Appeal 6000707

The appeal is dismissed.

The site address in the heading above is taken from the Council’s decision notice. This was also used in the appellant’s appeal form and more clearly describes the location of the site than the address used on the planning application form.

On 21 May 2024, [name] 2024 No 579 came into force amending Article 3(1), Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the General Permitted Development Order (the GPDO). Under the transitional arrangements, the appellant has elected to use the permitted development right as it stood prior to 21 May 2024 and I have determined the appeal on that basis. All references to the GPDO in this decision therefore relate to the version that was in force prior to 21 May 2024.

Class Q.(a) allows change from a use as an agricultural building to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses) of the Use Classes Order. Class Q.(b) allows building operations which are reasonably necessary to convert the building to such a use.

The point at issue between the parties is whether the proposed development satisfies Class Q.(b) in relation to whether it includes building operations other than those permitted under Class Q1.(i) (i) and whether they are reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwellinghouse.

Against this background, I consider the main issue in this appeal to be whether the proposal would be permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO, having regard to the building operations reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwellinghouse.

The building is a mono-pitched single storey building clad partly in corrugated steel sheeting and timber boarding with blockwork forming the lower walls on its north western and south western elevations. It has a profiled sheeting roof.

Whilst the appellant’s structural engineer’s inspection report1 concluded that the building is in “very good condition structurally”, it is a general report with a number of significant caveats. These include its findings being based solely on a visual survey with no intrusive investigations being made. The foundations of the building were not exposed or inspected unless visible at the surface and the south-eastern elevation of the building was not inspected due to its position abutting an embankment.

The structural engineer’s inspection report nevertheless identifies that additional timbers may be required in various parts of the roof structure due to the loads from the proposed insulation and finishes. However, it is not clear from the evidence where these timbers would be required. Whilst the appellant’s evidence states that the works to the roof would be to strengthen approximately 5 timber beams, nor is it clear from the evidence where these strengthening works would take place. It is not evident to me how, if at all, this and the additional loads created by the conversion would affect the structure of the building or its foundations.

Although it is suggested that the “basic timber carcass” of the livestock sheds could remain in place, neither the report nor the proposed plans, demonstrate the role that the “carcass” would play in supporting the proposed dwelling. Moreover, whilst the appellant suggests that the structure is very capable of supporting the majority of the additional loads, the plans and report do not demonstrate how this would be achieved.

Even though building operations consisting of the installation or replacement of windows, doors, roofs or exterior walls are permitted by paragraph Q.1(i)(i) of the GPDO, the proposed plans do not show the structural framework of the existing building or include details of how it would support the walls and roof of the converted building. Whilst existing openings are shown on the plans either to have new windows or glazing inserted in them, the plans do not distinguish between the parts of the existing building to be retained and where new building operations, including new walls, would take place.

Planning Practice Guidance states 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. It is only where the existing building is already suitable for conversion to residential use that the building would be considered to have the permitted development right. The Hibbitt judgement2 confirms that the assessment of whether a proposal goes beyond the permitted development rights provided by Class Q for the conversion of the building is a matter of planning judgement.

[name].(3)(b) of Part 3 of the GPDO indicates that an application may be refused where the developer has provided insufficient information. In my judgement, it is not clear from the evidence how much of the existing building 1 ‘[name]:- Barn at [address], [address], Totnes.’ [name] 2025 2 Hibbitt v. SSCLG(1) and Rushcliffe Borough Council (2) [2016] EWHC 2853 (Admin) would be retained or the role that the existing structure would have in supporting the required building operations. The proposed plans and the structural engineer’s inspection report are not detailed enough to provide me with sufficient certainty about the extent of the building operations required to enable the building to function as a dwellinghouse. I therefore cannot be sure that rebuilding work would not take place which would go beyond that reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwellinghouse.

Therefore, for the reasons given, I cannot conclude that the proposal would fall within the scope of permitted development rights under Class Q and would be permitted development.

Paragraph Q2. of the GPDO requires that development permitted under Class Q is subject to a number of conditions. However, in view of my conclusion on the main issue, it is not necessary for me to consider whether the proposal would comply with those conditions, including the effect of the proposal on the setting of the [name]* registered park and garden at [address].

Although it is suggested that the proposal could be an exemplar in “adaptive re-use” and provide housing for an older couple, for the reasons already given, I am not convinced from the evidence before me that the proposal would meet the requirements of Class Q of the GPDO.

The Council indicates that the site is located within the flight corridor of the Greater Horseshoe Bat Special Area of Conservation (SAC). Article 3(1) of the GPDO grants planning permission for classes of development as set out in Schedule 2 subject to Regulations 75 to 78 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. This provides that it is a condition of any planning permission granted by the GPDO that development which is a) likely to have a significant effect on a European site or offshore marine site, alone or in combination with other plans or projects and b) not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site, must not begin until the developer has received written notification of the approval of the local planning authority under Regulation 77. A Regulation 77 application may be submitted and determined separately to an application for prior approval and I have determined the appeal accordingly.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.