Appeal 6005179

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 change of use of agricultural building to form two dwellings at [site address] in accordance with the application 25/41367/PAR and the details submitted with it and subject to the conditions in the schedule below.

An application for costs was made by [name] of RD & A Roe against Stafford Borough Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

The appellant has submitted the results of a 7-day automatic traffic count and speed survey (speed survey) that was undertaken on [site address] after the decision notice was issued, as well as a visibility splay drawing. Due to the nature of these, and that the Council has had the opportunity to review them, I am satisfied that taking them into account would not cause procedural unfairness to anyone involved in the appeal. As such, I have accepted them.

In its role as local planning authority, the Council may refuse a prior approval application where it considers that the proposed development does not comply with, or that the developer has provided insufficient information to enable it to establish whether the proposed development complies with, the conditions, limitations or restrictions set out in paragraphs Q1 and Q2 of the GPDO.

Paragraph Q1 sets out a series of criteria that must be met for a proposal to be considered permitted development and paragraph Q2(1) requires that an application is made for a determination as to whether prior approval is required for the proposal as to various matters listed (a) to (g).

The area of dispute centres on paragraphs Q1(p) and Q2(1)(a), and there is no dispute between the parties relating to the other conditions, limitation or restrictions. Based on the evidence before me, I see no reason to reach a different conclusion. As such there is no reason to give them further consideration in this

The main issues are therefore whether the appeal proposal would be permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 3 Class Q of the GPDO with particular regard to whether the building has a suitable existing access to a public highway; and if found to constitute permitted development, whether prior approval should be granted with particular regard to transport and highways impacts.

Consisting of a steel portal frame agricultural structure with metal cladding, timber boarding and concrete panels, the appeal building would be converted into 2 dwellings, each with 3-bedrooms and 2 parking spaces.

Fronting the appeal building is an existing area of hardstanding and access onto [site address] , which also serves an adjacent agricultural building that has consent1 for its conversion into 2 dwellings. The existing access radii is wide and partly surfaced. Consequently, I have found that the building does have a suitable existing access to a public highway, thereby complying with paragraph Q1(p) and constituting permitted development.

[site address] is subject to a 60mph national speed limit and flanked by established hedgerows set back behind shallow verges. The speed survey found that the average speeds were approximately 30mph and the 85th percentile speeds were some 36-37mph. Under such circumstances, the Highway Authority is willing to accept a reduced visibility splay to that given in Manual for Streets. The appellant indicates that visibility splays of 2.4m x 88m and 2.4m x 91m are required and this is shown on the submitted visibility splay drawing.

On the basis of these findings, which have not been challenged by the Council, and from my own observations, I am satisfied that with the provision of these improved visibility splays, which affect land within the control of the appellant, the proposal would have acceptable transport and highways impacts, including in relation to the risk of conflict between highway users. Due to the nature and location of the improvements to the visibility splays, they reasonably relate to the subject matter of the prior approval, and, as per [name](13) of the GPDO, can be covered by a condition.

Therefore, for the above reasons, with particular regard to the matter stated at condition Q2(1)(a), prior approval should be granted.

Whilst the development is within the [name] and 5km buffers of 3 sites of special scientific interest (SSSI), which fall within the [name] and [name], the Council states that it is unlikely there would be an impact on these aquatic designated sites. Limited details of these designations are before me and there is no reference to them in the Council’s case. 1 Planning Permission Ref: 24/39613/FUL

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 development would affect a European protected habitat, such as a Ramsar site, 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 (AA). 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 effect on the integrity of the Ramsar site or undertake an AA.

The Council did not refuse the application on the proposal’s impact on an SSSI. There is no convincing evidence before me that the development would be likely to have an adverse effect on them, either individually or in combination with other developments.

Although representation has been made that the site falls outside a settlement boundary, this falls outside the scope of matters that can be considered under Class Q.

I have had regard to the conditions put forward by the Council and have amended the wording where necessary in the interests of clarity. I have also had regard to the tests in the National Planning Policy Framework, the Planning Practice Guidance and the GPDO.

I have attached a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans, in the interests of certainty.

A condition is reasonable and necessary in order to protect the health of occupiers of the proposal and to ensure that any contamination risks are mitigated.

I have attached conditions relating to visibility splays, the surfacing of the access, any gates crossing the access, and the provision of electric vehicle charging points in the interests of transport and highway impacts of the development.

A condition has not been attached requiring the provision of the access, parking and turning areas as these are shown on the approved plans.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be allowed and prior approval is granted. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos. 1257-001 [name], 1257-002 [name] and 1257-004 [name], [name] and Cross Section.

No development shall take place until an assessment of the risks posed by any contamination, carried out in accordance with [name] 10175: Investigation of potentially contaminated sites - Code of Practice and the Environment Agency‚ [name] (LCRM) (or equivalent [name] and [name] if replaced), has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. If any contamination is found, no development shall take place until: i) a report specifying the measures to be taken, including the timescale, to remediate the site to render it suitable for the development hereby permitted has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority; ii) the site has been remediated in accordance with the approved measures and timescale; and iii) a verification report has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. If, during the course of development, any contamination is found which has not been previously identified, work shall be suspended until: i) additional measures for the remediation of the site have been carried out in accordance with details that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority; and ii) a verification report for all the remediation works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

The development shall not be occupied until visibility splays have been provided to the vehicular access to the site with a 2.4m by 88m visibility splay in a northern direction and a 2.4m by 91m visibility splay in a southern direction as shown on drawing no. SCP/260071/D01. The visibility splays shall be retained as such thereafter and no structure, tree or shrub shall be erected, planted or retained within the splays exceeding, or likely to exceed at maturity, a height of 0.6m above the level of the public highway carriageway.

The development shall not be occupied until the existing vehicular access has been resurfaced with a bound material for its full width for a minimum of 5m as measured from the near edge of the public highway carriageway.

The development shall not be occupied until each dwelling has been provided with an electric vehicle charging point in an accessible location.

Any gates to be erected across the access shall be setback a minimum of 5m from the highway boundary and shall open inwards away from the highway. **END OF SCHEDULE**