Appeal 6004685

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) for proposed change of use from existing offices to 18 flats (Class MA) at [site address] , [site address] , Barnwood, Gloucester [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01042/PRIOR, and subject to the following conditions: 1.) Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved details of a construction management plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall include details of: • Parking for vehicles of site operatives and visitors (including measures taken to ensure satisfactory access and movement for existing occupiers of neighbouring buildings during construction); • Locations for loading/unloading and storage of plant, waste and construction materials; • Arrangements for turning vehicles; • Arrangements to receive abnormal loads or unusually large vehicles; • Methods of communicating the Construction Management Plan to staff, visitors and neighbouring residents and businesses. The approved plan shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. 2.) The development hereby approved shall not be first occupied until sheltered, secure and accessible bicycle parking has been provided in accordance with details which shall first be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The facilities shall be maintained for this purpose thereafter. 3.) The development hereby approved shall not be first occupied until waste storage and collection facilities have been provided in accordance with details which shall first be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The storage area shall be maintained for this purpose thereafter.

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 GPDO) provides for a permitted development right for the change of use of a building falling within use Class E (Commercial, Business and Service) to Class C3 (Dwellinghouses).

[name].2.(2) of the GPDO requires that where any development under Class MA is proposed, before beginning the development, the developer must apply to the local planning authority for the prior approval of a number of matters. The prior approval matters for Class MA include, amongst other things, the transport impacts of the development, particularly to ensure safe site access. Development is also permitted subject to Article 3 (9A) of the GPDO which requires that the gross internal floor area is at least 37m2 in size and complies with the nationally described space standards (NDSS).

[name](3) of the GPDO states that the local planning authority may refuse an application where, in the opinion of the authority, the developer has provided insufficient information to enable the authority to establish whether the development complies with any conditions. The Council refused the application as it considered that insufficient information was provided to establish whether the development complies with the conditions set out in [name].2.(2). Therefore, having regard to the relevant requirements of Class MA and paragraph W of the GPDO, the main issue is whether prior approval is deemed to be granted.

[site address] is a 3-storey, modern office building situated in [site address] Business Park. [site address] is accessed from [address] and accommodates 3 office buildings separated by a parking area, of which.23 car parking spaces form part of the appeal site.

Whilst not indicated on the submitted plans I am satisfied that there would be sufficient space within the site to accommodate adequate waste and cycle storage to meet the needs of the development’s occupiers and there is no indication that these facilities would compromise the available parking and manoeuvring space or highway safety. The building is already in use for commercial purposes and there is no substantive evidence to suggest that the collection of refuse from the 18 flats would be materially different from the existing commercial refuse collection arrangements or that collection would result in adverse impacts on highway safety.

The submission clarifies that the existing access from [address] would be retained. There is no suggestion that the continued use of the existing access would adversely affect the flow of traffic on [address] or cause an unacceptable impact on highway safety. This is reflected in the comments of the Highway Authority which state that there would not be an unacceptable impact on highway safety or a severe impact on congestion. I am satisfied that future occupiers would be provided with suitable and safe access to the site.

Sufficient information has been provided to assess the highway impacts of the development, and I am satisfied that the proposal’s highway impacts would be acceptable.

Article 3(9A) of the GPDO states that Schedule 2 does not grant permission for, or authorise any development of, any new dwellinghouse where the gross internal floor area is less than 37m2 in size; or that does not comply with the NDSS. For development submitted under Class MA, paragraph W.(2)(bc) of the GPDO requires a floor plan indicating the total floor space in square metres of each dwellinghouse, the dimensions and proposed use of each room, the position and dimensions of windows, doors and walls, and the elevations of the dwellinghouses.

The submission includes scaled floor plans and elevation drawings which include an annotation indicating each dwelling’s floor area. These plans show that each dwelling would meet the minimum dwelling dimensions in the NDSS and are clearly annotated to show the use of each room. Whilst the plans are not annotated with the dimensions of individual rooms, or the dimensions of windows, doors and walls, they are to scale and annotated with a scale bar and thus clearly show each room’s floor area and the size and position of windows. I am satisfied that the submission is sufficiently detailed to enable assessment of the individual room sizes and that these plans show that the proposal would comply with the requirements of the NDSS in relation to individual room sizes. The scaled elevations and daylight assessment establish that all habitable rooms would be provided with adequate levels of natural light.

In light of the above, I am satisfied that the development satisfies condition MA.2. (2)(f) and Article 3 (9A) of the GPDO in relation to individual dwelling and room sizes and the provision of adequate natural light to habitable rooms.

To conclude on this main issue, I am satisfied that sufficient information has been provided to assess the proposal against the provisions of MA.2. (2) and that the development would be acceptable in relation to the prior approval matters.

The site is located in the Zone of Influence of the Cotswold Beechwoods Special Area of conservation (SAC) and the Council comment that the development would have a significant impact on the integrity of the SAC which would typically be mitigated by a strategic financial mitigation contribution. The SAC is designated due to it comprising an internationally important area of Beech forests, dry grasslands and scrublands. The woodlands are recognised as amongst the most diverse and species-rich of their type, whilst the grasslands exemplify calcareous pastures for which the area is renowned. Increased recreational activity associated with new housing developments is placing pressure on the SAC. Mitigation is required to ensure that such pressure is avoided or limited to such a degree that would preserve the integrity of the SAC.

Article 3(1) of the GPDO grants planning permission for the classes of development in Schedule 2 (including Part 3 Class MA development), subject to Regulations 75-78 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. Regulation 75 provides that it is a condition of any planning permission granted by the GPDO in these cases that development which is (a) likely to have a significant effect on a European site, alone or in combination with other plans or projects and (b) not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site must not be begun until the developer has received the Council’s written notification of approval of an application made under Regulation 77.

Article 3(1) and Regulations 75-78 operate to impose a pre-commencement condition on all development that is permitted by the GPDO and would affect a European Site. Therefore, a permitted development shall not be lawfully begun until the developer has made a Regulation 77 application and received written notification from the Council to the effect that development would have no adverse effect on the integrity of the European site. The development shall only be lawfully begun once both procedures are complied with. Given that development cannot be begun until it has received the approval of the Council under Regulation 77, this process allows me to be satisfied that the appeal proposal would not adversely affect the integrity of the SAC.

Development under Class MA is permitted subject to conditions at [name].2.(5) and (6) which include that the development must be completed within a period of 3 years starting with the prior approval date; and that any building permitted to be used as a dwellinghouse by virtue of Class MA is to remain in use as a dwellinghouse within the meaning of Class C3 of Schedule 1 to the Use Classes Order and for no other purpose, except to the extent that the other purpose is ancillary to the use as a dwellinghouse.

[name](13) of the GPDO allows prior approval to be granted subject to conditions reasonably related to the subject of the prior approval. I have imposed the Council’s suggested conditions relating to the provision of cycle parking and waste storage facilities and the approval of a Construction Management Plan because they are reasonable and necessary. I have omitted suggested conditions relating to highway works on [address] and the provision of a residential welcome pack as there is no compelling evidence that these conditions are reasonable and necessary to render the development acceptable in relation to the subject matters of the prior approval application.

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