Appeal 6006010

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant submitted revised plans with the appeal with alterations to address noise resilience in the form of internal reconfiguration, moving the car parking for the proposed development, additional planting, acoustic timber fencing, altered pedestrian access and alterations to the size of roof lights to the first floor habitable rooms to address the amount of natural light coming into the rooms. The appellant has also advised of discussions with the commercial premises to the rear of the site to alter the location of the access gates and to offer additional land to the commercial premises to address remaining access and turning issues.

Cumulatively, the amendments amount to substantial differences relative to the original scheme. I have therefore determined the appeal based on the plans and information as originally submitted to the Council and upon which it based its decision, and which have been subject to consultation. To do otherwise would prejudice the interests of interested third parties and consultees, who have not been consulted on the revised scheme and who may have observations to make. The merits of the revised scheme would, if necessary, be a matter for the Council to consider as part of a fresh application.

Schedule 2, Part 3, Class MA of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015 (as amended) (GPDO) permits a change of use of a building and any land within its curtilage from a use falling within Class E (commercial, business and service) of Schedule 2 to the Use Classes Order to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses) of that Order.

It is common ground between the main parties that the proposed development complies with the limitations and restrictions as set out in paragraph MA.1 and I have no reason to take a different view.

Further to this, development is permitted under Class MA subject to the condition (set out in paragraph MA.2) that before beginning the development, the developer must apply to the local planning authority for a determination as to whether the prior approval of the authority will be required in relation to specified matters.

The relevant prior approval matters for Class MA in this case comprise the provision of adequate natural light in all habitable rooms of the dwellinghouses, contamination risks on the site, flooding risks on the site, impacts of noise from commercial premises on the intended occupiers of the proposed development and the transport impacts of the development particularly to ensure safe site access.

The Council has not identified harm relating to contamination or flooding risks on the site or the transport impacts of the development and based on the information before me I have no reason to disagree.

Accordingly, I consider the main issues in this case to be: • Whether the proposal can provide adequate natural light to all habitable rooms for the benefit of the occupiers of the development, and; • The impacts of noise from commercial premises on the intended occupiers of the proposed development.

The appellant has not provided any technical evidence to demonstrate that the proposal would provide adequate natural light to the occupiers of the new dwellings. My assessment therefore requires the exercise of planning judgement.

The plans show that bedroom 3 of plot 1 would be served by a small north facing window. Bedrooms 1, 2 and 3 of plot 2 and bedroom 3 of plot 3 would have rooflights only. In the absence of any other windows serving these rooms, the size of the proposed rooflights would be unlikely to provide adequate light to these habitable rooms. On the basis of the evidence presented, I cannot be satisfied that occupiers of the development would benefit from satisfactory levels of natural light. Impacts of noise from commercial premises on the intended occupiers of the proposed development

All vehicular traffic serving the commercial premises to the rear of the appeal site would pass the dwellings at close proximity with plots 2 and 3 having their main front door directly onto the shared driveway.

Given the nature of the business, which comprises an industrial type use, noise and general activity from the premises together with comings and goings could give rise to disturbance to the occupiers of the residential properties.

The building opposite the appeal site (on the other side of the access road serving the commercial premises at the rear) was converted under permitted development rights into a dwelling which is now known as [name]. However, at the time of the granting of the prior approval, the use of the building at the rear was offices and not light industrial. Changes to the Use Classes Order have since resulted in a wider range of activities being encompassed within the permitted use class. I acknowledge that there would have been two units in commercial use and not one therefore it would be reasonable to expect there would have been comings and goings associated with both units. However, the industrial use of the premises to the rear have the potential for a greater impact on the proposed residential development than the previous uses. There are also material differences between the schemes in that the building opposite also has its own access and faces into its site and not onto the access road serving the industrial premises to the rear. The circumstances surrounding the prior approval are therefore different.

[name] note there is a condition on the planning permission for the commercial premises restricting vehicle movements to specified hours which may reduce the potential for conflict, this would not overcome my concerns which relate to the type of vehicles accessing the commercial premises as well the number.

The appellant has advised that the manufacturing operations from the commercial premises are carried out internally, however, this does not overcome my concern regarding the potential conflict arising from the close proximity of the proposed residential units to the commercial premises.

The deficiencies arising from inadequate natural light in habitable rooms and noise from commercial premises would give rise to poor living conditions for the occupiers of the development.

Unlike with an application for planning permission, the matters for consideration under this prior approval application are restricted to those set out in paragraph MA.2(2), which does not include issues raised by objectors such as the effect on the living conditions of neighbouring properties, density of development, boundary disputes, unauthorised works, loss of employment premises, disturbance during the construction phase, impact on ecology and trees and the effect of the proposal on property values. I have therefore limited my consideration to only those matters set out in the GPDO.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.