Appeal 6001792

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 conversion of agricultural building to dwelling and building operations reasonably necessary for the conversion at [site address] , Quarley, Andover [postcode] in accordance with the application 25/00946/PDQN, and the details submitted with it, including plan nos. 0942/Ex/01, 0942/Ex/02 [name], 0942/PL/01 [name] and subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The description in the banner heading above has been taken from the appellants appeal form and the Council’s decision notice as it more accurately describes the development proposed.

The Council did not initially undertake an assessment of the prior-approval matters listed under paragraph Q2(1) of Class Q, Schedule 2, Part 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (the GPDO), on the basis that it did not consider the proposal to constitute permitted development under paragraph Q1. However, during the course of the appeal, the Council has since provided comments on the matters set out in paragraph Q2(1). I have taken these submissions into account in my determination of the proposal.

Class Q of Schedule 2, Part 3 of the GPDO permits development consisting of a 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) of the Use Classes Order, together with any building operations reasonably necessary to convert the building.

Paragraph Q1 of the GPDO sets out the circumstances in which development is not permitted under Class Q. Criterion (j) stipulates that development is not permitted by Class Q if the site is located on article 2(3) land. Article 2(3) defines such land by reference to Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Order, which includes, at paragraph 1(a), land within a conservation area.

In view of the above context, the main issues in this appeal are whether the proposed change of use constitutes permitted development under Paragraph Class Q1 of Schedule 2, Part 3 of the GPDO, with particular regard to whether the site lies on article 2(3) land, namely within a conservation area. [name] conclude that the site lies outside of article 2(3) land, consideration must then be given to whether prior approval is required in relation to the conditions set out in paragraph Q2. (1) of Class Q.

The appeal relates to an agricultural building situated on the southern edge of the village of Quarley. The Quarley Conservation Area (CA) encompasses much of the village. The CA boundary intersects the appeal building, running north–south along its eastern edge. Consequently, although the majority of the structure proposed for conversion under Class Q lies outside the CA, a small section on its eastern side falls within the designated area.

Class Q permits the change of use of ‘a building’, and Article 2(1) of the GPDO confirms that a ‘building’ includes ‘any part of a building’. It follows therefore that references within Class Q to ‘the existing building’ do not require the conversion of an agricultural structure in its entirety. They may be applied to only a part of that structure. [name] of part 3 of the GPDO defines ‘curtilage’ as ‘the piece of land immediately beside or around the agricultural building, closely associated with and serving the purposes of the agricultural building, or an area of land immediately beside or around the agricultural building no larger than the land area occupied by the agricultural building, whichever is the lesser’.

Taken together, these definitions indicate that the ‘site’ for Class Q purposes is confined to the specific part of the building subject to the change of use, together with the land that forms its curtilage. In this appeal, the proposed conversion relates solely to the larger western portion of the building. The proposed residential use is neither functionally nor structurally dependent on the part of the building that lies within the CA. A new internal wall would be constructed within the existing building envelope and there would be no openings within the eastern elevation, which would leave the part of the building within the CA unused. The associated curtilage, as reflected in the submitted red-line plan1, would be drawn entirely to the west and south of that building, which would again be wholly outside the Article 2(3) land.

Accordingly, applying the above GPDO definitions as a matter of fact and degree, I am satisfied that neither the part of the building to be converted nor its associated curtilage extend into the CA. As a result, the restriction set out within limitation Q1(j) is not applicable. 1 [name] 0942/Ex/01

My conclusions align with the various legal judgements cited by the appellant, including that of Mansell2, in which the Court confirmed that limitation Q1(b) applies only to the floorspace proposed to change use, rather than to the building as a whole. I recognise that the judgment concerned a different limb of Class Q1, and the Council allege that ‘the cases put forward by the Appellant provide interpretations to building and curtilage in relation to exceeding cumulative floor space and curtilage’. The Council have also questioned the relevance of the ‘[name] appeal3, stating ‘it was the size of the proposed curtilage that exceeded what was allowed under Schedule 2, Part 3, [name] of the GPDO’, unlike the proposal at [site address] which does not exceed the relevant limitations, rather ‘it just falls within article 2(3) land’.

However, the judgments and appeal decisions do nonetheless offer helpful guidance on the interpretation of the Class Q sub-paragraphs, namely that the relevant limitations are to be applied to the specific part of the building subject to the proposed residential use rather than to its entirety.

The Council’s position assumes that the presence of any part of the wider agricultural building within the CA automatically brings the whole building within Article 2(3) land for the purposes of Q1(j), regardless of what is actually proposed. However, the definitions in Article 2(1) and [name] make it clear that Class Q expressly allows the conversion of part of a building, and the curtilage reasonably required to serve it. In this case, both the conversion works and the defined curtilage can be drawn entirely outside the designated area. Therefore, rather than considering the extent of the whole structure and wider curtilage, based on the proposal as submitted, I am content that Q1(j) is not engaged in these particular circumstances.

Therefore, I am satisfied, as a matter of fact and degree, that neither the part of the building to be converted nor its associated curtilage extend into the CA. As a result, the proposed change of use would constitute permitted development under Paragraph Q1 of Class Q of Schedule 2, Part 3 of the GPDO. Paragraph Q2. (1) of Class Q

The Council have confirmed that whilst prior approval is required in relation to noise (Q2. (1) (b)), contamination (c), the location or siting of the building, in particular regard to ecology (3) and design (f), they are content that such approval could be granted subject to suggested conditions. Based on my observations on site and the evidence before me, I have no concerns in respect of the above matters. As such, I am satisfied that, subject to the conditions discussed below, the proposal would comply with the [name] conditions set out under Paragraph Q2. (1) of Class Q.

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 Q2. (3) which specifies that the development shall be completed within a period of 3 years starting with the prior approval date. A condition relating to the commencement of development is therefore not necessary. 2 Mansell v Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council [2017] [name] 1314 3 APP/X1545/W/18/3199978

[name]. (13) provides for additional conditions reasonably related to the subject matter of the prior approval. I have had regard to the conditions put forward by the Council and have amended the wording where necessary in the interests of clarity and simplicity. I have also had regard to the tests in the National Planning Policy Framework, the Planning Practice Guidance and the GPDO.

A condition restricting fixed plant or machinery being installed on the outside of the building is considered necessary to ensure that the noise impacts of the development would not harm the living conditions of the occupants of any neighbouring residential dwellings. Given the prior use of the former agricultural building, a condition requiring investigation and remediation should any land contamination be uncovered during the course of the conversion works is considered necessary in order to address any contamination risks on the site.

A condition requiring samples of the external materials is considered necessary in relation to the design and external appearance of the building. A condition requiring the parking to be provided in accordance with the proposed plans is considered necessary in regard to the highway impacts of the development. All of these conditions are reasonable, necessary and are related to the prior approval matters set out under Paragraph Q2. (1) of Class Q.

The Council has suggested conditions requiring a method statement for biodiversity mitigation and enhancements, a lighting ecological constraints and opportunities plan, and measures for the protection of nesting birds. Class Q only permits conditions that relate to the specific prior approval matters listed in Q.2(1)(a)–(g), and ecology is not one of those matters. The Council contends that these conditions fall within Q.2(1)(e), which concerns the ‘location or siting’ of the building.

In this case, I am satisfied that a condition requiring a method statement for biodiversity mitigation and enhancement can reasonably and necessarily be linked to the building’s siting and location, given the identified loss of a barn owl feeding perch as a result of the development. Although the Preliminary Roost Assessment found the barn to have negligible potential for roosting bats, it also confirmed that, given the site’s rural context, the surrounding area is nevertheless likely to be used intermittently by the local bat population for foraging and commuting. Accordingly, a condition requiring details of any external lighting to be approved prior to installation would also be reasonably and necessarily related to the building’s siting and location.

However, the suggested condition relating to the protection of nesting birds does not derive from the building’s siting or location and therefore falls outside the narrow lawful scope of conditions permitted under Class Q. It would not be reasonable to impose it in this context, and I have not done so, noting that protection for nesting birds is secured through other applicable legislation.

For the reasons set out above, having considered all other matters raised, the appeal is allowed and prior approval is granted.

No development shall take place above DPC level of the development hereby permitted until samples and details of the materials to be used in the construction of all external surfaces hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

No development shall take place (including any demolition, ground works, site clearance) until a method statement for biodiversity mitigations and enhancements, including those identified in Section 5 of the Preliminary Roost Assessment (ProVision, March 2025) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The content of the method statement shall include the: A) purpose and objectives for the proposed works; B) detailed design(s) and/or working method(s) necessary to achieve stated objectives (including, where relevant, type and source of materials to be used); C) extent and location of proposed works shown on appropriate scale maps and plans; D) timetable for implementation, demonstrating that works are aligned with the proposed phasing of construction; E) persons responsible for implementing the works; F) disposal of any wastes arising from works (i.e. buffer zones to implement pollution control); G) details of any exclusion fences to prevent protected species accessing the site during the demolition and construction phases; and H) details of any precautionary working method statements. The works shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the method statement and shall be retained in that manner thereafter.

Prior to occupation of the development hereby permitted, parking shall be provided within the site in accordance with the Proposed Plan & Elevations, drawing reference 0942/PL/01, [name] and within the residential curtilage identified within the [name] and Site Plan, drawing reference 0942/Ex/01 and these spaces shall thereafter be reserved for such purposes at all times.

In the event that contamination is found at any time during works to implement the prior approval, the presence of such contamination shall be reported in writing to the local planning authority without delay and development shall be suspended on the affected part of the site until a remediation scheme for dealing with that contamination has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved remediation scheme shall be implemented and, if requested, a verification report, for the purpose of certifying adherence to the approved remediation scheme, shall be submitted to the local planning authority prior to the site being brought in to use.

No fixed plant or machinery shall be installed outside of any building, except where prior approval has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Any external lighting on the development hereby approved must be in accordance with best practice guidelines outlined by the Bat Conservation Trust and the Institute of [name] (Guidance note 08/23 Bats and artificial lighting at night). Prior to the erection of any external lighting, a [name] and Opportunities Plan advised by a suitably qualified and experienced ecologist shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, including details of how steps 1 to 5 of the guidance have been undertaken. The external lighting shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.