1.	APPLICATION SITE AND LOCALITY 

1.1.	The site is located between the villages of Shutford and Sibford Gower, accessed from the Shutford Road. The site is in an isolated location within the middle of open countryside, well outside any settlement, and is otherwise bounded by fields to the west, east, north and south. 
1.2.	The site location plan covers a large area, so the extent of the agricultural unit appears relatively clear, although the parcel of land where the application building is sited appears to have been split into separate ownerships.
1.3.	The shed subject to this notification is constructed of steel stanchions and corrugated steel for walls and roof. The shed proposed to be used for habitable accommodation and car parking has not been shown on the drawings. The height of the building is approximately 4 metres, with a total external footprint of 198 square metres.

2.	DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
2.1.	The current application seeks permission under Part 3 (Class Q) for (a) the change of use from agricultural building to residential dwelling (Class C3) and (b) building operations reasonably necessary to convert the said building to the said use. 
2.2.	The submitted drawings show the building’s conversion to two, two bedroom dwellings. The footprint of the existing barn structure measures approximately 198 square metres but with no additional land shown for residential curtilage.  
3.	RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

3.1.	98/00702/AGN: Erection of agricultural building. PRIOR APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED. 20 May 1998. 

3.2.	06/01069/F: Retrospective. Change of use to revised use for Agriculture and Equestrian. APPROVED 18 July 2006.

3.3.	07/01746/F: All weather gallop (as amended by drawing No DAJ/2095-2(ii)gn received on 11/10/07). APPROVED 15 November 2007.

3.4.	09/00986/AGN: Agricultural building for secure storage of hay and straw. PRIOR APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED. 18 August 2009.

3.5.	12/00637/F: Change of use of agricultural barn to stables (part retrospective). APPROVED 3 August 2012.

3.6.	12/01002/F: Change of use of land from Agricultural to joint use for Agriculture and Equestrian and construction of Menage. APPROVED. 22 August 2012. 

4.	PRE-APPLICATION DISCUSSIONS

4.1.	No pre-application discussions have taken place with regard to this proposal.

5.	RESPONSE TO PUBLICITY

5.1.	This application has been publicised by way of a site notice displayed near the site and by letters sent to all properties immediately adjoining the application site that the Council has been able to identify from its records. 
5.2.	The comments raised by third parties are summarised as follows:
•	The barn is not in agricultural use and is rented out to a removal company
•	Description is incorrect being referred to as a cart shed, a cart has not been on the property.
•	There is no need for the houses. 
5.3.	The comments received can be viewed in full on the Council’s website, via the online Planning Register.
6.	RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION

6.1.	Below is a summary of the consultation responses received at the time of writing this report. Responses are available to view in full on the Council’s website, via the online Planning Register.
PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL
6.2.	SIBFORD GOWER PARISH COUNCIL: Objection, raising the following comments: 
•	A question mark to whether the site has been solely used for agricultural use on March the 20th 2013.
•	A question mark over whether the agricultural building is capable of functioning as a dwelling.
•	A question maker over whether the building is strong enough.
•	The built shall cause demolition and what part of the structure shall be retained.
•	Concerns with the design proposal for the dwellings
•	Non-conformant with the NPPF.
•	Mains water shall need to be installed and an upgrade to the sewerage system. 
STATUTORY CONSULTEES

6.3.	N/A
NON-STATUTORY CONSULTEES
6.4.	ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OFFICER: Concerns over the activities of the current farm relating to noise and the possible effects this would have on the occupiers. 
6.5.	RIGHTS OF WAY OFFICER: No comments
6.6.	LOCAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY: No comments
6.7.	DRAINAGE OFFICER: No comments
7.	RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE

As this is a Prior Notification application (as per above), the provisions of Part 3 of Schedule 2 of the General Permitted Development Order 2015 (“GPDO”) are considered most relevant.

Under Part 3 Class Q of the GPDO, development consisting of a change of use of a building and any land within its curtilage from use as an agricultural building to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses) of the Schedule to the Use Classes Order, does not require Prior Approval, provided that (1) it meets the tests of Class Q,

(a)	The site was used solely for an agricultural use, as part of an established agricultural unit—
(i) on 20th March 2013;
(ii) in the case of a building which was in use before that date but was not in use on that date, when it was last in use; or
(iii) in the case of a site which was brought into use after 20th March 2013, for a period of at least ten years before the date the development under Class Q begins;
(b)	The cumulative floor space of the existing building or buildings changing use under Class Q within an established agricultural unit does not exceed 450 square metres;
(c)	The cumulative number of separate dwellinghouses developed under Class Q within an established agricultural unit does not exceed three (amended from 2014 regs);
(d)	The site is not occupied under an agricultural tenancy, unless the express consent of both the landlord and the tenant has been obtained;
(e)	No less than one year before the date development begins—
(i) an agricultural tenancy over the site has been terminated, and
(ii) the termination was for the purpose of carrying out development under Class MB,
unless both the landlord and the tenant have agreed in writing that the site is no longer required for agricultural use;
(f)	No development under Class A(a) or Class B(b) of Part 6 of this Schedule (agricultural buildings and operations) has been carried out on the established agricultural unit since 20th March 2013 or, where development under Class Q begins after 20th March 2023, during the period which is 10 years before the date development under Class Q begins;
(g)	The development would not result in the external dimensions of the building extending beyond the external dimensions of the existing building at any given point;
(h)	The development under Class Q (together with any previous development under Class Q) would not result in a building or buildings having more than 450 square metres of floor space (within an established agricultural unit) having a use falling within Class C3;
(i)	The development under Class Q(b) would not consist of any 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,
to the extent reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwellinghouse; and
(ii) partial demolition to the extent reasonably necessary to carry out building operations allowed by paragraph Q.1(i)(i);
(j)	The site is not on article 2(3) land;
(k)	The site is not or does not form part of (i) a site of special scientific interest; (ii) a safety hazard area; (iii) a military explosives storage area;
(l)	The site is not, or does not contain, a scheduled monument;
(m)	The building is not a listed building.

And (2), where the development proposed is development under Class Q(a) together with development under Class Q(b), development is permitted subject to the condition that before beginning the development, the developer must apply to the local planning authority for a determination as to whether the prior approval of the authority will be required as to—
(a)	transport and highways impacts of the development;
(b)	noise impacts of the development;
(c)	contamination risks on the site;
(d)	flooding risks on the site, or
(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 the Schedule to the Use Classes Order, and
(f)	the design or external appearance of the building

and the provisions of paragraph W shall apply in relation to any such application.

And (3), where the development proposed is development under Class Q(a) only, development is permitted subject to the condition that before beginning the development, the developer must apply to the local planning authority for a determination as to whether the prior approval of the authority will be required as to the items referred to in sub-paragraphs (1)(a) to (e.) and the provisions of paragraph W of this Part shall apply in relation to that application.

And (4) the development shall begin within a period of three years beginning with the date on which—
(a) any prior approval is granted for that development, or
(b) the period of days referred to in paragraph W(11)(c) of this Part expires without the local planning authority notifying the developer as to whether prior approval for that development is given or refused, whichever is the earlier.

Under paragraph N(2A), the local planning authority may refuse an application where, in the opinion of the authority—
(a) the proposed development does not comply with, or
(b) the developer has provided insufficient information to enable the authority to establish whether the proposed development complies with,
any conditions, limitations or restrictions specified in this Part as being applicable to the development in question.

Section W(9)(as amended) of Schedule 2 Part 3 to the GPDO states that, “the local planning authority [LPA] may require the developer to submit such information as the authority may reasonably require in order to determine the application, which may include—
(a) assessments of impacts or risks;
(b) statements setting out how impacts or risks are to be mitigated; or
(c) details of proposed building or other operations;”

Section W(10)(as amended) of the same Regulations states that, “the local planning authority [LPA] must, when determining an application—
(a) take into account any representations made to them as a result of any consultation under paragraphs (5) or (6) and any notice given under sub-paragraph (8);
(b) have regard to the National Planning Policy Framework issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government in March 2012, so far as relevant to the subject matter of the prior approval, as if the application were a planning application; and
(c) in relation to the contamination risks on the site—
(i) determine whether, as a result of the proposed change of use, taking into account any proposed mitigation, the site will be contaminated land as described in Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990(a), and in doing so have regard to the Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance issued by Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in April 2012, and
(ii) if they determine that the site will be contaminated land, refuse to give prior approval.”

8.	APPRAISAL

8.1.	The key issue for consideration in the application is whether or not the Class Q criteria are satisfied. 

8.2.	Information contained within the supporting statement does not sufficiently demonstrate that the site was used solely for agriculture on 20 March 2013; the land within the red line area appears from the site’s planning history to have been in equestrian or mixed agricultural/equestrian use; thus criterion (a) is not satisfied. If the site had been purely agricultural, criterion (c) would be satisfied as the cumulative number of dwelling houses developed under Class Q within the established unit would not exceed 3.  However, given the site’s planning history and insufficient evidence to show the site is an established agricultural unit, it is considered that criterion (c) is not satisfied.
8.3.	Criterion (d) is not satisfied – no information has been supplied to show whether or not the land is subject to a tenancy agreement. 
8.4.	Criterion (e) is not considered to be satisfied; it is not evident to whether the land was subject to a tenancy agreement with the termination of the agreement occurring because of this application, less than one year before the date development could begin. There are not supporting statement notes to indicate, providing evidence that the tenancy was not terminated for the purposes of Class Q development.
8.5.	Having researched the site history, development under Class A(a) or Class B(a) of Part 6 of Schedule 2 (agricultural buildings and operations) has not been carried out on the established unit since 22.08.2012. Thus, criterion (f) would be satisfied if the site was shown to be part of an established agricultural unit though for the same reasons as relates to (c) above criterion (f) is not satisfied given the uncertainty surrounding the lawful use of the site.
8.6.	The cumulative floor space of the building changing use to Class C3 measures approximately 198 square metres, and thus criterion (b) and (h) would be satisfied if the site was shown to be part of an established agricultural unit though for the same reasons as relates to (c) above criteria (b) and (h) are not satisfied given the uncertainty surrounding the lawful use of the site.
8.7.	The submitted plan drawings ‘FD-SW/2016002’ (Proposed Layouts and Elevations), and ‘FD-SW/2016/001’ (Existing cart shed to be converted to two residential apartments) show that the development would result in the external dimensions of the building extending beyond the external dimensions of the existing building, i.e. porches/porch canopies are proposed; thus (g) is not satisfied.
8.8.	The Plan drawings ‘FD-SW/2016002’ (Proposed Layouts and Elevations), and ‘FD-SW/2016/001’ (Existing cart shed to be converted to two residential apartments), show that works necessary to convert the building into a dwellinghouse would go well beyond building operations reasonably necessary to convert the building outlined under Q(b), therefore criterion (i) is not satisfied.
8.9.	The site is not on article 2(3) land, is not or does not form part of a SSSI, safety hazard area or military explosives storage area, is not or does not contain a scheduled monument, and the building is not listed, and therefore criteria (j) – (m) are satisfied.
8.10.	Curtilage
8.11.	Paragraph X of the GPDO defines the permitted curtilage as “(a) the piece of land, whether enclosed or unenclosed, immediately beside or around the agricultural building, closely associated with and serving the purposes of the agricultural building, or (b) an area of land immediately beside or around the agricultural building no larger than the land area occupied by the agricultural building, whichever is the lesser”.
8.12.	In this instance, the subject buildings have a gross floor area of approximately 198 square metres.  However, no additional land has been proposed as curtilage, and that this needs to be defined in an application to safeguard against land being used for domestic purposes in connection with the proposed dwelling that exceeds the area permissible for such use.
8.13.	Transport and Highways Impacts
8.14.	The local highway authority has not commented on the proposal, there has been no details submitted for a proposed access, parking or manoeuvring arrangements. In accordance with paragraph W (13), Part 3, Schedule 2 of the General Permitted Development Order 2015, the proposed access, parking, manoeuvring arrangements would be not considered acceptable.
8.15.	Location and Siting
8.16.	The regulations state the local planning authority must, when determining a prior approval application, have regard to the National Planning Policy Framework so far as relevant to the subject matter of the prior approval, as if the application were a planning application.
8.17.	Whilst new isolated residential uses in the open countryside are not considered sustainable development within the meaning of paragraph 55 of the Framework, guidance to the Framework states ‘the permitted development right does not apply a test in relation to sustainability of location. This is deliberate as the right recognises that many agricultural buildings will not be in village settlements and may not be able to rely on public transport for their daily needs. Instead, the local planning authority can consider whether the location and siting of the building would make it impractical or undesirable to change use to a house’. Guidance to the Framework states, impractical reflects that the location and siting would “not be sensible or realistic”, and undesirable reflects that it would be “harmful or objectionable”.
8.18.	There exists a metalled access road to the building from the highway, making the proposal location sufficiently practical.
8.19.	The site is located is located between the villages of Shutford and Sibford Ferris both of which contain limited community services, with the site accessed via single lane road. Thus, whilst the location is undesirable due to being in an unsustainable location within the meaning of the Framework, guidance to the Framework states ‘an agricultural building in a location where the local planning authority would not normally grant planning permission for a new dwelling is not a sufficient reason for refusing prior approval’.
8.20.	Thus, overall the material harm to the open countryside, creating an isolated unsustainably located dwelling house impacting the character and appearance of the rural area is outweighed by the support for such proposals which meet the criteria in the regulations.
8.21.	Engagement
8.22.	With regard to the duty set out in paragraphs 186 and 187 of the Framework, no problems or issues have arisen during the application. It is considered that the duty to be positive and proactive has been discharged through the efficient and timely determination of the application.
9.	CONCLUSION
9.1.	The proposed development accords with the criteria (j), (k), (l) and (m), but does not accord with criteria set out in (a) to (i) of Class Q, Part 3, of the Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015. There is a lack of clarity over the proposed curtilage. Thus, on the basis of the information submitted, it is recommended the Local Planning Authority refuse prior approval.
10.	RECOMMENDATION
10.1.	That prior approval is refused, for the following reasons:

The information submitted does not clarify to whether the land subject of this application was in solely agricultural use on the 20th March 2013; it is not evident whether there is a tenancy agreement and whether this has been terminated within a year of this application. The external dimensions of the proposed building extend beyond the external dimensions of the existing building. It is evident that the works proposed to convert the building into a dwelling house go beyond building operations reasonably necessary to convert the building.  In additional, insufficient information has been submitted to clarify the curtilage associated with the proposed dwelling.

The proposed development would therefore not accord with the provisions of Class Q.1 (a) to (i) of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, and that part relating to curtilage.

CASE OFFICER: Olivia Colson		DATE: 2 November 2016	
CHECKED BY:  Nathanael Stock	DATE: 3.11.2016