an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Transcription

1 Appeal Decision Site visit made on 22 July 2015 by M Seaton BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 20 October 2015 Appeal Ref: APP/E0915/W/15/ Land adjacent Rosebank, Broadwath, Heads Nook, Brampton, Cumbria The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal grant approval required under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order The appeal is made by Mr R Watt against the decision of Carlisle City Council. The application Ref 14/0008 COU, dated 3 October 2014, was refused by notice dated 18 November The development proposed is the conversion of a redundant agricultural building to a single residential dwelling. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and approval granted under the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 for the conversion of a redundant agricultural building to a single residential dwelling at Land adjacent to Rosebank, Broadwath, Heads Nook, Brampton, Cumbria, in accordance with the application Ref 14/0008 COU, dated 3 October 2014, subject to the conditions set out in the Annex. Application for costs 2. An application for costs was made by Mr R Watt against Carlisle City Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision. Procedural Matter 3. Since the submission of the appeal, the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (the GPDO) has been published, superseding the earlier 1995 Order and subsequent amendments. Furthermore, national Planning Practice Guidance (the Guidance) has been updated, in respect of Permitted Development rights for the change of use of agricultural buildings. However, whilst I note that the Council has assessed the proposals on the basis of the references to Class MB of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment and Consequential Provisions) (England) Order 2014, I am satisfied that both the appellant and the Council have had the opportunity during the appeal process to make further comments based upon the new GPDO and paragraphs which have been updated within the Guidance. I have therefore determined this appeal with reference to the GPDO and Guidance as updated.

2 Main Issues 4. The Guidance advises the starting premise for Class Q is that the permitted development right grants planning permission, subject to the prior approval requirements. The provisions of the GPDO require the local planning authority to assess the proposed development in respect of transport, highways and noise impacts of the development, and also the flooding and contamination risks on the site, and whether the location or siting of the building makes it otherwise impractical or undesirable for the building to change from agricultural use to a dwelling house. It is also necessary to assess whether prior approval would be required regarding the design or external appearance of the building. 5. As a consequence, the main issues are; Whether the agricultural building is capable of conversion to a dwelling in accordance with the extent of works set out as permissible as defined in paragraph Q.1 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015; and, Whether prior approval is required in relation to the location or siting of the building, as well as its design and external appearance. Reasons Is the proposal permitted development? 6. The appeal relates to an existing building positioned close to the edge of a field and the existing gate and access from the highway. The building comprises a brick and slate built structure of some substance, which whilst the appellant has indicated was originally constructed for the stabling of horses, has been used since 2000 to provide shelter for sheep and lambs. The Council has not disputed this assessment of use and on the basis of my observations on site, I also agree with this assessment. In principle therefore permitted development rights apply to the building allowing its residential conversion, including building operations deemed reasonably necessary to convert the building, as set out at Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q(a) & Q(b) of the GPDO. 7. Paragraph Q.1 of the GPDO contains a list of exclusions as to when development would not be permitted under Class Q. In this respect, I note that the Council has not identified that the proposals would specifically conflict with any of the exclusions as now set out in paragraph Q.1, formerly paragraph MB.1. In this respect, I have already concluded that the site was in an agricultural use, and on the balance of the submissions that it would have been so on 20 th March The cumulative floorspace of the existing building is 60m 2 and the proposal would seek to create a single dwelling. There is no evidence to suggest that the building is or has been subject to an agricultural tenancy or that works permitted by Classes A(a) or B(a) of Schedule 2, Part 6 of the GPDO relating to agricultural buildings and operations, have been undertaken. Furthermore, the proposed works would not result in an extension to the external dimensions of the building, would not be located on Article 2(3) land, comprise works to a listed building or the site contain a scheduled monument, or be on land which forms part of a site of special scientific interest, a safety hazard area, or a military explosives storage area. 8. Paragraph Q.1(i) sets out the limitations of building operations deemed to be reasonably necessary in order to facilitate the conversion to residential 2

3 accommodation. More specifically, the paragraph states that development is not permitted where it would consist of building operations other than (i) the installation or replacement of (aa) windows, doors, roofs, or exterior walls, or (bb) water, drainage, electricity, gas or other services. Furthermore, partial demolition to the extent reasonably necessary to carry out building operations allowed by paragraph Q.1(i)(i), would also be permissible. 9. The extent of the works as described by the appellant would be extremely limited, involving the installation of windows and doors within the extent of the existing openings of the present building, and in existing walls. In this respect, whilst I acknowledge the absence of a structural assessment of the building, the description of works does not refer to the construction of any structural elements. Although the Council has expressed concern over the changes to the external appearance of the building as a result of the works, it has not contended that the addition of windows and doorways would be beyond that which could be described as reasonably necessary to facilitate its conversion to a dwelling. I am consequently satisfied that the proposed works would accord with those allowed for by paragraph Q.1(i)(i). 10. Therefore, on the basis of the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the nature and the extent of works which are proposed to facilitate the conversion of the existing agricultural building to a dwelling, would not be caught by any of the exclusions listed in paragraph Q.1. Is prior approval required? 11. For development to be permitted by Class Q of the GPDO, it must also be subject to a series of conditions regarding whether the development requires the prior approval of the Council on a number of matters, as set out at paragraph Q.2 of the GPDO. The Council has raised no indication that the development would require prior approval in respect of conditions Q.2(1)(a-d), which address matters relating to transport and highway impacts, noise impacts, contamination risks, and flooding risks on site respectively, and I have no compelling evidence before me to lead me to an alternative conclusion. However, the Council has highlighted that the building is set within an isolated and unsustainable location, and that the proposed conversion would result in considerable changes to both the appearance of the building and its surroundings. The Council has not explicitly referred to conditions Q.2(1)(e) & (f) in setting out their objections, but I have assessed the proposals in the context of these conditions, and the provisions of paragraph W (prior approval) as they relate to the application. 12. Turning first to the matter of location, condition Q.2(1)(e) addresses whether the location or siting of the building makes it otherwise impractical or undesirable for the building to change from agricultural use to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses). Whilst the Council has objected to the development on the basis of the residential development not being within a sustainable location and thus contrary to the presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), I have also been mindful of the relevant text on the same issue within the Guidance. In this respect, paragraph 108 of the Guidance is quite explicit that the permitted development right does not apply a test in relation to sustainability of location and that instead, the local planning 3

4 authority can consider whether the location and siting of the building would make it impractical or undesirable to change use to a house. 13. In respect of the definition of what would make a change of use to a house impractical or unreasonable, the Guidance acknowledges that these terms are not defined in the regulations, but suggests as an example that the conversion of a building on top of a hill, with no road access or power source or other services would be impractical, whilst such a conversion would be undesirable where the building would be located close to environmentally challenging uses (i.e. poultry farming buildings, silage storage). I do not consider such interpretations to be unreasonable, and note that the building in question is located in close proximity to a road with an existing access point already available, and a comparatively short access road required. The appellant has also indicated that the installation of appropriate services would be relatively straightforward and feasible. Furthermore, there is no evidence before me that the conversion of the building would be undesirable in respect of its location and proximity to existing activities. Whilst I accept that the building is not within a location where the Council would normally grant planning permission for a new dwelling, this alone cannot be sufficient reason to refuse prior approval. 14. Turning to the impact of the conversion on the appearance of the building and its surroundings, the extent of the works which have been described by the proposals would undoubtedly alter the general appearance of the building to that of a dwelling. However, the insertion of windows and doors in this instance comprise relatively limited external works to enable the conversion, and could not be said to be unreasonable in their scope or intent where the development is permitted. The use of a suitable condition to control the final appearance of the building would be a reasonable means of ensuring an appropriate external appearance. With regards to the visual impact of an associated domestic curtilage, I note that the overall extent of any curtilage would be limited in size by virtue of the interpretation of curtilage for the purposes of Class Q. Furthermore, I do not consider in the context of the change of use of the building to a dwelling amounting to permitted development, that it would be reasonable therefore to resist the use of an appropriately sized curtilage for domestic purposes in conjunction with the dwelling. This is a visual impact which by implication is quite clearly envisaged by the permitted development right. 15. I have noted the Council s concerns over the potential for an adverse impact from the addition of future outbuildings, garages, sheds or other structures within the curtilage of the dwelling. However, I have noted that the Council has suggested a condition to remove permitted development rights for such additions or alterations, which I consider to be a reasonable and effective way of addressing any such concerns. 16. Taking all these matters into account, I therefore conclude that the location and siting of the building, as well as the design and external appearance of the proposal would be satisfactory. As a result, prior approval would not be required in respect of conditions Q.2.(e) or Q.2.(f) of the GPDO. Conditions 17. Paragraph W.(13) of the GPDO sets out that procedurally a local planning authority is entitled to grant prior approval subject to conditions, where they 4

5 reasonably relate to the subject matter of the prior approval. The Council has suggested a number of conditions which it considers would be appropriate were the appeal to be allowed. I have considered these in the light of this paragraph, and also paragraph 206 of the National Planning Policy Framework related to planning conditions. 18. In granting approval the GPDO requires at Paragraph Q.2(3) that the development must be completed within a period of 3 years from the date that the prior approval is granted. A condition related to the commencement of development is therefore unnecessary. A number of other conditions apply to such development, including paragraph W(12) of the GPDO which requires that the conversion is carried out in accordance with the details provided in the application. 19. Conditions relating to the submission of full details of the materials of external surfaces of the development, hard and soft landscaping, and details of all boundary treatments, would all be necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area. The removal of permitted development rights for future extensions and alterations would also safeguard the character and appearance of the building and the area, although I have updated the references to the GPDO to reflect the changes to the legislation as set out in paragraph 3 of this decision letter. The conditions related to a scheme for foul water drainage and the construction of highway works would be necessary in the interests of the environmental management of the site and highway safety respectively. 20. I have carefully considered whether a condition related to the submission of details of any associated curtilage would be reasonable and necessary. I note that the appellant s submissions have not sought to establish the extent of any associated curtilage, albeit that the limitations set out within the Interpretation for Part 3 that for the purposes of Class Q are acknowledged by the appellant. In this respect, whilst I accept that the details of the curtilage are currently unknown, I do not consider that there would be a reasonable requirement for the imposition of such a condition to establish the extent of curtilage prior to the commencement of the proposed development, due to the already established restrictions related to the provision. Conclusion 21. For the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal should be allowed subject to the conditions listed. M Seaton INSPECTOR Attached Annex Conditions 5

6 Annex Conditions 1) No development shall take place until samples or full details of the materials to be used on the external surfaces of the building have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 2) No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works, including a phased programme of works, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and these works shall be carried out as approved prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with a programme agreed by the Local Planning Authority. The landscaping proposals shall include any locally sourced and disease-free native species appropriate to the locality. Any trees or other plants which die or are removed within the first five years following the implementation of the landscaping scheme shall be replaced during the next planting season. 3) No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority details of any walls, gates, fences and other means of permanent enclosure and/or boundary treatment to be erected. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 4) No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision of foul water drainage works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such a scheme shall be constructed and completed in accordance with the approved details. 5) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking, reenacting or modifying that Order) there shall be no enlargement or external alterations to the proposed dwelling approved by this permission carried out within the meaning of Schedule 2, Part (1) (Class A, B, C, or D) of the Order. 6) The whole of the access area bounded by the carriageway edge, entrance gates and the splays shall be constructed and drained in accordance with a specification to be first agreed with the Local Planning Authority. The access shall be completed prior to the first occupation of the development. 6