Appeal 6001850

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant submitted additional plans with the appeal. These showed the retention rather than replacement of the existing roof, concrete panels, and cladding. Although this could be seen as a reduction in the quantum of change, it would fundamentally alter how the building would look and so evolve the proposal. Therefore, although all parties have had the opportunity to comment on them during the appeal process, in accordance with the Holborn Studios Ltd judgement1, I have made my decision on the original plans. The amended plans would not have, however, altered my findings.

The prior approval application was submitted to the Council on 27 March 2025 and was dealt with as per the transitional arrangements2, so was assessed against the previous version of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, dated 1 August 2020 (the GPDO). This is the version considered in this appeal.

Under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q.(b), of the GPDO3, development is permitted for the 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) together with building operations reasonably necessary to convert that building to a dwellinghouse(s), subject to limitations and conditions.

The Council in its role as local planning authority (LPA) may refuse the application where it considers that the proposed development does not comply with, or that the developer has provided insufficient information to enable the LPA to establish 1 Holborn Studios Ltd v The Council of the London Borough of Hackney [2017] EWHC 2823 (Admin) 2 set out within the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) (Amendment) Order 2024/579 3 All paragraphs here on refer to this part of the GPDO unless stated otherwise. whether the proposed development complies with the conditions, limitations or restrictions set out in [name].1 and Q.2.

Therefore, the main issues are whether the proposed development would constitute permitted development in respect to paragraph Q.1; and if the proposal is found to constitute permitted development, whether prior approval would be required in accordance with paragraph Q.2, with specific regard to the design and external appearance of the building.

The appeal site consists of 2 bays of a 3-bay barn, which is set amongst other agricultural buildings at [site address] , adjacent to the [name] public house and with fields to the fore and rear.

The bay of the barn located outside the appeal site would be retained, the middle bay would be demolished, and the one nearest the public house (hereon the appeal bay) is proposed to be made into a 4 bed, 2-storey dwelling with internal garage. As a whole the barn is steel framed with the appeal bay separated internally from the other bays by a concrete wall which is not more than half the height of the barn. The external walls of the bay to be converted are clad in metal sheeting, as is the roof. In the east elevation there is a large roller shutter door and a pedestrian access door.

[name].1 sets out a series of criteria which all must be met for a proposal to be considered permitted development. The Council considers the proposal to comply with all criteria except criterion (i). There is nothing before me to conclude otherwise on the criteria the proposal is considered to comply with.

Criterion (i) sets out the extent of building operations reasonably necessary to convert the building in question. Specifically, [name].1(i)(i)(aa) which allows the installation or replacement of windows, doors, roofs, and exterior walls.

It is not in question that the proposal would include the installation and replacement of these elements. However, the operative part of criterion (i) is that those building operations would be ‘reasonably necessary to convert’, which in this context reflects the wording of Class Q.(b). This is expanded on in the Planning Policy Guidance (PPG)4 which states the Class Q permitted development right assumes that the agricultural building is capably of functioning as a dwelling, and that it is only where the building is already suitable for conversion to residential use that the building would be considered to have the permitted development right.

Notwithstanding the concrete panels, the northern elevation of the appeal bay is largely open up to roof height for the full length of the building. Due to the dimensions of the appeal bay and the size of the north elevation in relation to it, this means the appeal bay cannot be considered largely enclosed, so would not be in the main weatherproof and therefore potentially habitable, especially if the 2nd bay is demolished.

It is recognised, from the structural report5, cleats were found on open areas of the barn which potentially show the location of previous cladding. However, the report deals with the barn as a whole and the location of the cleats has not been 4 PPG: When is permission required? 5 Written by [name], reference 25004-PSE-XX-XX-RP-SE-00001, version 1, January 2025 identified, nor could their location be definitively ascertained during the site visit in relation to the appeal bay. Therefore, the installation of a new wall to enclose the north elevation of the appeal bay would, in my mind, go beyond that which could be considered reasonably necessary to convert, as without it the appeal bay is not capable of functioning as a dwelling.

It is recognised that the other proposed works would likely comply with [name].1(i) but this does not negate that the enclosing of the northern elevation would not.

The appellant has referred to 3 appeals6, with regard to the open elements of those buildings. Without the full details of these cases, it is unclear whether they would be directly comparable to the proposal before me.

The proposal would therefore fail to comply with [name].1 and so would not constitute permitted development under Class Q.(b).

As considerations in relation to prior approval are a follow-on condition stage under [name].2, they can therefore only apply if the development is otherwise permitted development.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.