Appeal 6001237

The appeal is dismissed.

On 21 May 2024, the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) (Amendment) Order 2024/579 came into force, which made changes to Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, (the GPDO). Transitional arrangements were set out under the amending Order, which allowed a developer to make a prior approval application in relation to the previously permitted development under Class Q until the end of 20 May 2025. Given that the appeal scheme was applied for by the appellant and refused by the Council before that date, I have considered the proposal against the previous version of the GPDO.

Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 3, 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 (dwellinghouses) of the Schedule of the Town and Country Planning ([name]) Order 1987 (as amended) and the building operations reasonably necessary to convert the building. This is subject to various limitations and conditions as set out in [name].1 and Q.2 of that Class.

Schedule 2, Part 3, [name] of the GPDO outlines the prior approval process, and provides that a local planning authority may refuse an application where, in the opinion of the authority, the proposed development does not comply with, or the developer has provided insufficient information to enable the authority to establish whether the proposed development complies with any conditions, limitations or restrictions specified as being applicable to the development in question.

The Council refused the application on the basis of failure to comply with [name].1(g) due to alterations to the appeal building undertaken under Class A(a) or Class B(a) of Part 6 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO during the period 10 years before the date development under Class Q begins. The officer report confirms that all other limitations, conditions and prior approval matters were satisfied. No other issues are before me.

Accordingly, the main issue in this appeal is whether the installation of new vertical timber cladding and corrugated sheeting means that permission cannot be granted for the development by the GPDO.

The photographic evidence before me shows that new vertical timber cladding and corrugated sheeting were installed on the side elevations of both barns between November 2021 and April 2025.

The appellant argues that the cladding and sheeting do not constitute development by virtue of Section 55(2)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the 1990 Act). This provides that the carrying out of works for the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of any building, where such works affect only the interior of the building or do not materially affect its external appearance, shall not be taken to involve development.

The appellant contends that Section 55(2)(a) contains two distinct limbs, and that for this appeal, the only question is whether the works were an ‘alteration’ for the purpose of Part 6, Class A of Schedule 2 to the GPDO.

However, on a plain and natural reading of the provision, ‘maintenance’, ‘improvement’ and ‘other alteration’ are all grouped as a single class of operations, all of which are subject to qualifying requirements that they must either be internal or must not materially affect the external appearance in order to fall outside the definition of development.

The installation of the cladding and sheeting resulted in a clear and visible change to the external appearance of the buildings. I therefore find that the installation of the new cladding and sheeting amounted to building operations within the meaning of Section 55(1) of the 1990 Act.

The appellant refers to Parkes v SSE [1979] 1 [name] 211 for support in the contention that the works were not a physical alteration to the land but instead were routine maintenance that had no permanent effect on the land on which the building is sited. However, the 1990 Act defines land as including any building, so it is unclear how this is of direct relevance to this case. As previously noted, maintenance still falls within the definition of development in the 1990 Act and is only exempt if it is internal or does not affect the external appearance of a building. Whether it is considered ‘maintenance’ or ‘alteration’ is of limited relevance.

Having found that the works constitute development, the next question is whether they are permitted by Part 6 of the GPDO. Class A(a) permits the erection, extension or alteration of a building where the works are reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within the unit.

The appellant states that the cladding and sheeting were installed to improve weather protection, which is consistent with maintaining the buildings for agricultural use. In the absence of any evidence suggesting a non-agricultural purpose, and given the agricultural character of the unit, it is reasonable to conclude that the works were undertaken for agricultural purposes. On that basis, they may fall within the scope of development that can be permitted under Part 6, Class A(a).

The appellant suggests that the works were maintenance rather than the type of works that should be considered alterations normally permitted by Part 6. However, I have found that they are development and it has not been shown that they would have been permitted by any other means. Therefore, even if the limitation in [name].1(g) does not apply, Article 3(5) of the GPDO would appear to be engaged. Article 3(5) provides that permitted development rights under Schedule 2 do not apply where the building operations involved in the construction of the building are unlawful.

Thus, in the absence of any evidence demonstrating that the cladding and sheeting were installed lawfully, the permitted development rights relied upon under Class Q would not apply in any event. This would remain the case even if the cladding and sheeting were not development under Part 6, Class A(a).

As the installation of the cladding and sheeting constitute development, it appears that they were either unlawful, or if they were permitted, that must have been under Part 6, Class A(a) and as they were carried out within the last ten years, the limitation in [name].1(g) is engaged. This prevents the buildings from benefitting from Class Q permitted development rights.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed.