Appeal 6000481

The appeal is allowed and prior approval is granted under the provisions of Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) for change of use of an agricultural building to residential (Class C3) and associated operational development at [site address] , Hartlebury, Worcestershire [postcode] in accordance with the application W/25/01085/GPDQ made on 20 May 2025 and the details submitted with it including plan nos 25.06.03 [name] (Floor Plan), 25.06.04 [name] (Elevations) and The Map Shop 1:1250 scale (Location Plan).

On 21 May 2024, [name] 2024 No. 579 ([name]. 579) came into force amending Article 3(1), Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO). Due to the transitional arrangements, I have proceeded to determine this appeal in accordance with the GPDO provisions that were in force prior to 21 May 2024. All references to the GPDO in this decision therefore relate to the version that was in force at that time.

I have removed words not in relation to acts of development from the banner heading above for clarity.

Class Q of the GPDO permits development consisting of 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 (dwellinghouse) of the Schedule to the Use Classes Order, together with building operations which are reasonably necessary to enable the conversion of the building. This is subject to limitations and conditions as set out in paragraph Q.1 and Q.2 of Class Q.

The GPDO states that the local planning authority can refuse an application where, in the opinion of the authority – (a) the proposed development does not comply with, or (b) the developer has provided insufficient information to enable the authority to establish whether the proposed development complies with the conditions, limitations or restrictions set out in paragraphs Q.1 and Q.2.

The Council contends that the development is not permitted development under Class Q.1(a) because it considers that insufficient information has been provided to adequately demonstrate that the appeal building formed part of an agricultural unit on the 20 March 2013 or if the building was in use before that date but was not in use on that date, when it was last in use. Furthermore, it also contends that the scale of the operational work required to alter the use of the building to a dwelling would be beyond what would be reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwellinghouse.

Consequently, the main issues are whether the appeal proposal would be permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 3 Class Q of the GPDO with particular regard to: • whether the building was an agricultural building and the site was used solely for an agricultural use as part of an established agricultural unit; and • whether the proposal would result in building operations reasonably necessary to convert the buildings to dwellinghouses in respect of Class Q.1(i).

[name].1(a) outlines that development is not permitted by Class Q if the site was not used solely for an agricultural use as part of an established agricultural unit (i) on 20 March 2013, or (ii) in the case of a building which was in use before that date but was not in use on that date, when it was last in use or (iii) in the case of a site which was brought into use after 20 March 2013, for a period of at least 10 years before the date development under Class Q begins.

[name] of the GPDO defines an agricultural building as a building (excluding a dwellinghouse) used for agriculture and which is so used for the purposes of a trade or business. Additionally, it defines for the purposes of Class Q, an established agricultural unit as agricultural land occupied as a unit for the purpose of agriculture on or before 20 March 2013 or for 10 years before the date the development begins. Whether or not this is the case is a matter of fact and degree based on the merits of the case and the evidence presented.

The appeal building is a detached steel frame dual-pitched roof barn (the barn) and dates to approximately the 1960’s. The appellant highlights that it has been used for the storage of potatoes and grain as part of the commercial agricultural practices in the adjoining fields. Additionally, that it has also been used for the storage of agricultural machinery. I have no substantive evidence concerning more recent usage. Therefore, to my mind and based on the evidence before me, the last active use of the barn was for agricultural purposes.

Regarding the matter of whether the appeal barn was part of an established agricultural unit, the Council refers to the planning history of the appeal site and the wider site in the 1980’s and 1990’s. They refer to the conversion of the former historic farmstead at [site address] to residential use as well as the 5 converted, brick-built barns that now exist to the south of the dwellinghouse and barn subject of this appeal. Reference is made to planning history regarding extensions to the main dwelling in which the Council highlights that the appeal barn was included for residential use. Consequently, the appeal barn was likely separated from the main farmyard because of these permissions. Notably, the applicant has outlined that the former land within the agricultural unit was sold which has left the barn redundant.

However, the Council accepts that a proportion of land along either side of the vehicular driveway leading to both the dwelling and appeal barn could be identified as land within the agricultural unit. [name] acknowledge the complex planning history including the separation of the barn from the main farmyard, on the balance of probabilities, including the land either side of the driveway, in my judgement the barn subject of this appeal was likely to be part of an agricultural unit when last in use.

The Council has referred to the need for the barn to be part of an established agricultural unit at the time of the submission of the prior approval application. However, this is not a requirement given that the appeal before me is being determined under the GPDO that was in force prior to May 2024.

Regarding appeal decisions at [address], Barn at [address], [name] do not have the full circumstances of these appeals and therefore cannot be certain that they are wholly comparable to the appeal scheme before me. Moreover, each application is determined on its own merits. Nevertheless, given the site-specific context, planning history and evidence before me, they do not lead me to a different conclusion.

In conclusion, based on the evidence before me, the proposal complies with paragraph Q.1(a) of the GPDO. Accordingly, the proposal benefits from the permitted development rights under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO.

Class Q.1(i) of the GPDO permits the installation or replacement of windows, doors, roofs, or exterior walls, or water, drainage, electricity, gas or other services, to the extent reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwellinghouse; and partial demolition to the extent reasonably necessary to carry out the aforementioned building operations.

Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states that the Class Q permitted development right is not intended to allow rebuilding work which would go beyond what is reasonably necessary for the conversion of the building to residential use. This includes the installation or replacement of roofs and external walls to the extent that is reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwelling house.

Considering the judgement of Oates v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2018] [name] 2229, PPG outlines that internal works are not generally development and that for the building to function as a dwelling it may be appropriate to undertake internal structural works including internal walls amongst other things1.

The appeal building is a single storey steel portal framed building with an asbestos cement cladded roof and walls which are constructed in half brick thick masonry panels, it also includes a monopitch lean to. A structural report dated May 2025 outlines that all elements of the appeal building are in good structural condition.

Furthermore, it states that the proposed works for the appeal scheme would retain the existing steel frame and include amongst other things the construction of a perimeter outer wall cladding. Further confirmation has been provided by the author of the structural report stating that the reference to the perimeter outer wall cladding was in relation to the provision of a new timber wall internally to the perimeter. This would provide the required insulation to the building walls.

The appeal scheme would replace the existing asbestos cement roof cladding however, it would to my mind, result in a building operation which would be reasonably necessary to convert the agricultural building to a dwelling.

I acknowledge that the structural report was a visual inspection and that one of the elevations of the barn is partially obscured to view because of vegetation whilst another could not be inspected externally. These were both evaluated internally in the structural report. I am mindful that the Class Q permitted development right assumes that the agricultural building is capable of functioning as a dwelling. Consequently, in my judgement, the structural report provides sufficient evidence to adequately demonstrate that these walls would not require a fresh build.

Regarding concerns in relation to the thickness of the existing corrugated iron cladding and its ability to be retained and withstand the weight of internal insulation; there is limited substantive evidence to adequately demonstrate that it would be unable to support internal insulation, especially considering the structural report. Additionally, the structural report outlines that new windows and doors would be supported by the existing brickwork wall panels and would not require modification of existing primary structural frame elements. The PPG is clear that internal works are not generally development and thus on balance, would comprise works that are reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwellinghouse.

The Council have cited the case of Hibbitt v SSCLG [2016] EWHC 2853 (Admin) which held that the building must be capable of conversion to residential use without operations amounting to a complete or substantial re-building of the pre-existing structure. I have identified above that the proposed building works would not amount to a complete or substantial re-build of the barn given the retention of the existing frame and walling as well as the appropriateness of the internal works which would accord with PPG and thereby would be included within the parameters of the Class Q permitted development right.

Regarding appeal decisions at [name] and [address], I do not have the full circumstances of the decision before me and therefore cannot be certain that it is wholly comparable to the appeal scheme before me. Moreover, each case is determined on its own merits. However, it is notable that in the [address] decision the Inspector highlights that the inspection of the building was undertaken 1 Planning Practice Guidance Paragraph: 105 [name]: 13-105-20180615 by a chartered architect and no structural report was provided. This is unlike the appeal before me, which whilst it was a visual inspection a structural report was provided by a firm of consulting civil and structural engineers. Given the site-specific context of the appeal barn before me, they do not lead me to a different conclusion on this matter.

On the evidence presented, I am satisfied that the building is capable of conversion to residential use without amounting to complete or substantial reconstruction of the structure. The proposed works would be within the scope of that permissible under Class Q(b) and [name].1(i) of the GPDO.

Notwithstanding the recommended conditions outlined by the Highway Authority which I address later in the decision, the Council raises no other concerns in relation to the prior approval matters contained in paragraph Q.2 (1) the GPDO, which relate to transport and highways, noise, contamination, flooding, location or siting, design or external appearance and the provision of adequate natural light in all habitable rooms. Based on my observations on site and on the evidence before me, I have no reason to take a different view in respect of these matters.

[name].(13) of the GPDO allows conditions to be imposed that are reasonably related to the subject matter of the prior approval. I have also had regard to the tests in the National Planning Policy Framework and relevant elements of PPG. The additional conditions are set out in the schedule at the end of this decision.

The GPDO imposes a condition in paragraph Q.2(3) requiring the development to be completed within a period of three years starting with the prior approval date. Additionally, paragraph W.(12) of Schedule 2, Part 3 of the GPDO requires development to be carried out in accordance with the details approved.

It is necessary to impose conditions requiring the first five metres of the access into the development to be surfaced in a bound material as well as the provision of three parking spaces within the curtilage of the dwelling in the interests of highway safety (1 and 2).

Finally, I have imposed a condition requiring secure cycle parking in the interests of sustainable transport which I consider to be reasonably related to the subject matter of the prior approval (3).

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed and prior approval should be granted.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the first 5m of the access into the development, measured from the edge of the carriageway, has been surfaced in a bound material and shall be retained as such thereafter.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until a space has been laid out within the curtilage of the dwelling for the parking of 3 cars at a gradient not exceeding 1 in 8. This space shall thereafter be kept available at all times for the parking of vehicles.

Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted details of sheltered and secure bicycle parking to comply with the Council’s adopted highway design guide shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved bicycle parking shall be kept available for the storage of bicycles and retained thereafter. ==============END OF CONDITIONS=============