Appeal 3281565

The appeal is dismissed.

The original permission1 was granted under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO), subject to the prior approval process of Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q, for the change of use of the agricultural building at the appeal site to one dwelling house, subject to a number of conditions. [name] 2 required the development to be carried out in accordance with two plans.

The appellant subsequently applied to vary this condition, and thus the approved plans, in order to erect a first floor extension over an existing lean-to element of the building. The Council refused that application on the grounds that the proposed extension would harm the traditional rural character and appearance of the former agricultural building and the wider rural landscape character.

However, as the original planning permission was granted under the GPDO, it was subject to a number of limitations. Accordingly, as this appeal seeks to 1 Council reference: DET/2021/0003 vary a condition on that original permission, the main issue in this case is whether or not the amended proposal would be permitted development under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO.

Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO permits development consisting of ‘(a) 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) of the Schedule to the Use Classes Order; [or] (b) [development referred to in paragraph (a) together with] building operations reasonably necessary to convert the building referred to in paragraph (a) to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses) of that Schedule’.

[name].1 goes on to state the circumstances when development is not permitted, with paragraph Q.1.(h) noting that development is not permitted by Class Q if ‘the development would result in the external dimensions of the building extending beyond the external dimensions of the existing building at any given point’. As permission is now being sought for the introduction of additional built form through the erection of a first floor extension, thus going beyond the external dimensions of the building, the appeal proposal would fail to comply with [name].1.(h).

Additionally, paragraph Q.1.(i) states that if ‘the development under Class Q(b) would consist of building operations other than (i) the installation or replacement of (aa)windows, doors, roofs, or exterior walls, or (bb) water, drainage, electricity, gas or other services, to the extent reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwellinghouse; and (ii) partial demolition to the extent reasonably necessary to carry out building operations allowed by paragraph Q.1.(i)(i)’, then, again, it would not be permitted by Class Q.

By virtue of the granting of the original permission, it has therefore been established that the change of use of the appeal building, without the additional built form now proposed, is sufficient for the building to function as a dwellinghouse. As such, the extent of the building operations proposed through the addition of a first floor extension goes beyond what is reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwellinghouse, thus the amended proposal fails to comply with paragraph Q.1.(i).

Taking all the above into consideration, I conclude that the proposed variation of condition No 2 of the original planning permission, so as to allow a first floor side extension to be erected, would fail to comply with the requirements of permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO. With this in mind, it is not necessary for me to make a determination of whether prior approval is required for the design or external appearance of the building under paragraph Q.2.(1)(f).

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.