Appeal 6004747

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for 'Prior notification of a proposed change of use of an agricultural building to form a single dwelling’ at [site address] ), Hallow, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/01892/GPDQ, and details submitted with it, including the following plans: A101; A104 (adjusted floorplan), subject to the following

Prior to first occupation of the development hereby permitted, the visibility splays as shown on approved plan A101 shall be provided. Thereafter the visibility splays shall be kept free of obstruction between 0.6 metres and 2.0 metres above ground level.

Prior to first occupation of the development hereby permitted, secure parking for bicycles shall have been installed in accordance with details previously submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the approved parking shall be maintained, available at all times for the parking of bicycles.

As part of the appeal, the appellant submitted an adjusted floorplan, which shows the proposed development as a 1-bed, 1 person dwelling rather than a 1-bed, 2- person dwelling. The reduction in occupancy is the sole change; there is no alteration to the physical extent or layout of the dwelling. I am satisfied that this does not amount to a fundamental change to the proposal. The Council and interested parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the reduced occupancy of the proposed development and, accordingly, no party would be prejudiced by my determining the appeal on this basis.

The adjusted floorplan has the same drawing number as the superseded floorplan but depicts a single bed within the bedroom instead of a double bed. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal on the basis that the proposed development would be a 1-bed, 1 person dwelling.

Class Q of Schedule 2, Part 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (GPDO) grants planning permission for (a) a change of use of a building and any land within its curtilage from a use as an agricultural building to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses) of Schedule 1 to the Use Classes Order or (c) development referred to in paragraph (a) together with building operations reasonably necessary to convert the building referred to in paragraph (a) to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses) of that Schedule (hereon referred to as Class Q).

Paragraph Q3 of Schedule 2, Part 3 of the GPDO defines “curtilage” for the purposes of Class Q. Development is not permitted under Class Q where it would involve the change of use of land beyond that curtilage. The Council argues that, in order to secure a suitable means of access, the proposed development would necessitate the change of use of land extending beyond the defined curtilage. On that basis, the development would fall outside the scope of Class Q and would not constitute permitted development.

Paragraph Q1 of Schedule 2, Part 3 of the GPDO sets out the circumstances when development would not be permitted by Class Q. Of these, the Council cites the proposal as not satisfying the requirements set out in paragraphs Q1(o) and (p) relating to compliance with the nationally described space standards and the presence of a suitable existing access to a public highway.

The main issues in this appeal are therefore whether the proposed development would be permitted under Class Q, with particular regard to: • whether it would include the change of use of land extending beyond the defined curtilage; and • whether it would satisfy the requirements of paragraphs Q1(o) and (p), that is the existing building would be capable of complying with the nationally described space standards and has a suitable existing access to a public highway.

For the purposes of Class Q, "curtilage" means the lesser of— (a) the piece of land, whether enclosed or unenclosed, immediately beside or around the building on an established agricultural unit or former agricultural building (as the case may be), closely associated with and serving the purposes of that building, and (b) an area of land immediately beside or around the building on an established agricultural unit or former agricultural building (as the case may be) no larger than the land area occupied by that building.

The submitted Block Plan, drawing no: A101, indicates the curtilage of the existing building as an area of land immediately beside it, which is no larger than the land area occupied by the building. As such, this identified area would comply with the definition of curtilage set out at Paragraph Q3 of Schedule 2, Part 3 of the GPDO.

Notwithstanding whether the existing access to the public highway is suitable for the purposes of Paragraph Q1(p) of Schedule 2, Part 3 of the GPDO, which I address below, the appellant has confirmed that no engineering works to the existing access have been proposed as part of the application. As such, the proposed development would not involve the change of use of land beyond the identified curtilage and would therefore constitute development permitted under Class Q in this regard.

Paragraph Q1(o) of Schedule 2, Part 3 of the GPDO states that development will not be permitted by Class Q if the existing building, excluding any proposed extension under Class Q(b) but including any proposed building operations under Class Q(c), would not be capable of complying with the nationally described space standard issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government on 27th March 2015 as read with the notes dated 19th May 2016 which apply to it.

The nationally described space standard requires a minimum gross internal floor area of 39 sqm for a 1-bedroom, 1-person dwelling where a bathroom is provided, as is proposed in this case. The proposed dwelling would have a GIA of approximately 45–46 sqm and would therefore exceed the required standard. It would therefore satisfy the requirements of Paragraph Q1(o) of Schedule 2, Part 3 of the GPDO.

Paragraph Q1(p) of Schedule 2, Part 3 of the GPDO states that development will not be permitted by Class Q if the building does not have suitable existing access to a public highway.

The building is set back a short distance from [site address] and would utilise the existing access. The Block Plan, drawing no. A101, identifies visibility splays, two car parking spaces and manoeuvring space to turn vehicles on site. The Highway Authority raises no objection, subject to conditions, including surfacing the first 5 metres of the access in a bound material, in the interests of highway safety.

The access is currently formed largely of compacted earth, with some brick and stone near the entrance onto the highway, a finish not uncommon in rural areas. There is no substantive justification before me to explain why a bound surface is necessary at this location to safeguard highway safety. I recognise, however, that unmade surfaces can result in the deposition of mud and debris on the highway, with potential implications for safety.

Nevertheless, in this case, the access is long-established, and the Highway Authority considers the increase in vehicle movements arising from the proposed development would be minor. Moreover, domestic vehicles are unlikely to deposit the same level of mud or debris on the highway as agricultural vehicles, such as tractors. Any issues relating to mud or debris on the highway are controlled under separate statutory regimes, including the Highways Act 1980. Planning decisions should proceed on the basis that such regimes operate effectively and should not duplicate controls contained in other legislation.

Consequently, based on the evidence before me and my observations on site, there is nothing to indicate that the existing access would be unsuitable to serve the proposed development. Accordingly, I find that the proposed development would satisfy the requirements of Paragraph Q1(p) of Schedule 2, Part 3 of the GPDO.

In light of this conclusion, I am satisfied that the proposal would not give rise to harm in terms of transport or highway impacts, and therefore the location and siting of the building would not make the change of use to a dwellinghouse impractical or undesirable.

[name].2(4) of Schedule 2, Part 3 of the GPDO sets out that development under Class Q is permitted subject to the condition that it must be completed within a period of 3 years starting with the prior approval date. It is therefore not necessary or reasonable to impose a separate time limit condition.

[name].(12) of Schedule 2, Part 3 of the GPDO requires the development, where prior approval is required, to be carried out in accordance with the approved details. A condition specifying the plans that are approved, and that the development shall be undertaken in accordance with them, is therefore also not necessary in this case.

[name].(13) of Schedule 2, Part 3 of the GPDO allows for the imposition of conditions reasonably related to the subject matter of the prior approval. While the Council has advised that no additional conditions would be necessary if the appeal were allowed, I note that conditions have been suggested by the Council’s Ecology and [name], [name] and the Highway Authority, which I address below. In imposing conditions, I have had regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance and have amended the wording or form of certain conditions where necessary, without altering their fundamental purpose.

For the reasons set out above, a condition requiring the first 5 metres of the access to be surfaced in a bound material is not necessary. Nonetheless, in the interests of highway safety, it is necessary to impose a condition requiring the provision of the visibility splays prior to occupation of the proposed development. These should be maintained for the lifetime of the development. Based on the evidence before me and my site observations, there is already sufficient space within the appeal site for parking and turning, and no specific works are needed to bring these facilities into use. I have therefore omitted these elements from the suggested condition.

To promote the use of sustainable transport modes, a condition requiring the provision of secure parking for bicycles in accordance with details approved by the Local Planning Authority is also necessary.

The Updated Preliminary Roost Assessment1 finds the existing building to offer no suitability for roosting bats and the likelihood of bats being present, or of significant impacts arising from the works, to be negligible. Although a number of recommendations are made, in light of the assessment’s conclusions, none are necessary to make the development acceptable. I have therefore not imposed a condition to secure these measures. 1 Updated Preliminary Roost Assessment – Barn at [site address] , prepared by Focus Environmental Consultants, dated 17 November 2025.

There is no compelling evidence before me to demonstrate that the building’s previous use as a field barn would have resulted in contamination. I have therefore not imposed a precautionary condition to address this.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal is allowed, and prior approval is granted.