Case Reference: 3351456

Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 4 February 2025
by H Marriott MPlan MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 12th March 2025
Appeal Ref: APP/E2530/W/24/3351456
Land on Morkery Lane, Castle Bytham, Grantham NG33 4SW
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)
against a refusal to grant approval required under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the
Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended).
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of South Kesteven District Council.
• The application Ref is S24/0853.
• The development proposed is described as ‘this prior notification relates solely to ‘development
consisting of a change of use’ of an agricultural building (GIA 110m2) to a single dwellinghouse
under the rules of Class Q(a) only as allowed by the GPDO, any matters not encompassed within the
requirements of Class Q(a) shall therefore be subject to a subsequent application.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Preliminary Matters
2. On 21 May 2024, Statutory Instrument 2024 No. 579 (SI No. 579) came into force
amending Article 3(1), Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the of the Town and Country
Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended)
(the GPDO). In line with transitional arrangements, I have proceeded to determine
the appeal in accordance with the GPDO provisions that were in force at the time
that the application was made on 20 May 2024. All references to the GPDO in this
decision therefore relate to the version that was in force at that time. The Council’s
report and appeal statement incorrectly applies SI No. 579 to the appeal proposal.
Even so, I have had regard to the contents of these documents insofar as they are
relevant to the GPDO and the matters in dispute.
3. A revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on
12 December 2024. In this instance, the issues most relevant to the appeal remain
unaffected by the revisions to the Framework. I am therefore satisfied that there is
no requirement to seek further submissions on the revised Framework, and that no
party would be disadvantaged by this.
Background and Main Issue
4. Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO permits (a) a change of use of a building
and any land within its curtilage from a use as an agricultural building to a use
falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses) of the Schedule to the Use Classes Order1;
and (b) building operations reasonably necessary to convert the building. This is
subject to various limitations and conditions as set out in paragraphs Q.1 and Q.2
of that Class.
1 Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended).
5. It is clear from the appellant’s application form and evidence that the application
was made under Class Q.(a). The appellant indicates that they intend to address
matters under Class Q.(b) through a separate application. The GPDO is clear that
this class of permitted development can consist of either Class Q.(a) or Class Q.(b)
independently.
6. It is common ground between the main parties that the appeal scheme meets the
requirements of paragraph Q.1 of Class Q of the GPDO such that it would
constitute development permitted.
7. However, Paragraph Q.2(2) of the GPDO makes clear that, where proposed under
Class Q(a) only, development is permitted subject to the condition that the prior
approval of the Local Planning Authority will be required for items referred to under
Q.2(1)(a) to (e) and (g), and that the provisions of paragraph W apply in relation to
that application.
8. The relevant conditions under Q.2(1) include (e) 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) of UCO; and
(g) the provision of adequate natural light in all habitable rooms of the
dwellinghouses. The Council refused the application on the basis that the proposed
development would not satisfy these prior approval matters.
9. Consequently, the main issue is whether the proposed development would satisfy
the prior approval matters at paragraph Q.2(1)(e) and (g) of Schedule 2, Part 3,
Class Q of the GDPO including:
• whether the location or siting of the building makes it otherwise impractical
or undesirable for the building to change use to a dwellinghouses; and
• the provision of adequate light in all habitable rooms of the dwellinghouse.
Reasons
Location or siting
10. The appeal building is located towards the edge of a field that rises northwards
away from Morkery Lane towards Angels Wells Farm. A mature hedgerow defines
the boundary of the wider field and separates the appeal site from the road.
11. The Council granted planning permission in 2014 for an anaerobic digester plant2
(the plant) at Angels Wells Farm. Conditions attached to that permission allow for
the handling of up to 34,000 tonnes of feedstock materials per annum and up to 18
heavy commercial vehicle (HGV) movements (nine in and nine out) per day,
between 07:00 and 18:00 hours Monday to Saturday.
12. The permission for the plant appears to provide a degree of flexibility as to the final
position of the site access. Nonetheless, the plans before me show that it would be
directly aside the proposed development. Whilst that access has not yet been
constructed and the appellant suggests that it may not for viability reasons, there is
no dispute that this permission remains extant. In the absence of any substantive
2 Council Ref: S14/0075 and Lincolnshire County Council (LCC) S19/0075/14 For the demolition of one poultry unit and
construction of an anaerobic digestion plant comprising of a waste reception hall, three digester tanks and a digestate storage tank,
three digestate storage lagoons and a number of ancillary buildings along with new access road (permission 30.07.2014)
evidence that an alternative access arrangement would not be used, the effects of
that development including the shown access layout, are material to my decision.
13. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)3 states that ‘impractical or undesirable’ are
not defined in the regulations, 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’.
14. Paragraph W(10)(b) of Schedule 2, Part 3 of the GPDO requires that regard be had
to the Framework so far as relevant to the subject matter of the prior approval as if
considering a planning application. Paragraph 135 of the Framework, amongst
other things, states that decisions should ensure that development creates places
with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. Paragraph 198 of the
Framework also requires decisions to ensure that new development is appropriate
for its location taking into account the likely effects (including cumulative effects) of
pollution on health, living conditions. In doing so they should avoid noise giving rise
to significant adverse impacts on health and the quality of life.
15. A S106 agreement is attached to the plant permission to prevent traffic from
passing through Castle Bytham village, meaning that traffic generated by the plant
would turn west onto the highway and away from the appeal site. The Noise Impact
Assessment (NIA) for the plant took into account the effects of that development
upon the nearest residential properties, located on Morkery Lane to the west which
are located further away from the appeal site. Whilst the HGV route associated with
that use would pass near to these residential properties, the effects on the
proposed development have the potential to be more significant as the appeal site
would be immediately adjacent both the access point and access road to the plant
site. Likewise, Angel Wells Farm House would have a materially different
relationship, further away from the plant access. As such, the results of the NIA are
of limited assistance when assessing the appeal proposal.
16. I acknowledge that there is existing traffic noise along Morkery Lane. I have also
taken into account the Transport Assessment which refers to a low percentage
increase in the number of traffic movements expected. Even if the free flow of
vehicles would not be obstructed through the presence of any gates adjacent to the
appeal building, drivers would likely routinely have to wait to turn onto Morkery
Lane. They would do so in intimate proximity to the proposed dwelling.
17. Overall, the limited separation gap alongside the nature and frequency of the
proposed vehicle movements associated with the plant has the potential to result in
undesirable levels of noise for future occupiers of the appeal proposal to an extent
that would be both harmful and objectionable. The acoustic character of the
relationship could materially affect the way the dwelling would be occupied.
Residents may have their sleeping patterns dictated by early morning traffic
movements, may opt to close windows permanently or at certain times, and may
seek to avoid the use of certain areas, such as any outside space, entirely.
18. There is no contrary evidence, for example in the form of a noise survey specific to
the appeal proposal, before me to dispute this. It has not therefore been
demonstrated that a significant observed effect as defined in PPG4 would not result
3 Paragraph: 109 Reference ID: 13-109-20150305
4 Paragraph: 005 Reference ID: 30-005-20190722
in this particular instance. Furthermore, in the absence of an appropriately defined
context, there is insufficient certainty that any potential harmful noise effects could
be appropriately mitigated, even if this could be secured outside the scope of this
prior approval application.
19. For the above reasons, the proposed development would not comply with the prior
approval matter at paragraph Q.2(1)(g) of Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO
as the location or siting of the building makes it impractical and undesirable for the
building to change use to a dwellinghouse.
Natural light
20. Paragraph W.(2)(bc) of the GPDO states that schemes under Class Q should be
accompanied by a floor plan indicating the dimensions and proposed use of each
room, the position and dimensions of windows, doors and walls, and the elevations
of the dwellinghouses. Whilst a plan marked “EXAMPLE” (Drawing No MLQ001)
was submitted, the appellant has confirmed that this does not form part of the
appeal proposal.
21. As this is an application under Class Q(a) only, no building or other operations are
proposed. There are a number of openings in the existing barn building which
suggests that adequate light in all habitable rooms could be provided. The
appellant also suggests that the planning history on the site5 demonstrates how the
provision of adequate natural light can be achieved and how the building was
previously approved for conversion.
22. On this basis of the evidence before me, the proposed development would not conflict
with the prior approval matter at paragraph Q.2(1)(g) of Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of
the GPDO with regard to the provision of adequate light in all habitable rooms of the
dwellinghouse.
Other Matters
23. Matters relating to odour, visual impacts and the location of nearest amenities and
services are not matters in dispute. Furthermore, it is noted that recent clearance
works have been undertaken and I recognise the appellant’s intention to maximise
value, with a number of options considered. However, these factors are not
relevant to the appeal proposal submitted under Class Q of the GPDO.
Conclusion
24. Given that the location the appeal building makes it undesirable for residential use,
the appeal proposal would not be permitted development. For the reasons given
above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
H Marriott
INSPECTOR
5 Council Refs: S21/1768 Associated operation works (following the Prior Approval under Class R of the GPDO: change of use of
an agricultural building to a flexible commercial use - Class E – under permitted development rights) – permission 27.10.2021;
S21/1703 Change of Use of Agricultural Building to Flexible Business Use – permission 27.10.2021; and
S23/1442 Remove an existing timber framed building with an established principle of use and associated operation development
(Class E) and replace with a more sustainable timber framed modular building and assign a Class E Change of Use – permission
15.01.2024