Appeal 6006618

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) (GPDO) for the agricultural building to be converted into a residential dwelling at [site address] , [site address] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/06271, and the plans submitted with it and subject to the standard conditions outlined in the GPDO and the following condition:

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the access, turning areas & parking spaces have been completed in accordance with the details shown on the approved plans, and shall be maintained and retained as such thereafter. Any gates shall be set back 5 metres from the edge of the carriageway, such gates to open inwards only.

An application for costs was made by [name] against Wiltshire Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

The description of the proposed development provided on the application form states, ‘Please see Planning Statement’. I have therefore used the description provided within the appellant’s planning statement in the banner heading above, removing ‘under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q (b) of the General Permitted Development Order 2015 (as amended)’ which is not an act of development, and substituting ‘is’ for ‘to be’.

The Council have referred to policies of the [name] 2015 (CS) in their reason for refusal which are relevant to the prior approval matters. An appeal against a refusal to grant prior approval should not be determined, expressly or otherwise, on the basis of s38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 or as though the development plan must be applied. The principle of development is established through the grant of permission by the GPDO. Consequently, whilst I have taken CS policies CP61 and CP62 into account, they have not by themselves been decisive in my determination.

Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO permits development consisting of a change of use of 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 (dwellinghouses) of the Use Classes Order, together with the extension of the building or building operations which are reasonably necessary to enable the conversion of the building. This is subject to limitations and conditions as set out in paragraph Q.1 and Q.2.

The Council does not dispute compliance of the scheme with paragraphs Q1(a) to (o) and Q2(1) (b) – (g) of the GPDO, however have stated that they do not consider the proposal to comply with [name].1.(p) and [name].2.(a).

Therefore, the main issue is whether the proposal would be permitted development by virtue of Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO, having regard to whether the appeal building has suitable existing access to a public highway and the transport and highways effects of the proposal.

The appeal site is located within an agricultural field which has a direct vehicular access to a private access lane (‘The lane’) which a public right of way (Footpath LAND15) (PROW) crosses near the point of access. The lane is single track which the evidence indicates serves approximately 10 residential dwellings as well as agricultural land and buildings.

Due to the location of the appeal site access, future occupiers and visitors would need to travel approximately [address] to the junction with [address]. The lane features a broken surface in places, is unlit and lacks a pedestrian pavement.

Nevertheless, swept path tracking within the appellants Appeal Statement (Transport and Highways)1 (ASTH) demonstrate that there are three suitable passing places along this part of The lane which, whilst not formal passing places, would also allow larger vehicles to pass. Although it is put to me that the swept path analysis suggests unrealistic manoeuvres and the use of private accesses, I observed that the identified passing areas would provide sufficient width for occasional informal passing without difficulty.

In terms of movements, I observed The lane to be very lightly trafficked, and indeed survey data within the ASTH undertaken for two weeks in November 2025 indicates an average of 39 light vehicle movements, 1 heavy good vehicle movement and 13 non-motorised users (pedestrians, cyclists, horse-riders) per day. Whilst there would be seasonal variations, with for example the likelihood of more non-motorised users during summer months, I consider that the survey data provides a reasonable snapshot of the usage of The lane. 1 [name] 11/03/2026

Against this, it is put to me that the proposal would generate 6-8 vehicular 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.

Even on the basis that vehicle movements only take place over a 12 hour period each day, that only equates to under 1 movement an hour. This would not represent an unacceptable increase in the amount of traffic using The lane on a regular basis and, on what is a lightly trafficked road and given the short distance to travel before the wider [address], the likelihood of two vehicles meeting would be limited.

[name] accept that traffic associated with the proposal would cross the PROW at close proximity to the access, the ASTH indicates approximately 60 metres of clear forward visibility from the appeal site access to [address] which accords with my own observations of the site. Furthermore, I observed that due to the character of [address], vehicle speeds are low which corresponds with the 11 miles per hour average speed recorded at the site entrance within the ASTH, as well as 15 metres visibility being available to the east.

Given the visibility available, vehicle speeds, low number of existing non-motorised users movements and the modest increase of vehicular movements associated with the proposal, there is no substantive evidence before me to indicate that the proposal would result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or severe residual cumulative impacts on the road network as noted within the National Planning Policy Framework.

Moreover, even if The lane is below the standard expected for residential development, 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 footpaths would be unreasonable.

The Council have referred to an appeal decision2 (the appeal decision) and a [name] (JRJ) in respect of planning application 21/01/062/PNCOU (‘the planning application’). Both refer to sites near the site the subject of this appeal. However, in respect of the appeal decision, whilst the Inspector found, amongst other matters that the proposal would harm highway safety, that appeal related to five dwellings, and therefore a greater number of associated movements, as well as being located a considerable distance further along The lane, along a section which is particularly narrow, lacks passing places and also serves as a public footpath.

In respect of the planning application, this related to a change of use to a flexible commercial use as opposed to a dwelling and therefore materially differs. Furthermore, the JRJ made no assessment of transport and highway impacts, moreover, in part, related to the application of a ‘fallback position’, which is not relied on within the appeal before me. Consequently, I find that both the appeal decision and the planning application materially differ from the proposal before me and therefore limits the equivalence of the other cases to the current proposal. 2 APP/Y3940/W/23/3323141 Moreover, the current appeal proposal has its own circumstances, and I shall determine it on its own merits.

To conclude, I find that the proposal has suitable existing access to the highway and would not result in unacceptable transport and highway effects and would be permitted development by virtue of Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO.

Whilst the Council did not dispute the proposal’s compliance with paragraphs Q1 (a) to (o), interested parties have raised a range of concerns. Whilst adjacent, the substantive evidence before me indicates that the appeal site is not within the New Forest National Park, or on other article 2(3) land as defined within the GPDO. The evidence also indicates that the appeal building was last lawfully used solely in connection with an agricultural purpose on 24th July 2023 as part of an established agricultural unit as required by paragraph Q.1.(a). Furthermore, the Council state that no development has taken place on the agricultural unit under Class A(a) or Class (b) of Part 6, Schedule 2 of the GPDO and there is no substantive evidence to the contrary.

Finally, the proposed design and external appearance of the proposal reflect that of other converted modern agricultural buildings I observed in the wider area and based on the evidence before me and observations I made at my site visit, I have no reason to take a different view to the Council in terms of other matters covered by Paragraphs. Q.2.(1) (b) – (g) of the GPDO.

The GPDO stipulates that development under Class Q is permitted subject to the condition that development must be completed within a period of 3 years starting with the prior approval date. Further standard conditions are set out in paragraph W that requires development to be undertaken in accordance with the details provided in the application, and therefore it is not necessary to repeat these conditions.

The GPDO also indicates that conditions reasonably related to the subject matter of the prior approval can be imposed. 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.

A condition relating to access, turning areas and parking spaces is reasonable and necessary in the interests of highway safety, and are related to the prior approval matters.

For the reasons given above the appeal is allowed and prior approval is granted.