Appeal 6001818

The appeal is dismissed.

The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) England (Amendment) Order 2024 came into force on 21 May 2024. Transitional arrangements set out in Article 10 of the amending Order applied to applications submitted until the end of 20 May 2025. This appeal relates to the permitted development right as it stood prior to May 2024 and I have determined the appeal on this basis.

Under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO, planning permission is granted for (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 use class C3 (dwellinghouses) together with (b) building operations reasonably necessary to convert the building, subject to limitations and conditions.

[name].1(i) indicates that development is not permitted by Class Q(b) if it would consist of building operations other than the installation or replacement of windows, doors, roofs, or exterior walls, or water, drainage, electricity, gas or other services, to the extent reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwellinghouse.

The Council consider that the building operations proposed for both barns (D and E) would go beyond what could reasonably be considered a conversion, and so would not comply with the limitations of Class Q.1(i).

Based on the submissions of the main parties, there is no reason for me to believe that the other criteria of Class Q are not satisfied. Consequently, there is no need to give them further consideration in this decision.

In light of the Preliminary Matters above, the main issue is whether the required building operations are to the extent reasonably necessary to carry out the conversion of the buildings to comply with [name].1(i) of the GPDO.

[name] is enclosed but with openings facing into a courtyard shared with [name]. [name] is enclosed on three sides but with an open frontage onto the courtyard .

[name] is generally timber clad via a single layer with a corrugated mono-pitch sheeted roof. It is supported by a timber structure mainly comprising circular timber columns supporting the roof. Bays to the north utilise a smooth faced concrete floor slab with the southern bays comprising compacted earth.

[name] is similar comprising a corrugated steel sheet roof with timber and galvanised corrugated steel sheet cladding. There is a concrete floor slab to the eastern bay with the other three bays utilising compacted earth.

The GPDO states at paragraph Q.1(i) that development under Class Q(b) is not permitted if it would consist of building operations other than the installation or replacement of windows, doors, roofs or exterior walls, or water, drainage, electricity, gas or other services to the extent reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwelling house.

Paragraph 105 of the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that the right under Class Q assumes that the agricultural building is capable of functioning as a dwelling. However, the PPG is clear that it is not the intention of the permitted development rights to allow rebuilding work that would go beyond what is reasonably necessary for the conversion of the building to a residential use. Accordingly, it is only where the existing building is already suitable for conversion to residential use that the building would be considered to benefit from the permitted development rights.

Neither the GPDO nor the PPG define the term ‘reasonably necessary’. Consequently, this is a matter of planning judgement based on fact and degree of an individual case. My attention has though been drawn to the Hibbitt judgement 1 which relates to the difference between conversions and rebuilding dealt with under Class Q. This is important because if a development does not amount to a conversion it would fail to be development permitted under Class Q.

The Hibbitt case suggested that an agricultural building may be so skeletal and minimalist, with only a modest amount of help from the original building, that the works needed to alter it to be used as a dwelling would be of such a magnitude that it would be tantamount to a new build or rebuild as opposed to a conversion. Furthermore, Hibbitt reinforces that it is a matter of planning judgement as to whether the level of works involved would still constitute a conversion.

A ‘[name] (the Report) and Addendum (Addendum) have been provided by the appellant that covers both buildings D and [name] and Addendum have been prepared by a structural engineer and involved a visual 1 Hibbitt and another v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (1) and Rushcliffe Borough Council (2) [2016] EWHC 2853 (Admin). inspection of the building’s structural elements and fabric. They have generally found the existing structural timbers to be in good structural condition, suitable for conversion, with only minor defects.

However, and whilst I give significant weight to the Report and Addendum being prepared by a professional structural engineer, they are based upon a visual inspection only, with no unexposed elements of the building being inspected and no inspection of foundations despite concluding their likely fixing with an unknown cement mix. As such no specific details of the existing foundations have been provided, nor have any structural calculations for the proposed development been prepared demonstrating that the existing structures can support any additional loads from works associated with the new dwellings.

Furthermore, and although the plans detail the retention of the existing sheeted roofs, the Addendum states that ‘It is clear the existing roof and wall coverings would need to be replaced to provide a weatherproof screen to the buildings.’

With regard to [name], the Report and Addendum detail that some purlins are deflecting. With regard to [name], the Report and Addendum detail that some unidentified timber structural members showed visual signs of degradation leading to rot and needing replacement with purlins deflecting. Timber sheeting rails to the southern elevation are also identified as degraded leading to slight deflection. These are identified as needing like-for-like replacement. Moreover, while the timber rafters and purlins are identified as being sufficient to support the existing roofs to both barns, the Report and Addendum identify the need for self-supported thermal envelopes to all elevations for both barns supported from independent timber frames. The Report and Addendum mention that the insulated timber frame wall would be external to some elevations in the main body of the report, but internal in its conclusion and elsewhere in the appellant’s evidence.

Regardless, it is stated that the thermal envelopes are necessary alongside a concrete ground bearing slab to support the insulated timber frames and to provide support to additional rafters and purlins supporting the proposed domestic roof finish to both barns. This suggests that new structures would be built inside/around the existing buildings and may be required to support the domestic roof, although this is contradicted elsewhere in the appellant’s evidence.

As a result, the proposal therefore generally comprises new structures that would be built inside the existing building and possibly taking some additional load for the domestic roofs. While the existing buildings would be retained, they would be in their existing partial skeletal and minimalist form with significant replacement roof and wall coverings and would be generally independent from the new internal structure. Furthermore, in relation to [name], while the new front elevation may be built as an internal wall initially, it would form the external elevation of the dwelling and therefore a fundamental structural element of the conversion.

In light of all of the above, from the evidence before me, and given it is necessary to consider the whole of the works involved in totality, I cannot conclude that the existing buildings are suitable for conversion to residential use. It has not therefore been demonstrated that the proposals for either barn are a conversion with the necessary works going beyond the extent of works that are reasonably necessary for the conversion of the buildings to a residential use. I find that the works needed to both barns would be of such a magnitude and form that they would not represent a conversion.

I have had regard to an appeal in Longwick2 drawn to my attention by the appellant where the Inspector accepted the construction of an internal timber frame to support insulation. However, I have limited information in relation to the plans and details for this appeal, but from the information before me, I consider that it differs from the current appeal given that a whole new internal shell is proposed as part of the current appeal rather than internal walling. Furthermore, I must consider the current appeal on its merits.

I acknowledge that the PPG advises that internal works are not generally development. However, the Report and Addendum identify that new concrete floor slabs are required to support the bearing of an insulated timber frame walls to all elevations of both barns forming a new structure with the internal wall to the front of [name] also forming the external wall. Furthermore, while individually, the works for each of the above identified components to each building may be permissible under the terms of paragraph Q.1(i) of the GPDO, having regard to the scale and nature of the proposed works and established case law, I find that the totality of the works would be tantamount to substantial re-builds, as opposed to conversions.

Accordingly, I am unable to conclude that the required building operations are to the extent reasonably necessary to carry out the conversion of the buildings to comply with [name].1(i) of the GPDO. As such, the proposal does not benefit from the permitted development rights under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q.

To support the appeal scheme, the appellant has referred to a number of other prior notification decisions3 under [name] of the GPDO, whereby the Council have found the extent of building works proposed to adhere to Q.1(i) of the GPDO. However, I do not have the full context of these decisions including the precise conditions of the relevant agricultural buildings for conversion or the full extent of works involved in each case to be sure that they are directly comparable. In any case, the appeal scheme has been determined on its own merits.

I note the appellant’s suggestion that the Council’s planning officer has not engaged with a structural engineer to assess the ability for the building to be converted. However, the onus is on the appellant to demonstrate that the appeal building is structurally capable of being converted and that it benefits from the permitted development rights established under Class Q.

For the reasons given above, I find that the proposal is not permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO. The appeal is therefore dismissed.