Appeal 6001123

The appeal is dismissed.

There are inconsistencies between the application drawings, the schedule of building condition statement and the Council’s delegated officers report, as to the buildings to be demolished, and those to be retained and converted as part of the application. The appellant has submitted with their statement of case, drawing number AL01 in clarification. For the purposes of the appeal, I have used this drawing as the basis of my determination, as this drawing also accords with drawing number PD01-RevC submitted with the application. Accordingly, buildings 1 ([name] & B), 2 ([name]), 4 ([name] & E) and 6A ([name]) are proposed to be retained and converted to Class C3 (dwellinghouses). Building 5A is proposed to be retained but is not proposed for conversion as part of the application, it would, therefore, retain its agricultural use were the appeal allowed.

The appeal relates to thirteen buildings of varying constructions, which together form [site address] Buildings. Under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (hereafter referred to as the GPDO), development is permitted for the change of use of a building that is part of an established agricultural unit and any land within that buildings curtilage, from use as an agricultural building to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses) of Schedule 1 to the Use Classes Order, together with building operations reasonably necessary to convert the building to that use, or to extend the building, subject to certain limitations and conditions.

The Council considers that the proposal has not adequately demonstrated that the demolition proposed is necessary for the buildings to function as dwellinghouses, or that the buildings are capable of conversion without significant new building operations, that go beyond that reasonably necessary to convert the buildings. They consider it therefore fails to comply with Class Q.1(j)(i) and Class Q.1(j)(ii) of the GPDO and would therefore not benefit from the permitted development rights outlined in part Q(c).

Furthermore, the Council considers that had permitted development rights applied, the works required to make the vehicular access to the proposal acceptable, would fall outside that which could be considered under the GPDO. They further consider that the location and siting of the buildings, is impractical and undesirable for dwellinghouses. Consequently, they consider the proposal does not satisfy criterion Q.2(1)(a) transport and highways impacts of development, or Q.2(1)(e) the location or siting of the buildings makes it otherwise impractical or undesirable for the buildings to change from agricultural use to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses) of Schedule 1 to the Use Classes Order.

The main issues in this case are therefore, (i) whether the proposed development would constitute permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO, with particular regard to Q.1(j)(i) and Q.1(j)(ii); and, if the proposal does constitute permitted development, whether it would meet criteria Q.2(1)(a) and Q.2(1)(e), and therefore, whether prior approval would be required and should be granted.

[name].1 of the GPDO defines that development is not permitted by Class Q if: (j) the development under Class Q(c) would consist of building operations other than: (i) 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 (ii) partial demolition to the extent reasonably necessary to carry out building operations allowed by paragraph Q.1(j)(i).

The appeal site (the site) consists of 13 identifiable buildings. The majority are detached buildings, with only a small number, 1 and 1A, 5 and 5A, and buildings 6 and 6A that are attached. Buildings 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are all fully detached.

Buildings 1, 2, 4 and 6A are proposed to be converted to dwellings. At my visit, I examined buildings 1 and 6A and find that owing to their age, extent, type and condition of the existing structures and external envelopes of these buildings, they would both be capable of meeting the criterion of Q.1(j)(i) of the GPDO, for conversion from agricultural use to buildings under a residential use class.

Building 2 consists of a timber column system to the perimeter walls and at the mid-span position of the building. The metal roof sheet is supported by timber beams between columns at the perimeter walls and at the central column support point but has limited support otherwise. There are missing roof supports in places, notably by the entrance to the building. The columns were supported from a concrete floor slab, both at the central column line and at the perimeter, though it was not possible to determine whether they were cast into the floor slab or supported independently from a foundation. The overall condition of the building, which was generally a lightweight structure, was poor.

Building 4 consisted of a similar timber structural column system to building 2, though the roof and wall structure had been substantially lined internally with a cladding material, which had subsequently been painted. The roof sheet was supported by timber beams between columns at the perimeter walls and at the central column support point but had limited support otherwise. The columns were supported from a concrete floor slab, both at the central column line and at the perimeter, though it was not possible to determine whether they were cast into the floor slab or supported independently from a foundation. The overall condition of the lightweight structure of the building was also poor.

Advice on the interpretation of Class Q is contained within paragraph 105 of the Planning Practice Guidance (the PPG). It advises that 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 rights. The guidance also draws attention to relevant caselaw1 on the differences between conversion works and those which reflect a rebuild. The latter would not be permissible under Class Q, but the judgment in each case is a matter of fact and degree.

The original application contained limited evidence of the condition of the existing buildings, other than a three-page Schedule of Condition document, together with an annotated site plan drawing number SURV01. However, these appear not to have been updated from their use on a previous prior approval application on the same site2, as they reference the partial demolition of buildings 2, 6 and 6A to achieve a reduction in floor areas, to stay within the floor area allowed under [name]. This clearly relates to the [name] requirements of the GPDO, prior to their May 2025 amendment, under which this application at appeal must be determined.

Whilst the GPDO does not explicitly require the submission of a structural condition and suitability report of the existing buildings with an application, there is insufficient evidence before me of the existing buildings’ capability to meet criterion Q.1(j)(i) of the GPDO. Given the format and condition of buildings 2 and 4, and the evidence submitted, I find that it has not been demonstrated that the building operations required to enable these buildings to function as dwellings, would not go well beyond that reasonably necessary to convert the buildings. As a matter of fact, and degree, I find that it would more closely resemble a rebuild as defined in Hibbitt. It would therefore not meet criterion Q.1(j)(i) of the GPDO.

Turning to paragraph Q.1(j)(ii), having examined the layouts of the proposed residential dwellings, it is evident that buildings 1A, 5 and 6, would need to be completely demolished to allow the installation or replacement of windows, doors and exterior walls to buildings 1 and 6A, so as to provide adequate natural light to the habitable rooms of these units in compliance with paragraph Q.2(g) of the GPDO. This is identified on the application drawings. I therefore find the extent of demolition to be reasonably necessary to carry out building operations allowed by paragraph Q.1(j)(i) of the GPDO. 1 Hibbitt and Another v SSCLG (1) and Rushcliffe Borough Council (2) [2016] EWHC 2853 2 PL/2024/07460

Buildings 3, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are proposed to be demolished in their entirety. Given the proximity of buildings 3, 7, 8 and 9 to Buildings 2 and 4, and of building 10 to building 6A, buildings 3, 7, 8, 9 and 10 require complete removal to provide adequate natural light to the habitable rooms of the converted units in compliance with paragraph Q.2(g) of the GPDO. This is also identified on the application drawings. I therefore find the extent of demolition to be reasonably necessary to carry out building operations allowed by paragraph Q.1(j)(i) of the GPDO.

As buildings 3, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are detached, they would not represent partial demolition of an existing building undergoing conversion, and so, in strictest terms, would not be covered by the definitions in paragraph Q.1(j)(ii). However, they could be demolished under Schedule 2, Part 11, Class B of the GPDO. At my visit, it was evident that buildings 7, 9 and 10 were in very poor condition, with structure failing, resulting in partial collapse of parts of the roofs of these buildings. Their removal would, therefore, be required to ensure the safety of future residents, irrespective of their relationship to the buildings proposed to be converted. For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposals would accord with criterion Q.1(j)(ii) of the GPDO.

However, as I have found that the works required to convert buildings 2 and 4 would not accord with criterion Q.1(j)(i) of the GPDO, overall, I am unable to conclude that the proposals would consist only of building operations reasonably necessary for the buildings to function as dwellinghouses. As such, the proposal would not benefit from permitted development rights under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q(c) of the GPDO.

The conditions set out in paragraph Q.2(1)(a) to (g) relate to details of the proposed development, including transport and highways, noise, contamination, flooding, location or siting, design or external appearance, and the provision of adequate natural light. Given that I have found that the proposal would not benefit from permitted development rights, there is no need for me to assess the proposal against the criteria of Q.2 of the GPDO.

The appeal proposal included, within [name] of the transport assessment, proposals for the upgrading of the existing vehicular access to the site, through the implementation of works to improve the visibility splays at its junction with the A345 [address]. These works would fall outside the scope of the Class Q permitted development rights and therefore cannot be considered under this appeal. They would require approval under a separate detailed planning application process.

Further, the proposed vision splay works fall outside the red line boundary of the application, and there is no evidence submitted which defines that the works are within land under the control of the appellant. Whilst the appellant considers that this is something that could be addressed by an appropriately worded ‘Grampian’ condition, there is no certainty that the required vision splay works could be secured. Accordingly, I find that these are issues that would have resulted in the proposal not meeting criterion Q.2(1)(a) of the GPDO, and dismissal on these grounds, had the proposal been found to be permitted development.

The Council consider the location and siting of the proposals to be impractical and undesirable for the buildings to change from agricultural use to a use falling under Class C3 (dwellinghouses) of Schedule 1 the Use Classes Order 1987 (as amended). However, paragraph 108 of the PPG identifies that the permitted development right does not apply a test in relation to sustainability of location. This is deliberate as the right recognises that many agricultural buildings will not be in village settlements and may not be able to rely on public transport for their daily needs. Instead, the PPG advises that local planning authorities can consider whether the location and siting of the building would make it impractical or undesirable to change the use to residential.

The PPG advises in paragraph 109, that the local planning authority should apply a reasonable ordinary dictionary meaning in making any judgment. Impractical reflects that the location and siting would “not be sensible or realistic”, and undesirable reflects that it would be “harmful or objectionable”. The PPG identifies that impractical may be where the location may not have road access, a power source or other services making its conversion impractical. Additionally, the location of the building whose use would change may be undesirable if it is adjacent to other uses, such as intensive poultry farming buildings, silage storage or buildings with dangerous machines or chemicals.

Taking the above into account, I find that the location and siting of the buildings of the proposal would not make it impractical or undesirable when considered against the PPG definitions contained in paragraph 109. The site is served by a vehicular access, though it does have sub-standard visibility, and there are services to the site. The conversion of the buildings would not result in the proposed dwellings having harmful or objectionable relationships with adjacent other uses. Accordingly, I find that the proposal would accord with paragraph Q.2(1)(e) of the GPDO.

The site lies within the River Avon Special Area of Conservation (SAC) catchment area. [name] am dismissing the appeal there is no need for me to further consider the effect of the proposal on the integrity of the SAC. However, were the appeal to be allowed, it would have been incumbent on the developer, to receive written notification of approval from the Local Planning Authority, including the carrying out of an appropriate assessment, for an application made under Regulation 77 of the Conservation of Habitats and Regulations 2017, prior to commencement of any permitted development works.

My attention has been drawn to concerns from third parties regarding several issues including the previous proposals at the site, its access arrangements, the effects of traffic and highway safety, amongst others. Some of these matters fall outside the scope of Class Q of the GPDO, whilst others would only be necessary to consider if [name] was required. However, as I am dismissing the appeal, it is not necessary for me to consider these points further.

For the above reasons, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal should be dismissed.