Appeal 6005655

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) (the GPDO) for the conversion of a steel framed barn into 5 residential dwellings, each with a rear garden, bin storage, and integrated garages, together with the demolition of the existing lean-to barns on the eastern and western sides at [site address] , [site address] , Adlington, [postcode] in accordance with the application 25/3573/PRIOR-3Q and the details submitted with it including plan nos 001 Location Plan, PL_201, PL_202, PL_203, PL_204, PL_205, and PL_206.

The approval is subject to the condition that the development must be completed within a period of 3 years from the date of this decision in accordance with Paragraph Q2(4) of the GPDO and the provisions specified in paragraph W, and subject to the conditions set out in [name].

I note the detailed description of development given on the application form which is set out in the banner heading. In my formal decision I have removed the superfluous wording that does not relate to acts of development.

The Officer’s report highlights that there are inconsistencies within the information submitted with the application regarding how much of the external materials would be retained. Reviewing all the material they considered that on the balance of probability the majority of the existing cladding and walls would be replaced with new materials. [name] consider the plans make clear that existing blockwork would remain, I agree that it is not clear whether it is proposed to use the existing metal cladding on the upper walls or to replace it with new metal cladding. As the appellant’s appeal statement did not dispute the conclusions in the Officer’s report, I have determined the appeal on the basis that the metal cladding on the walls would be replaced.

The appeal relates to an application for the change of use of an agricultural building and associated operations under [name] of the GPDO. There is no dispute between the main parties with regard to the compliance of the scheme with paragraphs Q1 (a) to (i) and (m) to (p) and Q2(1) (b) – (g) of the GPDO. Based on the evidence before me and observations I made at my site visit, I have no reason to take a different view in terms of compliance with these particular paragraphs. Therefore, the focus of my determination of the appeal has been the area of difference between the parties which relates to paragraphs Q1(j) and Q2(1)(a).

Therefore, the main issue in the appeal is whether the proposal would be permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO, with particular reference to the extent of the building works and whether or not the proposal would be acceptable in relation to its transport and highways impacts.

The agricultural building that is the subject of the appeal is a relatively modern steel framed structure with a pitched roof. At the time of my visit it was largely being used for agricultural storage, but had a pen occupied by 2 calves and a milking parlour. 3 of the 4 sides have tall openings that are typical of agricultural buildings. Aside from these openings the walls comprise blockwork up to around 1.5m with cladding of either steel or fibre cement sheeting above. The roof comprises corrugated sheeting with 2 rows of regular clear panels to provide natural light. The floor is a concrete slab.

On the north-west corner is a small lean-to building and immediately to the east lies another steel framed pitched agricultural building. It is proposed demolish both these buildings.

It is proposed to convert the building to create 5 dwellings with an integral garage and rear garden. Paragraph Q1(j) indicates that building operations, other than the installation or replacement of windows, doors, roofs, exterior walls, water, drainage, electricity, gas or other services to the extent necessary for the building to function as a dwelling house and partial demolition to the extent reasonably necessary to carry out these building operations are not permitted.

The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) explains that the right assumes that the agricultural building is capable of functioning as a dwelling and that it is not the intention of the permitted development right to allow rebuilding work which would go beyond what is reasonably necessary for the conversion of the building. It is only where the existing building is already suitable for conversion that the building would be considered to have the permitted development right.

The appellant has provided a [name] (SIR) and a statement from the architect regarding the work required in the conversion of the building. [name] indicates that the building is capable of conversion to residential accommodation. From what I saw on my site visit the building is of a substantial and permanent construction and the roof, walls and floor appeared to be in good

It is proposed to retain the existing steel frame of the building, the concrete floor and the blockwork walls, although some of the blockwork would need to be removed to create the door and window openings, which on the front elevation would result in much of its removal. [name] indicates there is some surface corrosion to the steel columns which would need to be removed before being painted. Whilst if any areas of severe corrosion are found, this may necessitate remedial works, the majority, if not all, of the primary steel structure would remain and is capable of being used without material alteration.

The evidence shows that the works required to create the dwellings would consist of the installation of new windows and doors including in the roof; replacing the existing corrugated sheeting on the roof and walls with new corrugated sheet metal cladding; a new internal insulated ground floor slab; and new block work and/or cladding to close up existing openings that are not being utilised.

The PPG1 indicates that internal works are not generally development and that for the building to function as a dwelling it may be appropriate to undertake internal works including internal walls which are not prohibited by Class Q. Thus, the proposed internal works would not fall outside of the building works allowed by the GPDO.

[name] suggests that the proposed roofing material would be heavier than existing and an assessment would be necessary to establish whether the existing purlins and steel frame would be able to carry the slightly increased roof loads. Nevertheless, it highlights that the internal wall structure can be load bearing if necessary to relieve the existing trusses of any load increase.

[name] indicates that the foundations of agricultural buildings are not usually adequate when the building is converted to another use. In addition, if the internal walls need to be load bearing this would require new foundations. The installation of new foundations is not included in the list of permitted operations set out in paragraph Q1(j). However, if this is necessary, the SIR confirms that alternative foundations would be able to be incorporated into the internal insulated floor slab.

It is proposed to clad the upper parts of the walls with corrugated grey metal sheet cladding, which would appear simply to be a like for like replacement of the existing cladding. The replacement of existing walls is a permitted operation in paragraph Q1(j)

As part of the installation of the new windows and door, the report indicates that some secondary framing to the side walls would be required. At most it is stated this would require alterations to some side rails and would not require any substantial alterations to the existing frame of the building. As such, it would not comprise significant structural work or alterations to the primary steel frame structure.

As highlighted above the proposal would require the demolition of the lean-to barn on the proposed front elevation and the barn at the rear. The demolition of both these buildings would be necessary to enable the installation of windows and 1 Paragraph: 105 [name]: 13-105-20180615 doors that are needed to provide adequate natural light to the dwellings. Demolition of the actual building to be converted would be limited and is all necessary to enable the building operations required for its conversion.

Whether a proposal constitutes a conversion or a rebuild is a matter of planning judgement based on the nature and extent of the proposed building operations. Although cumulatively the extent of the works proposed to facilitate the conversion of the building to a residential use would be considerable, in my opinion the nature of the external works required to convert the building would all comply with the specified works in paragraph Q1(j) of the GPDO.

Accordingly, the proposal can reasonably be described as a conversion covering those works reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwellinghouse. Moreover, the building operations would be to an extent necessary to make the building weatherproof and suitable for human habitation.

Consequently, I consider the scheme amounts to permitted development under Class Q of the GPDO.

The appeal site is located on [site address] - a lightly trafficked single track, no through road that serves a number of dwellings as well as the farm. There are no footways or street lights along the lane although there is a vegetated verge to each side. Neither are there any formal passing places but accesses to properties, such as to the appeal site, act as informal passing places should 2 vehicles need to pass. I understand from comments from a local resident that the lane is used by walkers as it leads to 2 public footpaths at its western end.

Using the TRICS database the appellant has estimated that the proposed dwellings could generate up to 39 traffic movements a day. Whilst dwellings will attract movements by delivery and other service vehicles, the majority of traffic movements would be by private cars and vans. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I consider this to be a reasonable estimate of the likely traffic generation from the proposed development.

Whilst the farm may currently be operating at a reduced capacity, it has previously been a fully operational dairy farm. As set out in the appellant’s highway statement, such a use generates a significant number of traffic movements by cars, vans and HGVs. Even if, as suggested by the Council, the appellant’s estimate of 46 movements a day is on the high side the number of vehicle movements from the existing use and proposed use are similar. Moreover, the proposed use would not be likely to attract the regular HGV movements the farm does.

[name] note the comments from local residents about some of the sources of traffic movements, the sign on the farm gate indicates that some dairy products are available to purchase direct from the farm.

The appellant’s evidence suggests but does not clearly state that the existing farm use will cease if the proposal were to be permitted. The proposal would result in loss of the two main agricultural buildings on the site, with most of the remaining barns being in a poor condition. Nevertheless, it is not inconceivable that some form of agricultural activity could continue on the site utilising the surrounding fields and this could generate agricultural related traffic on [site address] .

However, even if this is the case, the proposed development would only create in the region of 39 vehicle movements a day. Even on the basis that vehicle movements only take place over a 12 hour period each day, that only equates to just over 3 movements an hour. This would not represent an unacceptable increase in the amount of traffic using [site address] on a regular basis and, on what is a lightly trafficked road, the likelihood of two vehicles meeting would still be limited.

The Council have argued that the absence of footways and lighting means [site address] is below the standard expected for residential development. However, in rural areas a lack of footways and lighting on roads is commonplace. The provisions of Class Q in the GPDO anticipates that dwellings will be created in rural areas and to prevent such developments in all locations where there is no street lighting or footways would be unreasonable.

A local resident has raised concerns regarding the safety and visibility at the junction of [site address] with Skellhorn Green. However, the Highways Authority have raised no concerns with the operation or safety of this junction, and from what I observed I see no reason to come to a different conclusion in this regard.

Furthermore, whilst the Council and local residents have mentioned that the condition of [site address] is poor, there is no indication that this is a private road and so responsibility for its condition lies with the Highways Authority.

Overall, I consider that the proposed conversion of the barn into 5 dwellings would not result in unacceptable transport and highway impacts. As a consequence, there would be no conflict with paragraph Q2(a) of the GPDO.

Whilst the appeal site is located in the Green Belt, this is not a matter under consideration in this type of appeal, which is judged only against the requirements set out in the GPDO.

The GPDO attaches various standard conditions to this type of development, including that development must be completed within a period of 3 years (paragraph Q2(4)), and be in accordance with the approved details (paragraph W(12)(a)).

The GPDO also indicates that conditions reasonably related to the subject matter of the prior approval can be imposed (paragraph W(13)). I have assessed the Council’s suggested conditions on this basis and against the tests for conditions set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and where necessary have altered the wording for clarity and enforceability.

The suggested conditions relating to contaminated land and drainage are reasonable and necessary and are related to the prior approval matters, however biodiversity is not a prescribed prior approval matter under Q2(1), so the other suggested conditions are not reasonable.

For the reasons set out above I conclude the appeal should be allowed.

No development (other than agreed demolition and site clearance works) shall take place until: a) A Phase I Preliminary Risk Assessment has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority; and, if required b) A Phase II Ground Investigation and Risk Assessment has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority; and c) If the Phase II Assessment indicates that remediation is necessary a [name] has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. If remediation is necessary, the site shall be remediated in accordance with the approved measures and timescale and no dwelling hereby approved, shall be occupied until 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: a) 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 b) a verification report for all the remediation works has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority.

a) Any soil or soil forming materials to be brought to the site for use in soft landscaping shall be tested for contamination and suitability for use in line with the current version of ‘[name] within Cheshire East Council – A Guide to Submitting Planning Applications, [name] (in the absence of any other agreement for the development). (b) Prior to occupation, evidence and verification information for the soil testing shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority.

No development (other than agreed demolition and site clearance works) shall take place until a detailed surface water drainage scheme based on sustainable drainage principles, and including a maintenance schedule for any and all drainage and sustainable drainage system features, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority.