Appeal 6000912

The appeal is dismissed.

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). In line with transitional arrangements, I have determined this appeal in accordance with the GPDO provisions that were in place 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.

The appellant provided an additional report to the original structural report after the Council’s decision was issued. It did not form the basis of the Council’s decision, and it is not for the appeal procedure to advance proposals. This is best achieved through the submission of revised planning applications. As such, I have proceeded to determine the appeal on the basis of the evidence on which the Council made its decision.

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(b) because it considers the scale of operational works proposed exceeds what could be considered to be reasonable and necessary to enable the building to function as a dwelling.

The main issue is therefore whether the proposal would be permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q.1(i) of the GPDO having regard to whether the proposal would result in building operations reasonably necessary to convert the building to a dwelling house.

The appeal scheme seeks to convert an agricultural building which comprises of two sections. The appellant has submitted a [name] which outlines the schedule of works to give a general overview of the work required to convert the building.

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. 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 case of Hibbitt v SSCLG [2016] EWHC 2853 (Admin) 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.

The Structural Survey highlights that the existing roof coverings, purlins, primary steel frame, timber wall panelling and perimeter sheeting would not require modification. Moreover, it states that new timber frame walling would be added into the existing openings amongst other things. Notably, the report outlines that the primary structure of both sections is suitable to be retained in the conversion to a dwelling.

I acknowledge that Q1(i)(i)(aa) provides that the installation or replacement of exterior walls or roofs to the extent reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwellinghouse. However, the appeal scheme would result in the demolition of two bays which would equate to around 28 percent of the total floorspace of the existing building and notably remove a significant proportion of existing substantial blockwork elements. This would likely require the installation of several new external walls given that the existing rear wall of the rear section of the appeal building is not full length. Consequently, based on the evidence before me, the proposed building operations include the substantial construction of significant portions of the appeal building. Therefore, in my planning judgement, this work would result in the rebuilding of the existing agricultural building rather than a conversion.

Furthermore, whilst the structural report refers to the roofing materials, there is limited substantial evidence before me to adequately demonstrate that the roof’s condition is adequate for the conversion of the appeal building to a dwelling. Additionally, the [name] states that the block work, timber and sheeting elements appear to be in relatively good condition with the exception of areas previously noted. There is limited substantive evidence regarding the previously noted areas of exception. Thus, in my planning judgement, it has not been adequately demonstrated that the proposed works would constitute a conversion rather than a rebuild.

[name] acknowledge that the [name] was based upon a visual inspection of the barn and thus there is limited substantive evidence regarding the foundations of the building, I am mindful that the Class Q permitted development right assumes that the agricultural building can function as a dwelling. Nevertheless, it remains that based on the evidence before me, especially given the likely construction of a number of external walls, the proposed building works would, in my planning judgement, amount to a substantial re-build of the barn rather than a conversion.

Regarding the appeal decisions at Oversley Green and [address] Farm, I do not have the full circumstances of them and therefore cannot be certain that they are wholly comparable to the appeal scheme before me. Nevertheless, each application is determined on its own merits.

I acknowledge the guidance contained within the PPG regarding internal works not generally constituting development, however, this does not alter my overall conclusion particularly regarding the demolition of two bays and consequent likely construction of walls.

In conclusion, I am not satisfied that the proposed scale of the operational works would result in building operations reasonably necessary to convert the appeal building to dwellinghouse under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q.(1)(i) of the GPDO.

There is no need for me to go on and to consider the effect of the proposed development with regard to the prior approval matters specified in paragraph Q.2. under Class Q as it would not alter the outcome of the appeal.

The appeal scheme would provide accessible residential accommodation for a person with a protected characteristic. [name] acknowledge, the positive impact this would have for the individual, I am unable to consider the benefits of the development given that I have identified that the development fails to comply with the conditions and limitations on Class Q. Nevertheless, the appellant could still, without prejudice, investigate alternative designs or sites. Accordingly, the appellant’s reasons for proposing the specific works that are before me, do not support a grant of prior approval.

In conclusion, for the reasons given above it is necessary and proportionate to refuse prior approval and the appeal should be dismissed.