Appeal 3255597

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] against the decision of Three Rivers District Council. This application is subject of a separate Decision.

The application for prior approval was made under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the ‘GPDO’). Class Q permits the change of use of agricultural buildings to dwellings, with associated operational development, subject to the criteria set out within the legislation.

The Council refused the application on the grounds that the proposal did not comply with the permitted development requirements in Class Q of the GDPO because it would amount to rebuilding rather than conversion and it would exceed the maximum cumulative floorspace requirements. The Council also referred to condition Q.2 (1) (f) relating to the proposed buildings’ design and external appearance in its reasons for refusal.

The main issues are whether the proposed building operations would fall within the scope of a conversion, and if so whether the proposal would fall within the limitations for it to be permitted development and whether condition Q.2 (1)(f) relating to the design and external appearance would be met.

Class Q(b) of the GPDO permits building operations reasonably necessary to convert the building to a use falling within Class C3. Class Q.1.(i) allows for the installation or replacement of windows, doors, roofs or external walls. However, paragraph 105 of the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) clarifies that it is not the intention of the permitted development right to allow rebuilding work which would go beyond what is reasonably necessary for the conversion of the building to residential use. PPG refers to the Hibbitt Case1 which established that if the proposed works amount to a rebuild rather than a conversion then it fails at the first hurdle.

The existing agricultural building comprises 7 concrete portal frames infilled with approximately 3 metre high block work side walls and covered with a cement based corrugated roof. One end is open, and the other end has a block work gable wall with an entrance opening. Vertical wooden slats between the top of the walls and the eaves provide ventilation. At the gable ends they extend down from the roof to eaves level. The floor is concrete with 2 feed troughs extending the length of the building and some distance beyond.

The proposed development would include removing all the walls and roof. The concrete portal frame, floor and foundations would be retained. It is not proposed to rebuild the walls or install windows and doors between the portal frame columns. Instead, new external walls would be built and set in from the position of the original walls. According to the appellant, this is so that the residential floor space would fall beneath the floor space limitations set out in Q.1. A new roof would be constructed although it would be smaller than the original roof, and what is described as a mezzanine floor would be added.

The appellant states that the proposed building would be structurally dependent on the existing frame, foundations, floor, and base. The structural report submitted with the application variously states that the location and position of the first floor mezzanine allowed it to be supported on the existing framework, that the new ground floor walls will offer full support to the upper floors wherever possible, and that the internal construction will add no additional weight to the existing framework except at the gable ends as it is largely self supporting. A steel frame is indicated in drawing no S/3314-317 [name]. However, it is not clear from the plans to what extent it is intended to support the proposed dwellings and how, or whether, it would be attached to the retained portal frame or existing floor.

I appreciate that conversions can involve substantial work, including internal alterations which would not fall within the definition of development. However, given the various contrasting statements in the structural report, and that the proposed development would require all new external walls, in a different position to the original ones, and a new roof with different dimensions and constructed of different materials, I share the Council’s doubts over the extent to which the proposed building would be dependent on the existing structure.

In my view, the proposed development would in practical terms be starting afresh rather than being what could be reasonably described as a conversion. I therefore conclude that the works necessary to create the dwellings from the 1Hibbitt and another v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (1) and Rushcliffe Borough Council (2) [2016] EWHC 2853 (Admin). building on site would not fall within the scope of that which is permissible under [name](b) and therefore would not be permitted development.

Given that the proposed building operations would not fall within the scope of a conversion, it is not necessary for me to consider whether the proposal would fall within the limitations for it to be permitted development and whether condition Q.2 (1) (f) relating to the design and external appearance of the proposed buildings would be met.

The appellant has suggested that the Council has been inconsistent in that it granted a previous prior approval application to convert the building. [name] have no details of the scheme referred to, I understand that it was different to the proposal, and therefore not directly comparable, as it comprised 5 rather than 3 dwellinghouses. Also, the Council has stated that it made an error in granting it prior approval. Furthermore, the application subject of this appeal is described by the appellant as a repeat application after prior approval was previously refused on 28 January 2020. If that is the case, it seems to me that the Council has acted consistently in determining similar cases. In anycase, I have come to my own view regarding the proposal rather than relying on the approach the Council may have taken previously.

I have had regard to the appeals referred to by the appellant. In most examples an element of the existing external walls was retained rather than just the structure supporting them, and as such they are not directly comparable. In other cases, appeals related to the floorspace limitations and I have found this is not a matter I need to consider.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.