Appeal 6006564

The appeal is dismissed.

Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (GPDO) provides for the change of use of either (i) a building that is part of an established agricultural unit and land within that building’s curtilage, or (ii) a former agricultural building that was (but is no longer part) of an established agricultural unit and any land within that building’s curtilage, to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouse) of the Use Classes Order 1987 (as amended), together with the extension of the building, or and any building operations reasonably necessary to convert the building to such use or to extend that building.

Schedule 2, Part 3, [name](3) of the GPDO states that a local planning authority may refuse an application where the proposed development does not comply with any specified conditions, limitations or restrictions. Paragraph Q1 states that development is not permitted by Class Q if one or more criteria apply. This includes Q1(p) where the building does not have suitable existing access to a public highway. It was on this basis that the Council refused the application.

The main issue is whether the development would be permitted by Paragraph Q1 of Class Q, Part 3, Schedule 2 of the GPDO.

The appeal site contains four barns at [site address] that are currently used for the stabling of horses as a livery business. The barns are mostly steel framed with corrugated roofs and metal / timber cladding, although one is brick with a timber frame. The current access into the site is via a driveway in the northern corner.

The road past the site is a minor country lane that connects the village of Palterton to junction 29 of the M1. There is no speed limit or street lighting, and heavy goods vehicles are restricted. At the time of my late morning site visit, there was a regular flow of traffic past the site. Although this is only a snapshot, it is clear that the road is used by through traffic to access the M1 and beyond.

There is a sharp bend just beyond the northern corner of the site, which greatly restricts visibility to the north for vehicles looking to exit the site from the current access. This presents a considerable collision and highway safety risk and the local highway authority has raised objections. Even if the levels of traffic generated by the proposal are comparable to the site’s current levels, it is apparent that the existing access is not safe. Therefore, the buildings proposed for conversion would not have a suitable existing access to the public highway via this route.

The proposed site layout plan shows an alternative access along the southern boundary of the site. There is an existing gate into the adjoining field from a straighter stretch of the road. Notwithstanding sales particulars from 2018, when the application was submitted and determined in 2025 there was no route from this access through to the site, only the field and boundary fencing. There is little recent evidence to show that this access was being used by large vehicles and machinery to reach the site. Moreover, any previous hardsurfacing had largely disappeared long ago based on aerial photographs.

In the first half of 2026, construction of a carriageway from the site to this access was commenced. However, this has been subject to enforcement action and works have ceased, with a retrospective planning application submitted for its retention. The carriageway has not been fully surfaced and does not appear to fully reflect the route shown on the site layout plan. It is also evident that planning permission has yet to be granted for the carriageway and the works have yet to be fully implemented, even if the local highway authority has raised no objections to the retrospective application. Thus, the alternative access does not provide a suitable existing access to a public highway for the buildings.

The appellant’s suggestions to turn the existing access into an emergency access only, to have a one-way system from the existing access to the alternative access, or to close the existing access completely, do not resolve the current lack of a suitable existing access to a public highway. In conclusion, the proposal would not comply with the requirements set out in Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q, Paragraph Q1(p) of the GPDO and so would not constitute permitted development.

The Council has noted that it is unclear if some of the buildings meet the maximum floor space permitted under paragraph Q1(c) due to difficulties in scaling from the plans. Given my findings on paragraph Q1(p) I have not addressed this matter. Additionally, as the proposal would not be permitted development, it has been unnecessary to consider any prior approval matters under paragraph Q2.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.