Appeal 6001841

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) (the GPDO) for a Class Q barn conversion from agricultural to a domestic dwelling at [site address] , [site address] , [site address] , Southampton [postcode] in accordance with the application Ref 25/00676/PNACOU and the details submitted with it, including drawing nos. P002 Rev 4.2, P003 Rev 4, P004 Rev 4 and P005 Rev 4, pursuant to Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q. The approval is subject to conditions set out by [name].2(3) of Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO in that development must be completed within a period of 3 years from the date of this decision as well as the provisions specified in paragraph W.

An application for costs was made by the appellant against Winchester City Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

I have amended the description of development in the heading above to remove the wording, including “with an existing agricultural holding”, which is not development.

On 21 May 2024, [name] 2024 No 579 (the SI) came into force amending Article 3(1), Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO. Article 10 sub paragraph 1 of the SI allowed a transitional period until the end of May 2025 whereby an application could be determined either under the original or amended Class Q of the Order. The appellant has indicated that they sought consent under the Order as it stood prior to 21 May 2024. The Council considered the application on that basis and so shall [name], all references to the GPDO in this decision relate to that earlier version.

It is clear from the application form, plans and documents submitted for this proposal that the appellant seeks both a change of use of the appeal building and land within its curtilage. However, the area of land within the red line shown on plan ref P002 Rev 4 is greater than the land area occupied by the building, as it includes the access track from [site address] and the proposed garden and car parking spaces around the building. This exceeds the limitations set out in [name] of the GPDO in terms of its definition of curtilage. Given the above, I have provided the appellant the opportunity to provide a new plan which is consistent with the definition set out in [name]. This has been provided (ref P002 Rev 4.2). [name] have provided the Council the opportunity to comment on the revised plan, I have made my decision on the basis of the curtilage shown on the revised plan ref P002 Rev 4.2, as my decision to accept it has not been prejudicial to it. For the avoidance of doubt, I have not had regard to the red line shown in Plan P001 as it exceeds the curtilage limitations in [name].

The Council refused the application in relation to its non-compliance with [name].1(a)(iii). It has not, therefore, considered the proposal against paragraphs Q.2 and W.

[name].1(a)(iii) states that development is not permitted by Class Q if the site was not used solely for an agricultural use as part of an established agricultural unit on 20 March 2013 (‘the relevant date’), or in the case of a site which was brought into use after 20 March 2013, for a period of at least 10 years before the date development under Class Q begins.

To address the Council’s refusal reason, the appellant has submitted additional information with the appeal in relation to the use of the building for poultry related agricultural purposes for the 11-year period since March 2014 to April 2025.

The Council has been given the opportunity to comment on the additional information. Although the appeals process should not be used to evolve a scheme, I am satisfied that in this case, accepting the additional information would not prejudice other interested parties. Therefore, I have considered the additional information.

The main issues are whether the proposed development would constitute permitted development in respect to Class Q and paragraph Q.1; and if the proposal is found to constitute permitted development, whether prior approval would be required.

The deemed permission granted by Class Q is subject to the limitations and restrictions which are set out in [name].1. The proposal must meet all of these requirements in order to qualify as permitted development.

Having considered the additional information provided by the appellant the Council now accepts that the building has been in agricultural use for the required 10 year period. Based on the additional information before me, I have no reason to find otherwise. Accordingly, I find no conflict with the requirements of [name].1(a)(iii).

With regards to the proposal’s compliance with matters set out in [name].1(b) to (m), the Council’s delegated report refers to those matters in turn and confirms compliance. Based on the evidence before me I have no reason to find otherwise. As such, I find no conflict with the requirements of [name].1(b) to (m).

Accordingly, for the reasons I have set out above, the appeal scheme meets the requirements of paragraph Q.1 of the GDPO such that it would constitute development permitted under Class Q.

Permission under Class Q is conditional upon the developer first applying to the local planning authority for a determination as to whether its prior approval would be required as to the matters set out in [name].2.

The Council is silent as to whether the proposal meets the requirements set out in [name].2 and W, therefore it is left to me to make my own assessment.

The proposal would make use of an existing gated shared use access with other commercial and residential uses and there would be no adverse noise impacts. The building was previously used by poultry and has an impervious concrete floor. Consequently, any remaining debris or possible contaminants from this use can easily be removed, therefore there are no contamination issues to prevent the building being converted to a dwelling. The site is located within [name] 1, therefore has a low probability of flooding.

In terms of the living conditions for future occupants, the building is located away from other agricultural buildings. Whilst the adjacent fields may be used for agricultural activities including livestock, noise and odour from these activities would not be over and above that which residential uses within the open countryside and those adjacent to the appeal site are already subject to. Therefore, it would not be impractical or undesirable for the building to change from agricultural use to a dwelling.

The building is of steel portal frame construction, with metal cladding and blockwork walls and cement sheeting to the roof. The conversion would replace the walls with timber cladding, the roof with metal cladding and introduce new window and door openings that would allow adequate natural light into all habitable rooms. It would also introduce a large area of glazing to the south elevation. Whilst this would significantly change the external appearance of the building, it is single storey in height and would be largely screened, along with its associated curtilage from wider views by existing vegetation and buildings. The glazed south elevation would also be recessed in the gable end which would reduce its visual impact. For the reasons, the design and external appearance of the building would be acceptable.

Drawing the above together, I conclude that the building qualifies for change of use to a dwelling under Class Q. The proposal is acceptable and therefore a grant of prior approval is appropriate.

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] have listed the revised curtilage plan and the relevant submitted plans in my decision and paragraph W(12) of Schedule 2, Part 3 of the GPDO requires development to be carried out in accordance with the details submitted, a separate condition specifying that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans is not necessary.

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