Appeal 6001820

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 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 building to comply with [name].1(i) of the GPDO.

[name] is generally clad to both sides and rear via a single layer of corrugated sheeting with a corrugated mono-pitch sheeted roof. The front elevation is open and exposed. It is supported by a timber structure mainly comprising circular columns supporting the roof. The floor to the barn comprises 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. The Report and Addendum have been prepared by a structural engineer and involved a visual 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 were 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 1 Hibbitt and another v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (1) and Rushcliffe Borough Council (2) [2016] EWHC 2853 (Admin). 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 structure can support any additional loads from works associated with the new dwelling.

Although the application details the retention and repair of the existing corrugated steel sheets and some cladding that would be permitted under Class Q, the Report and Addendum also state that due to minor degradation to most purlins, slight deflection was noted. Furthermore, due to exposure to rainfall, timber rafters and sheeting rails are identified as degrading resulting in a weakening where connected to joist hangers. To the south elevation, most of the galvanised sheets have been identified as heavily corroded. The Report identifies the need for all significantly degraded timber elements to be replaced with all external walls repaired with the Addendum stating that ‘It is clear that the existing roof and wall coverings would need to be replaced to provide a weatherproof screen to the building.’

While the existing structure is identified as being sufficient to support the existing roof, the Report and Addendum state that thermal elements can be supported from an isolated structure independent of the existing structural frame with no load increase. This would be supported from a new concrete slab that would also be independent from the existing main column supports. It would also need to comprise a whole new front elevation that would be a fundamental structural element of the conversion.

Regardless therefore of the structural integrity of the existing building, the proposal generally comprises a new structure that would be built inside the existing building so that the existing building takes no additional load. While the existing building would be retained, it would be in its partial skeletal and minimalist form and would be generally independent from the original building with roof and wall coverings replaced. As such, I find the works would be of such a magnitude that it would not represent a 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 building is suitable for conversion to residential use. It has not therefore been demonstrated that the proposal is a conversion with the works going beyond the extent of works that are reasonably necessary for the conversion of the building to a residential use.

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 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, in this case the works would comprise a new structure independent from the existing building including a whole new front/east elevation. Furthermore, while individually, the works for each of the above identified components to the 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 2 APP/K0425/W/22/3294482 established case law, I find that the totality of the works would be tantamount to substantial re-build, as opposed to conversion.

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.