Appeal 6001687

The appeal is allowed and prior approval is granted under the provisions of Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) for change of use of an agricultural building to a dwellinghouse at [site address] in accordance with the application ref 25/02112/COUQ and the details submitted with it, including plan nos 01F ([name] and Block Plan); 02C (Proposed Plan & Elevations).

An application for costs has been made by the appellant, [name], against the Council. This is subject to a separate decision.

No description of development was given on the application form, although the supporting information refers to the description given in the banner above. This appropriately describes the proposed development.

The Council refused the application on the basis that the building operations would exceed the amount of works reasonably necessary to convert the building to a dwellinghouse and so, would fail to meet part Q.1 (j) of the GPDO. Also, it refused the application due to impact on protected species and their roosts and so, would in its opinion, fail to meet condition Q.2 (1) (e) of the GPDO.

However, Article 3(1) of the GPDO grants planning permission for classes of development set out in Schedule 2, subject to Regulations 75-78 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (the [name]). Therefore, a decision on a prior approval is without prejudice to the Regulation 77 process which, if required, would need to be followed separately. The prior approval matters set out under Q.2(1) do not allow for consideration of any effect of the development on protected species and the power to impose conditions on a grant of prior approval under Part 3, paragraph W(13) is limited to conditions reasonably related to the subject matter of the prior approval. Consequently, it follows that the effect of the proposed development on bats is outside of my remit.

In view of the above, the main issue is whether the proposed building operations are reasonably necessary to convert the building to a dwelling house and so, whether the proposal would comprise permitted development under Class Q of the GPDO.

Class Q.1 of the GPDO sets out limitations on the building operations, including that under part (j) the development would consist of building operations other than- (i) the installation or replacement of (aa) windows, doors, roofs, or exterior walls, or (bb) 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 these building operations.

Paragraph 105 of the Planning Practice Guidance (the PPG) advises that the right under Class Q, permits building operations which are reasonably necessary to convert the building, which may include those which would affect the external appearance of the building and would otherwise require planning permission. Although, the PPG sets out 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. Consequently, it is only where the existing building is already suitable for conversion to residential use that it would be considered to have the permitted development right.

The GPDO and the PPG do not define the term ‘reasonably necessary.’ Therefore, this is a matter of planning judgement based on fact and degree of an individual case. In reference to the Hibbitt judgement1, this discusses the difference between conversions and rebuilding. While in the Hibbitt case, it relates to a building of a different, more skeletal appearance compared to that of the appeal building, the considerations therein are of relevance to the appeal proposal.

The most recent structural survey of the appeal building, by Tier Consult Group (May 2025), comprises a visual inspection and refers to previous structural engineer reports carried out. While there are some cracks in the dado walls, the recent structural report sets out that this has not affected the structural integrity of the building and that overall, no significant structural remedial works would be required to convert the building. Additionally, a separate report by Eradicure identifies that the existing timberwork is structurally sound even though some treatment and repairs would be required to it. Furthermore, based on the evidence provided with the application, including other structural surveys and representations from interested parties, the Council’s Building Inspector considers it has been demonstrated that the appeal building could be converted.

The appeal building does not have a skeletal and minimalist appearance and no evidence has been provided to show it is structurally unsound. A number of works would be required to convert it to a dwelling, including increasing the height of the internal dado walls, replacement external wall cladding and roof covering, new 1 Hibbitt and another v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (1) and Rushcliffe Borough Council (2) [2016] EWHC 2853 (Admin) windows and doors and repair and replacement works to some elements of the building, and a new internal floor. However, much of these works would be required to ensure appropriate damp proofing, repairs, and other requirements, including to meet relevant building control standards for its conversion to a dwellinghouse.

In comparing the previous structural report submitted in support of the 20202 prior approval to the structural report for the appeal proposal, this does not demonstrate that the integrity of the building has significantly diminished during the time period. Furthermore, even if the building needs repairs and that some structural works would be required to convert the appeal building, in considering whether operations would be permitted under Class Q of the GPDO, there is no distinction between structural and non-structural works.

The proposed plans, do not indicate that the internal floor level within the building would be reduced or that any excavation of ground around part of the building to reveal its walls and allow recladding, would structurally or dimensionally change the building itself. Therefore, such works would not extend beyond the remit of works permitted under Class Q. Furthermore, while replacement wall cladding and flooring works are to be undertaken, under Class Q.1 of the GPDO, paragraph (h) (ii), protrusions of up to 0.2 metres to accommodate building operations are allowed and, paragraph (j) (i) allows the installation or replacement of windows, doors, roofs or exterior walls.

From the evidence provided and my site observations, including inside the building, despite the need for repair, replacement and additional works, the appeal building would remain principally of the same scale, appearance and form and it is proposed to utilise the main existing structural elements of the building. The existing block dado walls are to be retained yet extended vertically and the existing roof trusses retained with replacement covering. Therefore, even though a number of works would be required, these would not be tantamount to a fresh build.

Consequently, having regard to Hibbitt and advice within the PPG, the appeal building is capable of conversion, without operations amounting to rebuilding and, I find the proposed works would be reasonably necessary to convert the appeal building to a dwelling.

A number of examples3 of appeal decisions have been provided where the assessment of what is reasonably necessary undertaken lead to different findings. However, even though I do not have substantive evidence to directly compare all of these examples with the appeal proposal, these relate to different buildings, with different evidence related thereto. Therefore, I have based my judgement of what is reasonably necessary to convert the appeal building to a dwelling having regard to the proposals’ individual merits.

Even if a previous application for prior approval relating to the appeal building was withdrawn (Council ref, 22/03544/COUQ) due to concerns related to the structural integrity of the building, it has been appropriately demonstrated that the appeal building is structurally sound and capable of conversion. Also, even though the previous prior approval to convert the appeal building, Council ref 20/00145/COUQ is extant and so, does not provide a fall-back position, it does not mean that the appeal proposal is unacceptable based on the evidence provided. Furthermore, this 2 Council Ref 20/00145/COUQ 3 Including appeal refs. APP/J3720/W/25/3370151 at [address]; APP/H0520/W/25/3359128 at Land between 63 and [address]; APP/R3650/W/25/3373057 at [name] and APP/J3720/C/25/3363273 at [name] shows that the Council previously considered that the conversion of the appeal building to a dwelling was capable of being permitted development when having regard to similar proposed plans. Therefore, this does not weigh against the proposal.

To conclude, having regard to the extent of works proposed, the proposed building operations are reasonably necessary to convert the building to a dwelling house and so, the proposal benefits from permitted development under Class Q.1 of the GPDO.

There would likely be some noise and disturbance to nearby residents while the conversion works take place, although this would be short term. There would be sufficient space around the appeal building to accommodate bins and parking for the future residents of the proposed dwelling. A number of openings are proposed within the new dwelling, which would provide adequate natural light to habitable rooms. If there is asbestos within the building, then there are separate requirements to appropriately dispose of such, which would ensure no harm is caused to human health. Therefore, the proposal would unlikely have a harmful effect on the living conditions of nearby residents and acceptable living conditions would be provided for the future occupiers of the new dwelling.

Even if the appeal building does not have connection to existing services, such as water and electricity, this would be installed as part of the proposal, which would be reasonably necessary works to convert the building to a dwellinghouse. Also, the site is within flood zone 1 and so, is at a low risk of flooding.

The existing vehicular access already serves residential properties and provides field access. An additional small dwelling and associated movement thereto, would not harmfully increase nor lead to undue conflict between farm and domestic vehicles. Additionally, the highway authority has raised no objection to the proposal. Therefore, without evidence to the contrary, the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

The appeal building is not a listed building or within the Luddington Conservation Area. Although, the nearby former stable/barn range and grade II listed farmhouse at [site address] are within the Conservation Area (CA). The CA is part of a riverbank ancient rural settlement, containing a number of timber framed cottages, a few principal farmsteads, including [name], a village green and church. The significance of the CA is derived from its historic rural, riverside location and wealth of traditional buildings. Due to the intervening farmstead buildings, the appeal building does not form part of the setting of the listed farmhouse and there is no intervisibility between it and the grade II listed farmhouse. Once converted, the appeal building would not appear that different to its existing rural character and appearance and so, would be in keeping with the agricultural character of the nearby barns already converted to residential. Therefore, the proposal would conserve the character of the CA and no harm would be caused to the setting of nearby heritage assets.

Even if the appeal building has been used for storage previously, there was no evidence of items being stored in the building at the time of my site visit. Furthermore, the Council does not dispute that the building is a former agricultural building, which was part of an established agricultural unit and so, on the balance of probabilities, the proposal satisfies the requirements of Class Q (a) (ii) of the GPDO in such regard.

Under Article 3(1), Schedule 2, Part 3 Class Q2 (4) of the GPDO, development is permitted subject to the condition that any development must be completed within a period of 3 years starting with the prior approval date. Furthermore, Part 3, paragraph W(13) of the GPDO limits conditions reasonably related to the subject matter of the prior approval.

The proposed location and block plan shows post and rail boundary fencing would be provided around the curtilage of the property and that the extent of garden would align with the interpretation of Part 3, paragraph X of the GPDO in regard to curtilage for the conversion of agricultural buildings. Such details would be appropriate and sympathetic to the rural surroundings and character of the appeal building. Therefore, conditions requiring details of boundary treatments or to define the garden of the dwellinghouse are not necessary.

Also, even though there has been previous agricultural use of the building and on land around it, due to the scale of the development and the extent of works involved to convert the building, it is unlikely the land would be contaminated or that any ground works associated with the development would pose a risk to human health. Therefore, without substantive evidence to the contrary, it would not be reasonable nor necessary to include a contaminated land condition. Additionally, due to the scale and nature of the development and that there is space around the building, a condition relating to bin provision is not necessary.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed and prior approval should be granted.