Appeal 6001449

The appeal is allowed and prior approval is granted under the provisions of Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q, paragraphs (a) and (c) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) for the conversion of agricultural building at [site address] in accordance with the application S25/1096, and the details submitted with it, pursuant to Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q, paragraph Q.2, and subject to the following

The works hereby consented shall be carried out in accordance with the following list of approved plans unless otherwise required by another condition of this permission: [name].E001 Proposed Site Plan received 13 June 2025, [name].P002 Proposed Site and Access Plan received 25 June 2025, [name].P010 [name] received 13 June 2025, [name].P0020 [name] received 13 June 2025.

Should the developer during excavation and construction works of the said development site find any area of the site where it is suspected that the land is contaminated then all works must stop, and the local planning authority notified immediately. An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared in accordance with current good practice and legislation and submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, and the approved remediation shall thereafter be implemented. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report must be prepared, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, a plan indicating the heights, positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment and any external lighting to be erected shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details.

Prior to first occupation on site further details relating to the vehicular access to the public highway, including materials, specification of works and construction method shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The approved details shall be implemented on site before the development is first brought in to use and thereafter retained at all times.

Section (a) of Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended), (the GPDO) allows for a change of use of an agricultural building to a dwellinghouse, subject to criteria and conditions set out within that Class.

In light of the decision of the Council, the main issues are: • whether or not it would be impractical or undesirable for the appeal development to take place, having regard to the location and siting of the building, and • whether or not the alterations and demolitions proposed are in excess of those reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwellinghouse.

Condition Q2(1)(e) of the Class requires that the prior approval of the authority will be required as to whether the location or siting of the building makes it impractical or undesirable for the building to change from agricultural use to a use within Class C3.

The building proposed for conversion is a former agricultural building. As one might expect, it is close to other agricultural buildings, and in a rural area. Notwithstanding that, and the Council’s concern that other, nearby agricultural buildings could revert to an uncontrolled, uncontrollable and potentially incompatible use, the appellant has stated that the other agricultural buildings close to the site no longer have a functional link to the surrounding farmland. They have also provided a plan showing their land ownership.

The evidence before me, bolstered by my observations during my site visit, notes that the other agricultural buildings close to the site, the use of which gives the Council cause for concern, are neither in active use, nor intended to return to active use. The appellant notes that these buildings are now in separate ownership to, and no longer functionally related to the agricultural land which adjoins the site.

Whilst that land is clearly still in agricultural use, the location of the site is obviously rural and agricultural in nature. The acceptance of the co-location of agricultural uses and operations with residential conversions allowed under this Class is clearly implicit in the Class. Whilst the conditions do allow for the consideration of whether the location makes the conversion impractical or undesirable, there is nothing in the evidence before me which leads me to conclude that this location, this proposal or the surrounding uses or activities reach or cross that high threshold. In reaching this conclusion, I note the clear advice in the Planning Practice Guidance (the PPG) that the starting point should be that the permitted development right grants planning permission subject to the requirements. There is no robust evidence before me from the Council as to why the conversion would be impractical or undesirable, but there is evidence from the appellant as to why any potential harm which concerns the Council would not arise.

I also note that other, existing residential properties near the appeal site are closer to the existing track and agricultural land than the appeal site. Further, whilst the building subject to the appeal was itself in active use, adjoining residential property was closer to it than it would now be to the other agricultural buildings, land and uses which the Council is concerned with. This is notably so when the demolition proposed is taken into account.

The Council further considers that the nature and length of the track accessing the appeal site contributes to the impracticality and undesirability of the proposed conversion. The track is clearly not of the same nature, surfacing or quality as an adopted highway. However, such a track in a rural area, accessing either agricultural buildings or rural dwellings themselves is not unusual in either its length or condition. Whilst improvements could be made to the track, and in the course of carrying out the development, one might expect them to be made, I do not consider that the nature and length of the access track itself makes the change to residential use impractical or undesirable.

Taking all of that together, I do not find that the location or siting of the building makes it otherwise impractical or undesirable for the building to change from an agricultural use to that proposed here.

The permitted development right under Class Q is subject to a number of criteria. Criterion (j)(i) makes clear that a development would not comply with the regulations if it consisted of building operations other than the installation or replacement of windows, doors, roofs or exterior walls to the extent reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwellinghouse. Similarly, criterion (j)(ii) only allows for partial demolition to the extent reasonably necessary to carry out the building operations otherwise allowed for.

The PPG states that the permitted development right under Class Q assumes that the agricultural building is capable of functioning as a dwelling, and there is no suggestion in the evidence before me that the Council does not consider this to be the case.

Given the condition and construction of the existing building, being a substantial structural framework capable of supporting the works required, I consider that the extent of the works outlined as being necessary to create the proposed dwelling would not be so significant that the proposal could not be construed to be a conversion. The submissions of the appellant make clear that it is intended to retain the substantial structural framework and floor-slab. The overall, fundamental structure of the building would therefore be retained.

The installation of the windows and walls are clearly reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwellinghouse, and indeed, other conditions of the Class refer to the need for natural light.

Turning to the extent of demolition proposed, I am satisfied that the demolition is not proposed in order to bring the floorspace within limits of the Class. As to the necessity of the demolition proposed, I note that there is no requirement within the Class or the PPG that demolition be justified or otherwise absolutely necessary, only that it be partial and reasonably necessary.

Given the condition and nature of construction of the building, including the difference between that part to be retained, and that part to be demolished, the proposed layout, and the need for adequate natural light in all rooms, it appears to me that the demolition proposed is reasonably necessary. Indeed, logically the works allowed for under (j)(i), the installation of walls and windows shown in the drawings, could not happen without the demolition proposed.

For the reasons given above, I am satisfied that the works would therefore not be so significant that they would fall outside of those allowed by Class Q of the GPDO, being outside the extent of what could be considered to be reasonably necessary for conversion.

I therefore find that the building operations proposed are not in excess of those reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwellinghouse, and that the partial demolition proposed is reasonably necessary to carry out the building operations allowed for by the Class. The conversion would require works which fall, in my view, within the remit of those allowed by the Class and the PPG.

Third parties have raised concerns over legal issues relating to the use of the access and the relationship of development proposals to underground services and utilities. These are separate, legal matters which are not for the planning system to address.

Other concerns, including over the sustainability of the site and the rural location are not within the scope of this permitted development right to consider. This is deliberate as the permitted development right recognises that buildings suitable for conversion under this Class will not necessarily be in settlements or otherwise sustainable locations.

I have had regard to the conditions proposed by the Council, as well as those imposed by the Class. In accordance with the GPDO, development must be completed within three years of the date of this decision, so it is not necessary to repeat that condition in this decision. I am satisfied that the other conditions suggested by the Council meet the tests in the National Planning Policy Framework, subject to the addition of external lighting to the condition on boundary treatments, in order to protect the amenity of the occupiers of adjoining and nearby properties.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed, and prior approval should be granted.