Appeal 6001772

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 & conversion of an agricultural building to 2 No. dwellinghouse (use class C3) at [site address] [postcode] in accordance with the application P/PAAC/2025/02911 and the details submitted with it, and subject to the conditions in the attached Schedule.

The address in the banner heading above has been taken from the appeal form, appellants documents and Notice of Decision as this more clearly reflects the address than that given on the application form.

The description of development in the banner heading above has been taken from the Notice of Decision as this more accurately and succinctly describes the development than that given on the application form.

From 6 April 2018 to 21 May 2024, 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 (GPDO), development is permitted for the change of use of a building and any land within its curtilage, from use as an agricultural building to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses) together with building operations reasonably necessary to convert that building, subject to limitations and conditions. These conditions include prior approval for the matters specified in paragraph Q.2(1).

Any prior approval application or appeal which was made before 21 May 2024 in respect of the ‘old’ Class Q should be determined on that basis. Similarly, given transitional arrangements set out under Article 10 of the amending Order, any prior approval application made before 21 May 2025 in respect of the old Class Q can be decided on the basis of what was previously permitted if the applicant so wishes. This is the case in this instance and therefore the appeal will be determined on this basis.

The Council may refuse the application where it considers that the proposed development does not comply with, or that the developer has provided insufficient information to enable the Council to establish whether the proposed development complies with the conditions, limitations or restrictions set out in paragraphs Q.1 and Q.2.

The Council refused the application on the basis that they were not satisfied that the building was capable of conversion without unreasonable works that would comprise a fresh build beyond what constitutes a conversion of the building. This relates to paragraph Q.1 (i).

The Council have raised no concerns with regard to compliance with paragraph Q1 (a) – (h), or (j) – (m) and on the evidence before me I have no reason to disagree. The Council have also considered the proposal in compliance with paragraph Q.2 (1) subject to conditions and I will return to this below.

It follows from the above that the main issue is whether or not the building operations involved in the development would be to an extent reasonably necessary to convert the building to a use falling within Class C3.

The appeal relates to a single storey agricultural building with a shallow pitched roof. It is partly clad in a variety of timber with some internal and external blockwork walls with metal sheet roofing. It has a concrete floor throughout. At the time of my visit the building had clearly been used to house cattle.

The appellant’s [name] indicates that the existing structural form and the main load bearing elements of the building are suitable for the proposed conversion. The Council have not provided any substantive evidence which would persuade me that in structural terms the existing building is not capable of conversion.

It was held in Hibbitt v SSCLG [2016] EWHC 2853 that the building must be capable of conversion to residential use without operations amounting to complete or substantial re-building of the pre-existing structure or, in effect, the creation of a new building. 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. Therefore, 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 right.

The proposal would retain the roof with the insertion of rooflights with additions to parts of the walls to infill existing gaps as well as the introduction of doors and windows. The appellant advises that 96% of the existing structure will be retained. [name] note the Council question this, they provide little substantive evidence to demonstrate what it believes the percentage to be or why the gaps in the existing cladding could not be filled without substantial rebuilding. Moreover, the Council do not explain why it doubts that the structural frame and concrete floor would not be retained. In these regards, I note that these elements are detailed for retention on [name]. SK13 [name] and [name] – Units (a) and (b) with a typical section showing battens to the existing cladding on [name]. SK15 [name] – Units (a) and (b).

The appellant has confirmed that mains water and electricity are available on site, that the building operations to be undertaken include installation of windows, exterior painting, provision of timber boarding in place of gated accesses, additional timber boarding, along with the retention of the existing concrete blockwork, concrete floor and corrugated roof cladding. These are also detailed on the submitted plans.

Class Q.1(j)(i) (aa) allows for the installation or replacement of windows, doors, roofs, exterior walls, water, drainage, electricity, gas or other services to the extent reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwelling house. It also allows for the partial demolition to the extent reasonably necessary to carry out these building operations. To my mind the vast majority of the works reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwellinghouse are covered under these items, including additions to, and changes to the walls and roof.

Whilst some relatively considerable works to the building are proposed, particularly with regard to additional cladding, and I note that parts of the existing boarding and roof sheeting are in need of repair, these are all permitted under the GPDO. Furthermore, due to the retention of much of the existing building, the appeal building would be capable of conversion to residential use and the proposed building operations would not amount to the complete or substantial re-building of the pre-existing structure, as was found to be the case within Hibbitt.

With regard to the above, I do not therefore see sufficient similarities with Hibbitt v. SSCLG [2016] EWHC 2853 (Admin), particularly in relation to the distinction between conversion and rebuild and given that the appeal building is not open on three sides. I am also cognisant of the fact that where one becomes the other is a matter of planning judgement based on the specifics of the case.

Therefore, based on the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the building operations proposed would be reasonably necessary in this instance and would not exceed the limitations set out in paragraph Q.1(i) of the GPDO. As such, the proposal would constitute permitted development as set out under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO.

As outlined above, the Council have suggested some conditions which it recommends should be attached to any permission. I have considered these and in the interests of clarity and precision I have amended some of the suggested conditions, particularly to refer to correct plan numbers.

Any prior approval and planning permission granted for the development under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO is subject to the condition under Q.2 (3) which specifies that the development shall be completed within a period of 3 years starting with the prior approval date. [name](12) of Schedule 2, Part 3 of the GPDO requires development to be carried out in accordance with the details submitted.

[name](13), Schedule 2, Part 3 of the GPDO allows conditions to be imposed that are reasonably related to the subject matter of the prior approval. In relation to this, I consider that a pre-commencement condition is reasonable and necessary to ensure that details of the surface water strategy are submitted to the Council for approval prior to commencement in the interests of preventing flooding to the highway.

A further pre-commencement condition is reasonable and necessary to ensure that potential contamination is satisfactorily remediated on the site in the interest of preventing pollution and to protect the living conditions of future occupiers.

I also consider that conditions to ensure that the first 5m of the access is hard surfaced, and that parking, turning spaces and visibility splays are provided in the interests of ensuring highway safety.

Finally, for ecological purposes, a condition is reasonable and necessary to secure the installation of bird/bat boxes.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed and prior approval granted under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO subject to the standard conditions set out in paragraph Q.2 of Class Q and to the additional conditions specified above.

Prior to the commencement of development details of surface water to ensure that no surface water drains directly from the site onto the adjacent public highway shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall subsequently be implemented prior to the completion of the development.

Prior to the commencement of the development the following information shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

a 'desk study' report documenting the site history. 2) a site investigation report detailing ground conditions, a 'conceptual model' of all potential pollutant linkages, and incorporating risk assessment. 3) a detailed scheme for remedial works and measures to be taken to avoid risk from contaminants/or gases when the site is developed. 4) a detailed phasing scheme for the development and remedial works (including a time scale). 5) a monitoring and maintenance scheme to include monitoring the long-term effectiveness of the proposed remediation over a period of time. The Remediation Scheme, as agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, shall be fully implemented before the development hereby permitted first comes in to use or is occupied. On completion of the development written confirmation that all works were completed in accordance with the agreed details shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority.

Before the development is occupied or utilised the first 5 metres of the vehicle access, measured from the rear edge of the highway, must be laid out and constructed to a specification submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Before the development hereby approved is occupied or utilised the turning/manoeuvring and parking shown on [name] SK14 must have been constructed. Thereafter, these areas, must be permanently maintained, kept free from obstruction and available for the purposes specified.

Before the development hereby approved is occupied or utilised the visibility splay areas as shown on [name] SK10 must be cleared/excavated to a level not exceeding 0.60 metres above the relative level of the adjacent carriageway. The splay areas must thereafter be maintained and kept free from all obstructions.

Details of bat/bird boxes must be submitted to the local planning authority and agreed in writing prior to the occupation of the proposed dwelling, including a plan or drawing showing the location of these mitigation/enhancement measures. The measures shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and maintained permanently as such thereafter. END OF SCHEDULE