) (as of August 2020), (hereafter referred to as ‘Class Q’). The Council’s case does not dispute the proposal would comply with all the limitations and restrictions set out in [name].1. Based on the available information, I have no reason to reach a different finding.

The deemed permission under Class Q is conditional upon the applicant first applying to the local planning authority for a determination as to whether its prior approval would be required as to the matters set out in [name].2.

The main issue is whether the proposal would be permitted development under the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 3, [name].2(1)(a) with particular respect to the transport and highway impacts of the development.

The agricultural building is located to the south of [site address] in open countryside. Adjacent to the site is a community farm which includes some residential accommodation, through which a Public Right of Way (PRoW) to Winford passes. [site address] is a single carriageway road with no footpaths, pedestrian refuges, or streetlights. It runs between the villages of Winford and Dundry. The nearest facilities, including a primary school, are in Winford and are approximately 1.5km from the appeal site.

The Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) identifies that the permitted development right does not apply a test in relation to the sustainability of location. In doing so, the permitted development right recognises that many agricultural buildings will not be in villages or other settlements and may not be able to rely on public transport or other forms of sustainable travel for their daily needs. Consequently, the prior approval matter Q.2(1)(a) is limited to the direct transport and highways impact of the development, and not wider questions such as whether the location is well-served by public transport.

Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 3, Class W, paragraph 10) (b) of the GPDO (as amended) states that regard should be had to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) so far as relevant to the subject matter of the prior approval, as if the application were a planning application.

Paragraph 115 of the Framework requires that that safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users. Framework paragraph 116 identifies that development should only be prevented or refused where there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety or the residual cumulative impacts would be severe.

The proposal is for the conversion of the existing barn to five dwellings, comprising three, two-bedroom units and two, three-bedroom units. Access is to be taken from an improved access into the site that is currently used by agricultural vehicles. This would have a visibility splay measuring 2.4m by 29m (towards northbound traffic) and 2.4m by 23m (towards southbound traffic). These visibility splays have been calculated following a speed survey which has determined average speeds on [site address] of between 19 and 23 miles per hour. The Council has raised no concerns regarding the suitability of the proposed access or the visibility splay. Based on the evidence before me, I see no reason to disagree and find the access to be safe.

[site address] has a low average weekday usage of eleven vehicles in the AM peak and twenty-five in the PM peak, The proposal would increase the use of [site address] by three, two-way vehicle trips in each peak hour. This represents a single two-way vehicle trip every twenty minutes during the peak hours. This would be a low increase in additional trips as a result of the proposed development.

Given the barn’s location, the site is not accessible by public transport nor would walking or cycling be a viable alternative. The Council’s concern stems from a lack of a safe and suitable access to [name] for any primary school aged children that the development would generate, leading to an unacceptable effect on highway safety. The appellant identifies that a safe walking route from the appeal site to the school exists using the adjacent PRoW’s and the highway. However, the Council disputes the safety of the route given its possible interaction with livestock.

The school and Winford village lie beyond the National Design Guide’s 800m walkable distance, at around 1.5km. Consequently, whether [site address] or a combination of the adjacent PRoW’s and the highway were used, these routes are beyond a useable walking distance and would remain unlit and unattractive, particularly during the winter months or in adverse weather conditions. Accordingly, the only safe and suitable access to the site would be via private vehicle. This would not however lead to an inherent unacceptable highway effect. Many Class Q proposals are in rural locations where access to facilities including schools are not within a realistic walking or cycling distance and public/private bus transport is not available. This is acknowledged by the PPG and would not prevent prior approval being granted.

[site address] would be used to access the site and a suitable visibility splay for the speed of the road would be provided. The proposal would have minimal effect on the local road network regarding additional trips. Consequently, the proposal would have minimal transport and highway impacts of the development and safe and suitable access to the site would be achieved for all users. As such the proposal, as far as is required under a prior approval, would comply with paragraphs 115 and 116 of the Framework.

Accordingly, the proposal would be permitted development under the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 3, [name].2(1)(a) with particular respect to transport and highway impacts of the development. Subject to appropriate conditions being imposed, the proposal would accord with the Framework and prior approval is granted.

I have considered the request from the Council regarding a financial contribution to provide a home-to-school vehicle. The proposal is for prior approval relating to a permitted development right which in accordance with the PPG, should by nature be generally acceptable in planning terms, and would not therefore ordinarily be necessary. Based on the above, a financial contribution towards home to school transportation would not be reasonable or necessary to mitigate the minimal transport and highway effects of the proposed development.

The appeal site is located within the [name] and Mendip Bats Special Area of Conservation (SAC) consultation zone, which is designated for its two bat species, Greater and [name] bats and the landscapes to provide foraging habitat.

The grant of planning permission under Article 3(1) of the GPDO is subject to the provisions of the GPDO for each class of development and compliance with Regulations 75 to 78 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) (Habitats Regulations). Effectively, Article 3(1) provides a pre-commencement condition which must be met, where the development would affect a European protected habitat, such as a SAC, before the works can be undertaken as permitted development. This includes a separate application to the Council under Regulation 77 of the Habitats Regulations to allow the Council to undertake an appropriate assessment and, depending on the outcome, this would determine whether, in terms of that matter, the scheme could be undertaken as permitted development under the GPDO.

Article 3(1) and Regulations 75-78 secure a separate process by which development only proceeds where it has been confirmed via a Regulation 77 approval from the Council that there would be no adverse effect on the integrity of designated sites. Therefore, it is not necessary for me to consider whether there would be any likely significant effects on the integrity of the SAC or undertake an Appropriate Assessment.

The Framework states that conditions should be kept to a minimum and only imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise, and reasonable in all other aspects. I have considered the conditions put forward by the Council and the appellant against the Framework.

[name] (13) of Schedule 2, Part 3 of the GPDO states that conditions which are “reasonably related to the subject matter of the prior approval” may be applied. [name].2(3) stipulates that development under Class Q is permitted subject to the condition that development must be completed within a period of 3 years starting with the prior approval date.

[name] (12) of Schedule 2, Part 3 of the Order identifies that development must be carried out in accordance with the details provided in the application. Consequently, a plans condition is unnecessary in this instance.

A condition relating to materials for the external surfaces (both new and any which require repair) is necessary to ensure that they are appropriate for the site and surrounding area. Due to the site’s location within the SAC, it is also necessary to condition that details of any external lighting are submitted to and approved by the local planning authority.

To ensure that the visibility splay shown on the approved plans is maintained for the life of the development, it is necessary to condition that no structures or planting exceeding 600mm in height is placed within the visibility splay.

The Council also requested a condition requiring secure parking facilities for eleven bicycles. However, sufficient space is available within the curtilage of each dwelling for the parking of bicycles if required. As such, a condition to secure this would not be necessary. Furthermore, as a separate application under Regulation 77 is required, it is not necessary to condition that the development is undertaken in accordance with the submitted Preliminary Roost Assessment.

The proposal would satisfy the requirements and limitations set out in Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO. I therefore find that the appeal should be allowed, and prior approval is granted, subject to the standard conditions set out in paragraph Q.2 of Class Q and to the additional conditions specified above.