Coventry Gliding Club Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Harborough District Council & Anor

For prior approval under Class Q, a local planning authority must consider whether the building’s location or siting makes residential conversion impracticable or undesirable. That obligation includes material noise and safety risks arising from neighbouring land uses and access arrangements. Notice displayed under paragraph W(8) must in fact be near the relevant land. The requirement is flexible and fact-sensitive, but a conspicuously placed notice may still be too remote or poorly connected with the application site. A generic permitted-development fallback is relevant only where there is a realistic prospect of the relied-on use, not merely a theoretical possibility. A claim challenging a prior-approval decision is made under the planning acts for CPR 54.5(5), although time may be extended where the breach is explained and the circumstances justify relief.

The claimant, a gliding club, sought judicial review of Harborough District Council’s decision to grant prior approval for the conversion of an agricultural barn at Airfield Farm into a dwelling under Class Q of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015. The barn’s access track crossed the gliding club’s runway, and the proposed dwelling was close to the club’s operations.

The claim challenged the adequacy of the publicity, the Council’s treatment of noise and safety considerations, its reliance on a possible fallback use under Class B of Part 4, the adequacy and rationality of its reasons, and the time taken to commence proceedings.

1. Notice. Whether a notice is displayed “near” the relevant land under paragraph W(8) of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the GPDO is an objective question of fact. No fixed distance applies; rural context and the purpose of putting neighbours on notice are relevant. The notice placed opposite the gliding club entrance, about 900 metres from the barn and away from its access track, was not sufficiently near. Ground 1 succeeded.
2. Relevant considerations. Paragraph Q.2(1)(e) required the Council to consider whether the barn’s location or siting made residential conversion impracticable or undesirable. In this case, the likely noise impact on residents and the safety risks created by the access track crossing the runway were relevant considerations. The officer’s report did not address either matter. A benevolent reading of the report, applying the approach in R(Mansell) v Tunbridge and Malling Borough Council [2017] EWCA Civ 1134, could not cure that omission. Ground 2 succeeded.
3. Fallback use. The possible use of Airfield Farm under Class B of Part 4 was not a matter to which sensible weight could attach. The possibility was theoretical, there was no history of such use, and no specific evidence of intended future use. The court applied the fact-sensitive approach described in Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2019] EWCA Civ 333.
4. Time. A prior-approval decision under the GPDO is a decision “under the planning acts” for CPR 54.5(5), because the GPDO operates through sections 58 to 60 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The claim was therefore late. Applying the principles in Denton v TH White [2014] 1 WLR 3926, the court extended time because the defective notice explained the initial delay, the subsequent steps were taken promptly, and there was no prejudice.
5. The reasons and irrationality grounds did not require determination. The claim succeeded. The remedy, including the claimant’s proposed human-rights arguments, was adjourned for a further hearing after notice to the Secretary of State under section 5 of the Human Rights Act 1998.