Case 3303443

Enterprise Nurseries, Ely Road, Landbeach, Cambridge, CB25 9NN

South Cambridgeshire District Council — appeal dismissed

Outcome
Dismissed
Decision date
29 December 2022
Authority
South Cambridgeshire District Council
Inspector
Robinson N
Procedure
Written Representations
Casework type
Planning Appeal
Type detail
Planning Appeals - Outline
Development type
Minor retail and services
Appellant
Grasshopper Park Ltd
LPA reference
22/00082/PRIOR
ONS LPA code
E07000012
Jurisdiction
Transferred
Link status
Not Linked
Start date
11 October 2022

Summary AI

The appeal for a motel conversion of a glasshouse/barn was dismissed due to insufficient information to establish whether the proposal is permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class R of the GPDO.

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

PDF text

Page 1 · Chunk 0 Appeal Decision

Enterprise Nurseries, Ely Road, Landbeach, Cambridge, CB25 9NN — South Cambridgeshire District Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 6 December 2022 by Nichola Robinson BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 December 2022 Appeal Ref: APP/W0530/W/22/3303443 Enterprise Nurseries, Ely Road, Landbeach, CB25 9NN • 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 R of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015. • The appeal is made by Mr James Crickmore (Grasshopper Park Ltd) against the decision of South Cambridgeshire District Council. • The application Ref 22/00082/PRIOR, dated 23 December 2021, was refused by notice dated 7 March 2022. • The development proposed is conversion of existing glasshouse/barn to a 6 bedroom motel. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. Under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 3, Class R of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (the GPDO), planning permission is granted for change of use of a building and any land within its curtilage from a use as an agricultural building to a range of flexible uses subject to limitations and conditions.

Page 1 · Chunk 1 Appeal Decision

Enterprise Nurseries, Ely Road, Landbeach, Cambridge, CB25 9NN — South Cambridgeshire District Council — Appeal Decision One such use is class C1, which is the proposal in this case (in the form of a motel). I have considered the appeal in this way. Background and Main Issue 3. Development permitted by Class R relates to the change of use of a building and any land within its curtilage. This right does not extend to the erection of a new building. 4. The floor area of the building exceeds 150m2. Development permitted by Class R is subject to the conditions in Paragraph R.3 which require that, where the floorspace exceeds 150 square metres, the developer must apply to the local planning authority for a determination as to whether prior approval is required as to specified impacts before beginning the development. 5. Therefore, the main issues are whether the proposal would be permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class R of the GPDO and, if so, whether prior approval should be granted. Reasons Whether permitted development https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Page 2 · Chunk 2 Appeal Decision

Enterprise Nurseries, Ely Road, Landbeach, Cambridge, CB25 9NN — South Cambridgeshire District Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/W0530/W/22/3303443 6. The building subject of the appeal is a glass house supported by a lightweight metal frame sitting on a concrete base. The building contains glazing on all sides and part of the front and rear elevations incorporate blockwork and timber cladding. 7. The permitted development (PD) right under Class R does not include associated operational development that would be reasonably necessary to facilitate the change of use. Therefore, the PD right under Class R is restricted to the change of use only and, if agreed, any subsequent physical works are then to be the subject of separate consideration as part of a planning application. The appellant states that a reasonable proportion of the existing structure can be retained, and the proposal does not amount to a total rebuild. 8. Notwithstanding the above, the Council states that the developer has provided insufficient information to establish whether the proposal amounts to a change of use or the erection of a new building.

Page 2 · Chunk 3 Appeal Decision

Enterprise Nurseries, Ely Road, Landbeach, Cambridge, CB25 9NN — South Cambridgeshire District Council — Appeal Decision Therefore, it is stated that the proposal conflicts with Part W (3)(b) of the GPDO which sets out that the local planning authority may refuse an application where the developer has provided insufficient information to establish whether the proposed development complies with any conditions, limitations or restrictions applicable to the development in question. 9. The proposal is not supported by a structural report and at my site visit I observed that the building appeared to be in poor condition. Based on the information submitted and my observations on site it appears that the proposal would necessitate substantial alterations to the building including structural alterations and the replacement of the roof and walls. There is no information regarding whether the supporting structure would be strong enough to take the external wall and roof loads that would be necessary to provide for the proposed use. Thus, there is insufficient information to establish whether the proposal could be carried out without considerable alterations which would amount to a complete rebuild. It therefore follows that there is insufficient evidence that the proposals would benefit from the PD rights under Class R of the GPDO. 10.

Page 2 · Chunk 4 Appeal Decision

Enterprise Nurseries, Ely Road, Landbeach, Cambridge, CB25 9NN — South Cambridgeshire District Council — Appeal Decision In reaching the above findings I have taken into account an appeal decision1 for a change of use under Class R PD rights in which the Inspector concluded that operational development reasonably necessary to use the land or building for the proposed use is required to be the subject of a separate planning permission. Therefore, he concluded, it was not necessary to consider the extent of such alterations as part of a prior approval application. However, in that case the Council did not object on grounds of the adequacy of information to assess the proposal. Furthermore, the Inspector noted that the proposal was supported by structural reports and found that the building was structurally in good condition. Thus, he concluded that it was capable of accommodating an alternative use. Therefore, that proposal was supported by sufficient information to establish whether it complied with the conditions, limitations or restrictions of Part R and is not directly comparable to the appeal proposal. Prior approval 11.

Page 2 · Chunk 5 Appeal Decision

Enterprise Nurseries, Ely Road, Landbeach, Cambridge, CB25 9NN — South Cambridgeshire District Council — Appeal Decision Given my conclusion that it has not been demonstrated that the proposed change of use would be PD under Class R of the GPDO, there is no need for me 1 Reference APP/D0840/W/20/3254577 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/W0530/W/22/3303443 to consider whether prior approval would be required as it would not alter the outcome of the appeal. Conclusion 12. For the reasons given and based upon the evidence before me, I conclude that insufficient information has been provided to establish whether the proposal is PD under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class R of the GPDO. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

Page 3 · Chunk 6 Nichola Robinson

Enterprise Nurseries, Ely Road, Landbeach, Cambridge, CB25 9NN — South Cambridgeshire District Council — Nichola Robinson INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

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

Main issues and findings

Housing land supply
Against appellant
¶4

The proposal exceeds 150m2 floor area, requiring prior approval which was not demonstrated to be required.

Heritage impact
Against appellant
¶9

The proposal would necessitate substantial alterations to the building, including structural alterations and replacement of the roof and walls, with no information on whether the supporting structure is strong enough for the loads required.

Planning obligations
Against appellant
¶8

The developer provided insufficient information to establish whether the proposal amounts to a change of use or the erection of a new building, conflicting with Part W (3)(b) of the GPDO.

Other
Against appellant
¶10

A previous appeal decision was cited, but it was not directly comparable to the current proposal due to differences in information and structural condition of the building.

Policies relied on

Reference Weight
GPDO Part R.3
Determinative

Site constraints from the Casework Database

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

Source

Decision letter, 3 pages, issued by the Planning Inspectorate on 29 December 2022 under the Open Government Licence.