Case 3278432

Anglesey Farm Shop, Anglesey Farm, Lode, Cambridgeshire, CB25 9HD

East Cambridgeshire District Council — appeal allowed

Outcome
Allowed
Decision date
28 April 2022
Authority
East Cambridgeshire District Council
Inspector
Simpson L
Procedure
Written Representations
Casework type
Planning Appeal
Type detail
Unknown
Development type
Minor Dwellings
Appellant
Mr and Mrs R Peters
Agent
Acorus Rural Property Services Ltd
LPA reference
21/00045/ARN
ONS LPA code
E07000009
Jurisdiction
Transferred
Link status
Not Linked
Start date
8 November 2021

Summary AI

The appeal was allowed because the proposed development met the requirements of Paragraph Q.1(g) of the GPDO, and the Disputed Barn was not carried out under Part 6 permitted development rights.

Generated from the decision letter — check against the original before relying on it.

PDF text

Page 1 · Chunk 0 Appeal Decision

Anglesey Farm Shop, Anglesey Farm, Lode, Cambridgeshire, CB25 9HD — East Cambridgeshire District Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 March 2022 by Luke Simpson BSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28 April 2022 Appeal Ref: APP/V0510/W/21/3278432 Anglesey Farm, Lode Fen, Lode CB25 9HD • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant approval required under 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 Mr and Mrs Richard Peters against the decision of East Cambridgeshire District Council. • The application Ref 21/00045/ARN, dated 14 January 2021, was refused by notice dated 30 March 2021. • The development proposed is Change of use of two agricultural buildings (barns) to five residential dwellinghouses (C3). Decision 1.

Page 1 · Chunk 1 Appeal Decision

Anglesey Farm Shop, Anglesey Farm, Lode, Cambridgeshire, CB25 9HD — East Cambridgeshire District Council — Appeal Decision The appeal is allowed and prior approval is granted under the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q(b) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (the GPDO) for Change of use of two agricultural buildings (barns) to five residential dwellinghouses (C3) at Anglesey Farm, Lode Fen, Lode CB25 9HD in accordance with the details submitted with application reference 21/00045/ARN, dated 14 January 2021. The approval is subject to the conditions set out under Class Q, including that the development must be completed within a period of 3 years from the date of this decision in accordance with Paragraph Q.2 (3) and subject to the following additional conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan Rev C, Site Plan Rev C, AH0918166/03A, AH0918166/01B, AH0918166/02A, AH0918166/04D and AH0918166/06. 2) In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported to the Local Planning Authority within 48 hours.

Page 1 · Chunk 2 Appeal Decision

Anglesey Farm Shop, Anglesey Farm, Lode, Cambridgeshire, CB25 9HD — East Cambridgeshire District Council — Appeal Decision No further works shall take place until an investigation and risk assessment has been undertaken and submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Where remediation is necessary, a remediation scheme must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The necessary remediation works shall be undertaken, and following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report must be prepared, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 3) The development hereby permitted shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) ECL0357/PETERS, dated https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Page 1 · Chunk 3 Appeal Decision

Anglesey Farm Shop, Anglesey Farm, Lode, Cambridgeshire, CB25 9HD — East Cambridgeshire District Council — Appeal Decision No further works shall take place until an investigation and risk assessment has been undertaken and submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Where remediation is necessary, a remediation scheme must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The necessary remediation works shall be undertaken, and following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report must be prepared, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 3) The development hereby permitted shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) ECL0357/PETERS, dated https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Page 2 · Chunk 4 Appeal Decision

Anglesey Farm Shop, Anglesey Farm, Lode, Cambridgeshire, CB25 9HD — East Cambridgeshire District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/V0510/W/21/3278432 November 2020 by Ellingham Consulting Ltd and the mitigation measures detailed within the FRA will be implemented prior to first occupation of each dwelling hereby approved. Application for costs 2. An application for costs was made by Mr and Mrs Richard Peters against East Cambridgeshire District Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision. Preliminary Matters 3. I have taken the description of development from the Council’s decision notice as this more accurately reflects the proposed development. The appellants have agreed to the use of this description. Main Issue 4. The main issue in this appeal is whether the proposed change of use and facilitating operations would be permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (GPDO). Reasons 5. The proposed development is for the change of use of two agricultural buildings to five residential dwellings. These include the ‘small barn’ and the ‘large barn’. These existing agricultural buildings are situated at the southern end of Anglesey Farm.

Page 2 · Chunk 5 Appeal Decision

Anglesey Farm Shop, Anglesey Farm, Lode, Cambridgeshire, CB25 9HD — East Cambridgeshire District Council — Appeal Decision There are various other buildings within the agricultural unit including a barn (hereafter referred to as the ‘Disputed Barn’) located approximately 100 metres to the north of the aforementioned barns 6. GPDO paragraph Q.1(g) outlines that development is not permitted under Class Q where ‘development under Class A(a) or Class B(a) of Part 6 of this Schedule [Schedule 2 to the GPDO] (agricultural buildings and operations) has been carried out on the established agricultural unit— (i) since 20th March 2013’. The only matter of contention between the main parties is whether or not this limitation is breached as a result of the construction (either in a partial or complete state) of the Disputed Barn. Neither main party contends that the Disputed Barn was erected before 20th March 2013 nor that it falls outside of the agricultural unit. 7. The evidence before me indicates that the appellants submitted prior notification to the Council of development of an agricultural barn under Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A(a) of the GPDO. In response, on 19 January 2018 the Council confirmed1 that the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority was not required (hereafter referred to as the ‘2018 Prior Approval’).

Page 2 · Chunk 6 Appeal Decision

Anglesey Farm Shop, Anglesey Farm, Lode, Cambridgeshire, CB25 9HD — East Cambridgeshire District Council — Appeal Decision Both parties acknowledge that development then subsequently commenced, involving the erection of at least part of the Disputed Barn on the same site as that identified in the 2018 Prior Approval. 8. The appellants indicate that, on 13 June 2018, they received advice from their agent that the building (as erected) did not constitute permitted development under the GPDO. The appellants allege that this was because the building was designed and intended for ‘livestock use’ and was located within 400 metres of 1 Council Reference: 17/02228/AGN https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Page 2 · Chunk 7 Appeal Decision

Anglesey Farm Shop, Anglesey Farm, Lode, Cambridgeshire, CB25 9HD — East Cambridgeshire District Council — Appeal Decision Both parties acknowledge that development then subsequently commenced, involving the erection of at least part of the Disputed Barn on the same site as that identified in the 2018 Prior Approval. 8. The appellants indicate that, on 13 June 2018, they received advice from their agent that the building (as erected) did not constitute permitted development under the GPDO. The appellants allege that this was because the building was designed and intended for ‘livestock use’ and was located within 400 metres of 1 Council Reference: 17/02228/AGN https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Page 3 · Chunk 8 Appeal Decision

Anglesey Farm Shop, Anglesey Farm, Lode, Cambridgeshire, CB25 9HD — East Cambridgeshire District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/V0510/W/21/3278432 a dwelling2, as well as being constructed of different materials to those which were specified under the 2018 Prior Approval. As a result, the appellants submitted an application to the Council for planning permission for a ‘proposed agricultural building (part retrospective)’. The Council granted planning permission on 26th October 20183. 9. In order for a development to have lawfully been carried out under Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the GPDO it must comply with the limitations and conditions set out therein. 10. A photograph of the Disputed Barn shown in the Council’s Statement of Case demonstrates that on 11 September 2018 the building had not been erected in accordance with the plans pursuant to the 2018 Prior Approval. Indeed, the building as erected included walls comprising pre-cast concrete with timber boarding above, as opposed to the ‘green metal cladding’ sheets approved under the 2018 Prior Approval. Under Class A, Paragraph A.2(2)(v)(aa) states that the development must be undertaken in accordance with the details approved where prior approval is required.

Page 3 · Chunk 9 Appeal Decision

Anglesey Farm Shop, Anglesey Farm, Lode, Cambridgeshire, CB25 9HD — East Cambridgeshire District Council — Appeal Decision As such, at that time, the building breached this condition and the development had not therefore been carried out under Part 6. Whether or not the building has the same dimensions and siting as shown on the plans approved under the 2018 Prior Approval does not alter this conclusion. This is because the materials used in this case are fundamental to the appearance of the building, with a clear and significant distinction between the appearance of timber boarding and green metal cladding. 11. Furthermore, whilst it is unclear whether the building had been used for housing livestock at the time the planning application was submitted, it is evident that this proposed use was one of the reasons for the submission of that application. Indeed, in the absence of a separate planning permission, had the building been used for housing livestock upon completion then it would have breached the condition set out at Paragraph A.1(i), given the proximity in relation to neighbouring residential properties. 12.

Page 3 · Chunk 10 Appeal Decision

Anglesey Farm Shop, Anglesey Farm, Lode, Cambridgeshire, CB25 9HD — East Cambridgeshire District Council — Appeal Decision In addition, the condition set out under A.2(7) requires that where development is permitted by Class A(a), within 7 days of the date on which the development is substantially completed, the developer must notify the local planning authority in writing of that fact. There is no evidence to indicate that any such notification was sent to the Council. I note that the photograph included in the Council’s statement of case shows that the construction of the building had reached an advanced stage on 11 September 2018, prior to the grant of planning permission. Nonetheless, this photograph does not demonstrate that the development had already been carried out under Part 6, given that the development comprises different materials from those described on the 2018 Prior Approval plans and that no notification had been sent to the Council confirming substantial completion. 13. Citing case law4, the Council has indicated that the commencement of development can comprise the laying of foundations, which I accept. The Council suggests that the laying of foundations in itself can constitute development that has been ‘carried out’ for the purposes of Part 6.

Page 3 · Chunk 11 Appeal Decision

Anglesey Farm Shop, Anglesey Farm, Lode, Cambridgeshire, CB25 9HD — East Cambridgeshire District Council — Appeal Decision However, to 2 Breaching a limitation set out under Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A, Paragraph A.1.(i) of GPDO 3 Council Reference: 18/01079/FUL 4 Malvern Hills District Council v SSE and another [1982] 1 EGLR 175 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Page 3 · Chunk 12 Appeal Decision

Anglesey Farm Shop, Anglesey Farm, Lode, Cambridgeshire, CB25 9HD — East Cambridgeshire District Council — Appeal Decision However, to 2 Breaching a limitation set out under Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A, Paragraph A.1.(i) of GPDO 3 Council Reference: 18/01079/FUL 4 Malvern Hills District Council v SSE and another [1982] 1 EGLR 175 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Page 4 · Chunk 13 Appeal Decision

Anglesey Farm Shop, Anglesey Farm, Lode, Cambridgeshire, CB25 9HD — East Cambridgeshire District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/V0510/W/21/3278432 follow this logic would involve ignoring the development in situ at this present time (or indeed at the time that the planning application was submitted) and stripping it back until a point is reached where it might have been considered to have been lawfully carried out under Part 6 (when foundations were laid for example). I do not concur with this interpretation of the term ‘carried out’. Indeed, at the point that the development comprised different materials to those specified in the prior notification application it no longer constituted permitted development carried out under Part 6. Furthermore, there is evidence5 to indicate that it was always the appellants’ intention to erect a building to house cattle. As such, even if I were to accept that the term ‘carried out’ included the laying of foundations there is no way to distinguish whether those foundations were being laid for the 2018 Prior Approval development or the cattle barn, but the evidence indicates that the latter is more likely. 14.

Page 4 · Chunk 14 Appeal Decision

Anglesey Farm Shop, Anglesey Farm, Lode, Cambridgeshire, CB25 9HD — East Cambridgeshire District Council — Appeal Decision In summary, it is evident that the development of the Disputed Barn has not been carried out under Part 6 and neither had it been at the point that the Council Planning Officer visited the site in 2018. As such, regardless of whether the term ‘carried out’ refers to a partially completed or completed building, in this case neither the completed nor partially completed building were carried out under Part 6 permitted development rights. It is not for me to confirm whether or not the building has been constructed in accordance with the planning permission. 15. The proposed development therefore meets the requirements of Paragraph Q.1(g). The Council do not contend that there are any other conditions, limitations or requirements within Class Q which are not met or satisfied. There is therefore no need to give them further consideration in this decision. Conditions 16. I have imposed conditions to ensure that, in accordance with the GPDO, development must be carried out within three years from the date of this decision and in compliance with the approved plans. 17.

Page 4 · Chunk 15 Appeal Decision

Anglesey Farm Shop, Anglesey Farm, Lode, Cambridgeshire, CB25 9HD — East Cambridgeshire District Council — Appeal Decision I have imposed a condition requiring any unidentified contamination to be reported and remediated, in the interest of public health and protection of the environment. 18. I have imposed a condition requiring adherence to the measures in the submitted Flood Risk Assessment, in the interest of ensuring that the development is not susceptible to flood risk. 19. The Council suggested a condition to ensure retention of the external materials but the details submitted with the application are sufficient to control this and therefore such a condition is unnecessary. 5 LPA SoC Para 3.10 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4

Page 4 · Chunk 16 Appeal Decision

Anglesey Farm Shop, Anglesey Farm, Lode, Cambridgeshire, CB25 9HD — East Cambridgeshire District Council — Appeal Decision I have imposed a condition requiring any unidentified contamination to be reported and remediated, in the interest of public health and protection of the environment. 18. I have imposed a condition requiring adherence to the measures in the submitted Flood Risk Assessment, in the interest of ensuring that the development is not susceptible to flood risk. 19. The Council suggested a condition to ensure retention of the external materials but the details submitted with the application are sufficient to control this and therefore such a condition is unnecessary. 5 LPA SoC Para 3.10 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4 Appeal Decision APP/V0510/W/21/3278432 Conclusion 20. For the reasons given above, I find that the proposed development is permitted development and as such, having considered all matters raised, the appeal is allowed and approval is granted.

Page 5 · Chunk 17 Luke Simpson

Anglesey Farm Shop, Anglesey Farm, Lode, Cambridgeshire, CB25 9HD — East Cambridgeshire District Council — Luke Simpson INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5

Extracted from the decision letter PDF and shown in full, chunk by chunk.

Main issues and findings

Heritage impact
Against appellant
¶6

The Disputed Barn's construction breached the condition set out under Class A, Paragraph A.2(2)(v)(aa), as it was not undertaken in accordance with the details approved under the 2018 Prior Approval.

Living conditions
Against appellant
¶11

The proposed use of the building as a cattle barn would have breached the condition set out at Paragraph A.1(i), given the proximity to neighbouring residential properties.

Agricultural land
Against appellant
¶12

The development of the Disputed Barn had not been carried out under Part 6, as no notification was sent to the Council confirming substantial completion.

Other
Against appellant
¶14

The term 'carried out' in Part 6 refers to a completed building, and in this case, the Disputed Barn was not carried out under Part 6 permitted development rights.

Policies relied on

Reference Weight
GPDO Q.1(g)
Determinative
Class A, Paragraph A.2(2)(v)(aa)
Substantial
Class A, Paragraph A.1(i)
Substantial

Site constraints from the Casework Database

Conservation area
Green belt
Listed building setting
AONB
SSSI
Flooding an issue

Source

Decision letter, 5 pages, issued by the Planning Inspectorate on 28 April 2022 under the Open Government Licence.