Appeal 6001819

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 agricultural building to a single dwelling and associated operational development at [site address] , [site address] , Cropthorne [postcode] in accordance with the application ref W/25/00889/GPDQ and the details submitted with it including drawing nos J1008965-01 [name]; J1008965-11 [name]; and J1008965-12 and subject to the following condition:

Any contamination that is found during the course of construction of the development hereby permitted that was not previously identified shall be reported immediately to the local planning authority. Development on the part of the site affected shall be suspended until a risk assessment has been carried out and submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Where unacceptable risks are found, the development shall not resume or continue until remediation and verification schemes have been carried out in accordance with details that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

The description of development included “(please refer to the accompanying Planning Statement, [name] and suite of submitted drawings for further details)” which is not an act of development and as such, I have removed this from the description of development in the banner header and

Class Q(a) of the GPDO permits development consisting of a change of use of a building that is part of an established agricultural unit and any land within that building’s curtilage, and under Class Q(c), building operations reasonably necessary to convert the building to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses). This is subject to certain criteria, and circumstances where development is not permitted which are listed under Paragraph Q1.

The main issues relevant to this appeal are whether the proposal would constitute permitted development as defined under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO, with particular regard to whether the building operations would amount to a conversion and whether the proposed development would satisfy the requirements of paragraph Q1(j) of Schedule 2, Part 3 of the GPDO; and if the proposal is permitted development, whether or not prior approval is required, having particular regard to the design or external appearance of the building.

Paragraph Q1(j) of the GPDO states that the development would not be permitted by Class Q if the development under Class Q(c) would consist of building operations other than – (i) the installation or replace 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 building operations allowed by paragraph Q1(j)(i).

[name], the Court held that a building must be capable of conversion to residential use without operations that would amount to either a complete or substantial re-building of the pre-existing structure, or in effect, the creation of a new building and therefore outside the relevant Class of permitted development rights. While the circumstances in Hibbitt differ from those in this case, both concern the conversion of agricultural buildings under Class Q, and the principles established in the judgment remain relevant. The Planning Practice Guidance makes clear that Class Q assumes that the agricultural building is capable of functioning as a dwelling. 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.

A Structural Inspection was conducted for the appeal building and the surveyor concluded that the structure of the barn is all in good condition with no significant defects found. The building is suitable to be converted into residential accommodation after some minor repairs. The recommended repairs do not appear to be structural and based on the evidence before me; I find no reason to disagree with the [name] and conclude that the building is capable of functioning as a dwelling.

The existing building comprises blockwork walls to approximately half height with corrugated metal cladding above and a corrugated metal roof. A single large metal door is present on the front elevation, and no other openings exist. The appellants propose to replace the roof, retaining the existing roof structure, retain the blockwork and cladding, and introduce new openings for windows, doors, porches and a balcony. Localised removal of blockwork and cladding would be required to facilitate these openings.

Having reviewed the drawings and supporting information, I am satisfied that the number, distribution and scale of the proposed openings, generally one window per room, would not exceed what is reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwellinghouse. In one instance on the front elevation, the proposed ground-floor opening would reuse the width of the existing door opening, thereby limiting additional openings. While two full height windows are proposed on either side of the building, when taking into consideration the proposed internal layout the scale of those windows would not be unreasonable.

The roof would be replaced on a like-for-like basis in terms of materials, and the evidence indicates that the existing roof structure would be retained. Such works fall squarely within the operations permitted by Q1(j)(i) and, in scope, do not amount to substantial rebuilding.

The proposed windows and doors would be supported by independent, self-supporting timber-frame studwork set approximately 25 millimetres inside the existing blockwork walls. These are internal works and would not necessitate the rebuilding of, or addition to, the principal structural walls of the building.

The scheme includes porches and a balcony, all contained within the existing built form such that no extension beyond the existing envelope would occur. The front porch would be formed within the existing opening and would not require new structural elements to the frame.

The porch/balcony element on the rear and side corner would require removal of a small section of blockwork and cladding but would not involve removal of the steel frame. Although the [name] did not explicitly address the building’s capacity for additional balcony loads, the appellants have confirmed that the balcony would be supported by a mezzanine floor forming part of the internal works. This structure would be self-supporting and would not rely on the existing steel frame for vertical load transfer. While concern was expressed regarding the absence of information on the precise locations of the trial pits used to determine the depth of the concrete slab foundations, the [name] nevertheless found the ground-floor slab to be in good condition. There is no technical evidence before me that would lead me to disagree with the conclusions of that report in this respect.

The Planning Practice Guidance confirms that internal works are not generally development, and internal structural measures, such as walls and mezzanines, are not prohibited by Class Q. On the evidence before me, the walls proposed to accommodate the porches and balcony would be self-supporting, non-load-bearing in relation to the frame and contained within the existing building. Being free-standing, they would not amount to structural alteration of the external frame.

The submitted plans demonstrate that substantial elements of the external walls and the structural frame would be retained. Although demolition would be required to facilitate new openings and specific features, the overall form, fabric and identity of the existing building would be plainly preserved. The building would remain as a recognisable, independent structure.

The partial demolition proposed is limited to what is reasonably necessary to carry out the permitted operations under Q1(j)(ii) and does not exceed the threshold of a substantial rebuild as set out in Hibbitt. Whilst some rebuilding would occur, the rebuilding work would not go beyond what is reasonably necessary for the conversion of the building to residential use. Accordingly, the scheme is properly characterised as a conversion within the meaning of Class Q, rather than the creation of a new building.

I am satisfied that the [name] appropriately addressed the condition of the existing structure and that the additional elements such as the balcony and porches, being self-supporting, do not undermine the report’s conclusion that the building is capable of conversion without substantial rebuilding.

The Council has referred to the dismissed appeal at [address], [address]. In that case, the Inspector found ambiguity between the submitted reports regarding the extent of the works and whether structural intervention was required. The scheme involved a considerable degree of demolition and rebuilding, including the construction of a new exterior wall, a new floor slab, and other works that resulted in an appreciable loss of the existing fabric. The extent of partial demolition is a matter of planning judgement in each case. For the reasons set out earlier, the works in the present appeal would not amount to a substantial rebuild and therefore differ materially from the circumstances at [address].

A similar distinction arises with the [name] appeal, where the Inspector found that a substantial proportion of the building’s floorspace would be demolished and that several new external walls would be introduced. By contrast, the current proposal would retain the majority of the existing floorspace, re-use the building’s envelope, and limit alterations to areas such as, windows, doors, porches and balconies. The envelope would remain largely unchanged, and the extent of demolition is significantly less than in [name]. For these reasons, the circumstances of that appeal differ materially from the present case.

The Council also refers to the Oats judgment, which concerned an [name] requiring demolition of three “new buildings” that had incorporated fragments of the previous structures. In that case, the original buildings had been largely demolished, with only remnants incorporated into the new fabric, such that they were no longer recognisable as independent structures. In contrast, the current proposal involves only partial demolition, and the original building would remain clearly recognisable, with its envelope substantially re-used. It is for the above reasons that I have come to a different conclusion on this matter. While such decisions can be useful, each case must be assessed on its own merits.

It is not disputed that the proposed would comply with the other paragraphs set out in Paragraph Q1 of Schedule 2, Part 3 and based on the information before me, I see no reason to conclude otherwise. Consequently, the proposal would be permitted development under Class Q(a) together with development under Class Q(c) of the GPDO.

Where the proposed development would be permitted development under Class Q(a) together with development under Class Q(c) development is permitted subject to the condition that before beginning the development, the developer must apply to the local planning authority for a determination as to whether prior approval will be required on a number of matters set out in paragraph Q2(1) which are considered below.

The existing building has a simple, functional form and is constructed of materials that give it a utilitarian agricultural character. The proposal includes additional window and door openings and the replacement of the existing roller-shutter door with a recessed wall containing ground-floor glazing. The recessed position would help maintain the visual integrity of the original opening. The proposed porch and balcony features would be contained entirely within the existing built envelope. The blockwork, cladding and roof would be retained or replaced on a like-for-like basis, and the proposed cladding materials would be consistent with those already present. Although the introduction of glazing and domestic features such as porches and a balcony would result in a more residential appearance, the building’s overall form and utilitarian agricultural character would remain clearly discernible.

Parking would be provided on existing areas of hardstanding to the front of the building. Re-using these areas would maintain the functional character of the existing yard and would not materially alter the external appearance of the site.

The building is located towards the edge of a village where the area transitions from the more densely developed village and the open countryside. The converted building would be viewed alongside existing agricultural structures sited within large fields. The limited domestic curtilage proposed, together with the retention of the building’s overall envelope, would restrict the spread of domestic paraphernalia. As a result, the property would retain much of its agricultural character, and the proposal would not result in harmful urbanisation of the rural surroundings, and the building would continue to contribute towards the transitional setting towards the edge of the nearby village.

While the introduction of glazing and modest domestic features is inevitable in the conversion of an agricultural building to a dwelling, in this case these additions are proportionate, contained within the buildings envelope and do not overwhelm the building’s utilitarian agricultural character.

Accordingly, the design and external appearance of the proposal would be acceptable in this context.

The Transport Planning and Development Management team raised concerns relating to access to a nearby barn and provision of cycle storage. The submitted plans show that the access arrangements for the neighbouring barn would not be impeded by the proposed conversion or associated parking. A cycle store capable of accommodating three bicycles is also clearly shown on the plans. The proposal would use the existing vehicular access from [site address] , and, given the modest scale of the development, traffic movements to and from the site would likely be limited. Although a construction traffic management plan was suggested by the Transport Planning and Development Management team, the Council did not consider such a condition necessary, and I agree that, given the scale of the works, such a condition would not be necessary. The transport and highways impacts of the development would therefore be acceptable.

Although an agricultural building lies close to the appeal site, no substantive evidence has been provided to demonstrate that noise from its use would cause significant harm to the living conditions of future occupiers. [name] confirmed that it had no nuisance comments. I therefore conclude that the noise impacts of the development would be acceptable.

[name] identified that the site lies on land with a potentially contaminative historic use and recommended a precautionary condition. Subject to the imposition of an appropriately worded condition, I am satisfied that any contamination risks can be addressed.

The appeal site is located within [name] 1 which is an area at the lowest flood risk. Additionally, the development would reuse an existing building thus limiting the amount of new impermeable surfaces that would be required for the scheme. As a result, the flooding risks on site would be acceptable. Whether the location or siting of the building makes it otherwise impractical or undesirable for the building to change from agricultural use to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses) of Schedule 1 to the Use Classes Order

No substantive objections were raised in relation to the location or siting of the building. Based on the evidence before me and my observations on site, I am satisfied that the location and siting of the building do not make the change of use to a dwellinghouse impractical or undesirable. The Provision of Adequate Natural Light in all [name] of the Dwellinghouse

[name] of Part 3 of the GPDO states that the term habitable room means any rooms used or intended to be used for sleeping or living which are not solely used for cooking purposes. The submitted plans show that all rooms meeting this definition would be served by windows. Although a barn is located near the front elevation, it is not located directly in front of that elevation. Furthermore, the orientation and positioning of windows, primarily on the side elevations would ensure adequate natural light reaches all habitable rooms. I therefore find that the proposal would provide adequate natural light in all habitable rooms of the dwellinghouse.

Therefore, for the reasons given above, subject to a suitable worded condition, none of the maters set out in paragraph Q2(1)(a) to (g) in the context of this appeal indicate that prior approval should be withheld.

Paragraph Q2(4) of the GPDO specifies that development under Class Q must be completed within a period of 3 years starting with the prior approval date.

[name](13) of the GPDO allows conditions to be imposed that are reasonably related to the prior approval matters.

As explained earlier, a condition related to contamination is necessary in the interests of the living conditions of the occupiers of the development. I have revised the wording of this condition in the interests of clarity.

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