When permitted development goes right and wrong: lessons from recent appeal decisions

The Coe Farm appeal concerned a prior approval application under Class Q of the GDPO for the change of use of agricultural buildings to three dwellings. The appeal is notable because the Planning Inspector found the application to be invalid due to an omission in the submitted plans - the appeal was ultimately dismissed for this reason.

Paragraph W(2)(bc) of the GPDO requires that a Class Q prior approval application must include a floor plan indicating the dimensions and proposed use of each room, the position of windows, doors and walls, and the elevations of the dwellinghouses.

The plans submitted for Coe Farm did show the total floor space and elevation of each dwelling, the floor space and proposed use of each room, and the positions of windows, doors and walls. However, the plans did not state the dimensions of each room or of the windows, doors and walls. Although the drawings contained a scale bar, from which these measurements could be derived, the Inspector held that this did not satisfy the explicit requirement that the floor plan must indicate the dimensions.

The GPDO does not define “dimensions”, so the Inspector applied “the plain English definition”, being a measurable extent such as width, height or depth. The absence of these measurements on the face of the plans meant that the statutory requirement was not met.

Because the plans did not include the required dimensions, the Inspector concluded that the submission was not a valid prior approval application. 

A further illustration of the importance of submitting complete drawings which comply with the requirements of the relevant permitted development rights is the appeal with reference APP/M1710/W/21/3266609 (23 Greenfields Avenue, Alton) which was a prior approval application under the requirements of Class AA of the GDPO for the enlargement of a dwellinghouse by the construction of additional storeys.

Paragraph AA.1(h) (in short) requires that the internal height of any additional storey should not exceed the lower of: (i) 3 metres, or, (ii) the height of any storey of the main part of the existing dwellinghouse.

In paragraph 11 of the decision, the Inspector noted that though the application was supported by a drawing, this did not include a section plan, which would have shown the relationship between the proposed extension and the existing ground levels.

Without this, the Inspector felt it was not possible to fully understand the scale or visual impact of the development and the appeal was dismissed (though in this instance it is worth noting that there were several other development-specific factors which led to the Inspector’s decision).

In contrast, there was a different outcome in the Shatters Road appeal (with reference APP/A1530/W/23/3327471). The appeal concerned a prior approval application for an agricultural barn under Class A of the GPDO (for construction of a building necessary for the purposes of agriculture). The “Original Plan” was submitted as part of the application and the council then requested a different “Subsequent Plan”.

The key issue for determination was whether the Original Plan submitted with the application was sufficient to qualify as a plan “indicating the site” pursuant to the terms of Paragraph A.2 (2)(ii) of the GPDO, making the application valid.

The Inspector found that the drawing provided by the applicant clearly indicated the site of the proposed agricultural building in relation to its surroundings, including Shatters Road. The Original Plan (taken together with the written description of the proposed development, the materials to be used and payment of the fee) was sufficient for the application to meet the requirements of Paragraph A.2 (2)(ii).

The council treated the Subsequent Plan as valid, rather than the Original Plan, apparently because the Subsequent Plan differentiated the “site” and the planning unit for the purposes of the GPDO.

The Inspector disagreed. Taking an objective approach of the requirement in Paragraph A.2 (2)(ii) of the GPDO for “a plan indicating the site”, the Inspector found that the Original Plan was sufficient. The Inspector found that there was no requirement in the GDPO for any specific type of plan indicating the site in any particular way or showing the land comprising the agricultural unit in question, given the other information contained in the appellant’s application form.

These three decisions demonstrate that permitted development rights are highly specific and that each class within the GPDO has its own procedural and evidential requirements. Applicants must ensure that their submissions include all information expressly required by the GPDO and that the level of detail is appropriate to the specific prior approval matters under consideration. Failure to do so can result in a finding that no valid application existed at all. Expert advice should be sought at early stages of the application to ensure a smooth process and to avoid unnecessary delays.