Lady Flat Farm, Lady Flat Lane, Colton, Tadcaster, LS24 8ES

Lady Flat Farm, Lady Flat Lane, Colton, Tadcaster, LS24 8ES — Selby District Council * — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 2 August 2023 by L Hughes BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 08 August 2023 Appeal Ref: APP/N2739/W/23/3317234 Lady Flat Farm, Lady Flat Lane, Colton, Tadcaster LS24 8ES • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant approval required under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 16, Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). • The appeal is made by M F Pears & Son against the decision of Selby District Council. • The application Ref 2022/1323/ATD, dated 10 November 2022, was refused by notice dated 5 January 2023. • The development proposed is described as the change of use of agricultural building and land to residential use (C3) – three dwellings. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2.

Lady Flat Farm, Lady Flat Lane, Colton, Tadcaster, LS24 8ES — Selby District Council * — Appeal Decision Schedule 2, Part 3, Paragraph W of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO) states that the Local Planning Authority may refuse a prior approval application where in its opinion the proposed development does not comply with, or the developer has provided insufficient information to enable the authority to establish whether the proposed development complies with any conditions, limitations or restrictions specified as being applicable to the development in question. It was on this basis that the Council refused to grant prior approval, and my determination has been made on the same basis. Main Issue 3. The main issue is whether the proposed dwellings would comply with the permitted development requirements set out at Class Q of the GPDO, with specific regard to: • parts Q.(b) and Q.1.(i) and the extent of the proposed cumulative works to the buildings being reasonably necessary to allow for conversion into dwellings; and • part Q.1.(g) as to whether development under Class A(a) or Class B(a) of Part 6 of the GPDO has been carried out on the established agricultural unit. Reasons 4.

Lady Flat Farm, Lady Flat Lane, Colton, Tadcaster, LS24 8ES — Selby District Council * — Appeal Decision The site comprises a large agricultural building in open countryside on an agricultural holding. It lies slightly apart from a detached dwelling within the wider site, off an access track from the corner of Lady Flat Lane and Hagg Lane. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Lady Flat Farm, Lady Flat Lane, Colton, Tadcaster, LS24 8ES — Selby District Council * — Appeal Decision The site comprises a large agricultural building in open countryside on an agricultural holding. It lies slightly apart from a detached dwelling within the wider site, off an access track from the corner of Lady Flat Lane and Hagg Lane. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Lady Flat Farm, Lady Flat Lane, Colton, Tadcaster, LS24 8ES — Selby District Council * — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/N2739/W/23/3317234 5. Class Q.(a) and (b) of the GPDO permit 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), together with building operations reasonably necessary to convert the building to this use, subject to a number of criteria. Paragraph Q.1. sets the circumstances when development would not be permitted. 6. Under the GPDO Part Q.1.(b)(i)(bb), development for a larger dwellinghouse is not permitted if the cumulative floor space of the existing building changing use to a larger dwellinghouse or dwelling houses under Class Q exceeds 465sqm. The Council considers this is not met as the existing building comprises approximately 770 sqm of floor space. However, the Mansell v Tonbridge and Malling BC judgement1confirms that the restriction is on the floor space subject to the change of use, and not on the size of the building in which that change occurs. Therefore, as the 368sqm floor space of the larger dwelling would be less than 465sqm, it would comply with this aspect of the GPDO part Q.1. 7. The Council also considers that the proposal would not comply with parts Q.(b) and Q.1.(i).

Lady Flat Farm, Lady Flat Lane, Colton, Tadcaster, LS24 8ES — Selby District Council * — Appeal Decision These include that development is not permitted if it would consist of building operations other than the installation or replacement of windows, doors, roofs, or exterior walls, to the extent reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwellinghouse, and partial demolition to the extent reasonably necessary to carry out building operations. 8. The Planning Practice Guidance provides further clarification that this permitted development right assumes that the agricultural building is capable of functioning as a dwelling. It also identifies that it is not the intention of the right to allow rebuilding work which would go beyond what is reasonably necessary for the conversion of the building to residential use. Therefore, it is only where the existing building is already suitable for conversion that it would be considered to have the permitted development right. 9. No guidance is provided as to what ‘reasonably necessary’ may mean, which is a matter of judgement. My determination is based on whether I consider the works to be so extensive, substantial, or structural that they would amount to a complete or substantial re-building of the pre-existing structures, rather than conversions. 10.

Lady Flat Farm, Lady Flat Lane, Colton, Tadcaster, LS24 8ES — Selby District Council * — Appeal Decision No structural appraisal has been submitted, however, my site visit did not identify any obvious significant structural damage. The existing steel frame would be retained, and so the works proposed would therefore not be structural in nature. 11. However, the entirety of the roof sheeting would be replaced with standing seam metal cladding. All the corrugated sheeting on the elevations, along with the large area of loose rubber strips on the southern elevation, would also be replaced with standing seam metal cladding. Significant areas of blockwork would be removed. Overall, there would only be a very small proportion of the building remaining, comprising only some blockwork and the frame. This level of demolition and alteration would be so substantial and with such significant proportions of the materials being replaced, that cumulatively this would bring the works involved beyond that of a conversion. 1 8. Mansell v Tonbridge and Malling BC & others [2017] EWCA Civ 1314 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Lady Flat Farm, Lady Flat Lane, Colton, Tadcaster, LS24 8ES — Selby District Council * — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/N2739/W/23/3317234 12. Furthermore, the 2 smaller dwellings would be created using only a small section of the building’s northern wall and the frame. They would have entirely new exterior timber cladded walls in a new position pushed considerably in from that existing. 13. In considering the above aspects in totality, the extent of the proposed cumulative works to the building would not therefore be reasonably necessary to allow for conversion into dwellings. As such, the development is not permitted by the GPDO parts Q.(b) and Q.1.(i). 14. Under the GPDO Part Q.1.(g), development is also not permitted if development under Class A(a) or Class B(a) of Part 6 of the GPDO Schedule 2 has been carried out on the established agricultural unit, during the period 10 years before the Class Q development begins. The relevant criteria under Part 6 relate to the carrying out of various works on agricultural land in an agricultural unit of not less than 0.4 hectares. These works include, amongst other things, the erection, extension, or alteration of a building reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture. 15.

Lady Flat Farm, Lady Flat Lane, Colton, Tadcaster, LS24 8ES — Selby District Council * — Appeal Decision While the appeal building forms part of a long established farm holding and operates under one agricultural holding number, there is reference to the farm comprising various locations. A prior approval application may be refused where the developer has provided insufficient information to establish whether the proposed development complies with any restrictions in the GPDO. I have no evidence of the exact extent of the agricultural holding, and no certainty whether any works under Class A(a) or Class B(a) have been undertaken across the sites comprising the established agricultural unit. 16. Overall therefore, I find that it has not been demonstrated that the proposed change of use to dwellings would satisfy the requirements of Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO. This is with specific regard to the conflict with parts Q.(b) and Q.1.(i), as the extent of the proposed cumulative works to the building would not be reasonably necessary to allow for conversion into dwellings, and the conflict with part Q.1.(g), that development under Class A(a) or Class B(a) of Part 6 of the GPDO may have been carried out on the established agricultural unit.

Lady Flat Farm, Lady Flat Lane, Colton, Tadcaster, LS24 8ES — Selby District Council * — Appeal Decision The proposed development would not comply with the limitations and restrictions specified as being applicable to the proposed development, and consequently, it does not benefit from deemed permission under Class Q. Other Matters 17. Both parties consider that the GPDO Part Q.1.(c)(i)(bb) 100sqm floorspace threshold for smaller dwellinghouses would not be exceeded. However, Article 2(1) of the GPDO provides that, for the purposes of the GPDO, ‘floor space’ means the total floor space in a ‘building’. The GPDO defines a building as including any structure and erection, and includes any part of a building. Therefore, I find that in this instance the covered space under the roof envelope and within the confines of the supporting steel structure could comprise space within a building under this definition, and so the total floor space for each smaller dwelling could be above 100sqm. However, as I have already found above that the proposal would not comply with Class Q overall, this matter has not been determinative to my decision. Accordingly, I have not sought further details from the parties on this basis. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Lady Flat Farm, Lady Flat Lane, Colton, Tadcaster, LS24 8ES — Selby District Council * — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/N2739/W/23/3317234 Conclusion 18. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the proposal is not permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO. Consequently, it is a development for which an application for planning permission would be required, and cannot be addressed through the prior approval provisions set out under paragraph Q.2.(1) of the GPDO. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Lady Flat Farm, Lady Flat Lane, Colton, Tadcaster, LS24 8ES — Selby District Council * — L Hughes INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4