Appeal 6001988

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 the conversion of existing agricultural barn into 1 dwelling house at [site address] , Flaxlands, [site address] [postcode] in accordance with the application PL/2025/07384 and the details submitted with it including Proposed Site Plan Outlined 24-022-P-SP04; [name] and Elevations OPT3 24-022-P-GF02; Preliminary Risk Assessment: [name]; [site address] , [postcode] – [name] dated 12 May 2025; [name] 25.115-LE01; [name] 19220; [name] 19220 and subject to the following

No part of the ground floor level of the building the subject of this prior approval shall be used for the accommodation or housing of livestock at any time. For the purposes of this condition, “livestock” includes, but is not limited to, cattle, horses, sheep, goats, pigs, poultry, and any other animals kept for farming purposes.

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 Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the Order). Article 10 sub paragraph 1 of the SI allowed a transitional period until the end of May 2025 whereby an application for determination could be determined under the original or amended Class Q of the Order. The appellant has indicated that they sought consent under the Order as it stood after 21 May 2024. The Council considered the application on that basis and so shall I.

The main issue is whether or not the proposal would exceed the amount of structural alterations to comply with Q1(j).

The appeal site relates to an existing steel frame agricultural barn with English larch cladding on all sides within a small agricultural holding. The barn is mono pitched with an existing first floor which is currently used as a hayloft, and four storage bays at ground floor. A small single storey barn extension is located on the east elevation. The proposal seeks approval for the first floor of the barn to become a 3-bedroom dwelling with the ground floor remaining in agricultural storage use.

Paragraph Q1 of the Order provides a list of exclusions as to when development would not be permitted by Class Q. In this regard the Council’s case is that the proposal would exceed that permitted under paragraph Q1 (j) the development under Class Q(c) would consist of building operations other than (i) the installation or replacement 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.

The appellant’s structural report indicates that the structural form and the load bearing elements of the building are suitable for conversion to a dwelling. The building has a substantial steel frame; is structurally sound and the as-built floor beams are appropriate to support domestic loading at first floor. The structural report also noted that 1 of 28 crosswind braces had been removed from the tallest elevation and that it will need to be reinstalled or replaced with a goal post sway frame.

The wind cross brace is an existing component of the barn structure which has been temporarily removed to allow access into that storage bay within the barn. The brace remains on site and can be reinstated through bolting it back into place, which can be undertaken by the appellant rather than a specialist engineer. Should a goal post sway frame be provided instead of the crosswind brace, this would only relate to one of the four storage bays and would be a minimal structural modification to the existing barn. I have no reason to disagree with the findings of the structural report, and the balance of evidence leads me to the view that the building is suitable for conversion.

Advice on the interpretation of Class Q is contained within paragraph 105 of the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). It advises that 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. The guidance also draws attention to relevant caselaw in Hibbitt and Another v SSCLG (1) and Rushcliffe Borough Council (2) [2016] EWHC 2853 (Admin) (Hibbitt) on the difference between conversion and a rebuild. The latter would not be permissible under Class Q, but the judgment in each case is one of fact and degree. There is no indication that the works necessary to convert the building would go beyond the criterion within paragraph Q1, apart from exclusion Q1(j).

Paragraph Q1(j) states that development is not permitted if it would consist of building operations to the extent that would not be reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwellinghouse. On the matter of building operations, the PPG states that such works may include the installation or replacement of doors, roofs, and exterior walls.

The current steel framed structure would be retained, along with the existing openings. New windows would be created for each room, some of which would use the existing hay loft openings at first floor. Internally, a new perimeter stud wall would be built with a 1m void created to the external walls, which would be filled with natural sustainable insulation. The larch cladding is in good condition and whilst no certainty of its retention is provided, given its condition it is likely to remain. However, the cladding is not a structural element of the building. These works would be reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwellinghouse as allowed in Class Q.

Most of the works required to be undertaken would be internal to the existing barn structure. The PPG indicates that internal works are generally not development and that, for a building to function as a dwelling it may be appropriate to undertake internal structural works, including to allow for a floor, the insertion of a mezzanine or upper floors within the overall residential floor space permitted, or internal walls, which are not prohibited by Class Q. There is no restriction on whether the internal works are structural or not, and the operations do not need to be demonstrably essential to be found 'reasonably necessary'.

The building operations being proposed are reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwelling house and they fall squarely within the parameters of [name].1(j).

Based on the above, I do not see sufficient similarities with the Hibbitt case, particularly in relation to the distinction between conversion and rebuild. I am also cognisant of the fact that where one becomes the other is a matter of judgement based on the specifics of the case. In this regard, sufficient structure would be retained to convince me that the proposal should qualify as a conversion rather than a rebuild. The reinstatement of the crosswind brace would not be a structural modification that would go beyond the extent reasonably necessary to support the proposed dwelling.

The Council is satisfied that the proposal complies with the other restrictions and limitations specified in [name].1. Based on the information provided, I have no reason to take a different view. I therefore conclude that the proposal would be permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, as amended. Q2 [name] conditions

The Council does not raise any specific objections or seek prior approval of details in relation to transport and highway impacts of the development, contamination risks on the site, flooding risks on the site, location or siting of the building, design or external appearance or the provision of adequate natural light to habitable rooms. Based on the information before me, I have no reason to take a different view.

With regards to noise impacts of the development, the Council considers that a condition to restrict the use of the ground floor of the building to prevent it being used for the accommodation or housing of livestock would address this requirement.

Accordingly, the proposed development would accord with Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q2 of the Order.

The appeal site is located within the North Meadow Special Area of Conservation (SAC) 9.4km recreational buffer zone, which is designated for its lowland hay meadow habitat.

The grant of planning permission under Article 3(1) of the GPDO is subject to the provisions of the GPDO for each class of development and compliance with Regulations 75 to 78 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) (Habitats Regulations). Effectively, Article 3(1) provides a pre-commencement condition which must be met, where the development would affect a European protected habitat, such as a SAC, before the works can be undertaken as permitted development. This includes a separate application to the Council under Regulation 77 of the Habitats Regulations to allow the Council to undertake an appropriate assessment and, depending on the outcome, this would determine whether, in terms of that matter, the scheme could be undertaken as permitted development under the GPDO.

Article 3(1) and Regulations 75-78 secure a separate process by which development only proceeds where it has been confirmed via a Regulation 77 approval from the Council that there would be no adverse effect on the integrity of designated sites. Therefore, it is not necessary for me to consider whether there would be any likely significant effects on the integrity of the SAC or undertake an Appropriate Assessment.

Lydiard Tregoze Parish Council raised concerns regarding the fire hazard potential of items stored beneath the proposed dwelling at ground level. The Council notes that the appeal site has suitable access for fire and rescue services, and I see no reason to disagree with this assessment. Nevertheless, whilst these concerns sit outside of the requirements for an assessment of the proposed development under Class Q of the Order, fire safety is addressed through the Building Regulations process.

The National Planning Policy Framework states that conditions should be kept to a minimum and only imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise, and reasonable in all other aspects. I have considered the conditions put forward by the Council against the Framework.

[name] (13) of Schedule 2, Part 3 of the Order states that conditions which are “reasonably related to the subject matter of the prior approval” may be applied. Paragraph Q2(3) stipulates that development under Class Q is permitted subject to the condition that development must be completed within a period of 3 years starting with the prior approval date.

[name] (12) of Schedule 2, Part 3 of the Order requires that the development must be carried out in accordance with the details that are approved, and a plans condition would not therefore be required.

To protect the living conditions of future occupiers from noise from livestock beneath the dwelling, it is necessary to restrict the use of the ground floor of the building to prevent it being used for the accommodation or housing of livestock.

The proposal would satisfy the requirements and limitations set out in Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the Order. I therefore find that the appeal should be allowed, and prior approval is granted, subject to the standard conditions set out in paragraph Q2 of Class Q and to the additional condition specified above.