Appeal 6007443

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 to two dwelling houses from agricultural building and for building works necessary to convert the building at Land to the [name] of [site address] , [site address] , Preston [postcode] ([name]: 343971, [name]:

in accordance with the application 2025/0899/PNC and the details submitted with it including: Site Location Plan; Proposed Site Plan; and [name] & Elevations – drg no. C521-1.

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

My site visit was scheduled as an access required site visit. Although it was not possible to proceed on that basis, I was nonetheless able to consider the main issues based on seeing the site and its surrounding context from public areas.

The description of proposed works on the application form refers to the ‘supporting statement’ so I have taken the description in the banner heading and decision above from the Council’s decision notice, save I have omitted the first sentence which is not an act of development. This is also the description on the appeal form.

It is common ground between the main parties that the appeal proposal meets the requirements of paragraph Q.1, Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (“the GPDO”), and would constitute development permitted under Class Q. On the evidence before me I have no reason to conclude otherwise.

Paragraph Q2(1) provides that a change of use under Class Q is subject to the condition that before beginning the development, the developer must apply to the local planning authority for a determination as to whether prior approval is required with regards to (a) transport and highway impacts, (b) noise impacts, (c) contamination risks, (d) flooding risks, (e) location and siting, (f) the design or external appearance and (g) the provision of adequate natural light in all habitable rooms.

The Council’s decision notice refers only to a failure to demonstrate the proposed dwellings would be provided with adequate outdoor amenity space, and it is clear from the evidence that the location and siting (paragraph Q.2(1)(e)) of the proposal is not deemed acceptable for this reason. The Council raises no concerns in relation to the other prior approval matters and based on my own observations on site I have no reason to form a contrary view.

In light of the above, the main issue is whether the location and siting makes it impractical or undesirable for the building to change from agricultural use to a dwellinghouse, with regards to outdoor amenity space.

The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)1 explains that ‘impractical’ and ‘undesirable’ are not defined in the GPDO, and the local planning authority should apply a reasonable ordinary dictionary meaning in making any judgment. Impractical reflects that the location and siting would “not be sensible or realistic”, and undesirable reflects that it would be “harmful or objectionable”. My attention has also been drawn to case law2 which confirmed that the assessment under paragraph Q.2(1)(e)) is a planning judgement, but that it is reasonable to expect that such judgement will be reached in the context of the purpose for creating the class, which is to increase the supply of housing.

The agricultural building would be converted into 2no. two-bedroom dwellings, which would have car parking to one side and front and rear gardens. Although the exact width is disputed by the parties, the front and rear gardens would span the full width of the respective dwelling. The rear gardens would be around 8m in depth which is below the ‘general guide’ for a minimum rear garden depth of 10m set out in the Council’s ‘Supplementary Planning Document Design Guide’ (2008). Nevertheless, they would be accessed directly from the open plan kitchen, living and dining areas and would be a practical shape of sufficient size to allow for outdoor seating and dining, drying clothes, children’s play equipment etc. Moreover, the rear gardens would benefit from sunlight associated with the southerly aspect and they would have a pleasant, open outlook over fields beyond.

Whilst the front garden would be shallower than the rear, and in the absence of any screening would lack privacy, this is not an untypical arrangement particularly for semi-detached dwellings.

In my judgement, sufficient amenity space would be provided to ensure a good standard of living conditions for future occupiers of the proposed dwellings. I therefore conclude that the outdoor amenity space provision would not result in 1 [name]: 109 [name]: 13-109-20150305 2 [name] v SSCLG & Tepper [2017] EWHC 465 (Admin)) development that would be impractical or undesirable. Consequently, the proposal would satisfy paragraph Q.2(1)(e) of the GPDO.

In accordance with paragraph Q.2(4) of the GPDO, an approval is subject to the condition that the development must be completed within a period of 3 years from the date of this decision.

The Council has not suggested the imposition of any additional conditions, but paragraph W(13) of the GPDO allows for the imposition of other conditions reasonably related to the subject matter of the prior approval. The Council’s Drainage Consultation Response suggested a condition requiring submission of details of a sustainable drainage scheme. However, this has not been imposed as the appeal site is in [name] 1, and I have no technical evidence before me that such a condition would be necessary to reduce flood risk.

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