Appeal 6002042

The appeal is dismissed.

The application for costs made by the Council against the appellant is the subject of a separate decision.

The provisions of Class Q in Part 3 of the Order were changed following an Amendment Order which came into force on 21 May 2024. These apply to applications for a determination as to prior approval made after 21 May 2025. As the appeal application was submitted in July 2025 it should therefore be considered against the ‘new’ Class Q. This covers the change of use of buildings on agricultural units and former agricultural buildings to dwellinghouses.

The Order establishes that development consisting of a change of use of a building that is part of an established agricultural unit to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses) is permitted development. This includes building operations reasonably necessary to convert the building. [name] of Part 3 of the Order defines “established agricultural unit” as agricultural land occupied as a unit for the purposes of agriculture on or before 20 March 2013. The site also needs to have been part of an established agricultural unit on 24 July 2023.

Development is not permitted under Class Q if it would consist of building operations other than the installation of windows, doors, roofs or exterior walls to the extent reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwellinghouse. Similarly, partial demolition reasonably necessary to carry out those building operations is not a limitation on the permitted development right.

A condition of Class Q is that application must be made to the local planning authority for a determination as to whether prior approval will be required as to, amongst other things, flooding risks on the site.

In the light of the above, the main issues are whether the proposal would be permitted development and whether prior approval should be granted with particular regard to: • Whether the building is part of an established agricultural unit; • Whether the proposed building operations are reasonably necessary; and • Whether future occupiers would be at risk of flooding.

The appeal building is constructed in blockwork with metal sheeting. As part of the proposal lean-to sections on either side of the main barn would be removed. Planning permission was given for light industrial use in 2006. A welding business occupied the southern lean-to but this has now ceased. The officer report on the application notes that the barn is largely unused, with some storage of miscellaneous items and that it appeared to be in a relatively good state of repair.

The land associated with [site address] extends to around 4 hectares. The main farming practices are sheep grazing and hay. Other parcels of land away from the farm are rented out for arable crops (mostly wheat and barley) comprising about [address], Cottenham and approximately 8.[address] outside Westwick. It is claimed that the building was originally used for agriculture and has been part of the agricultural unit for a number of years, notwithstanding the use by the welding company. It has not been split off and still forms part of the agricultural unit. There is no evidence to the contrary.

As set out in appeal decision APP/J0405/W/25/3367977, prior approval can be granted under paragraph Q(a)(i) for a building that does not meet the definition of “agricultural building” in paragraph X and is used for non-agricultural purposes. Therefore, the past commercial use does not take the building outside the parameters of Class Q. The information regarding past agricultural use is a little scanty but the current activities undertaken and the extent of the land holding are not disputed. There is nothing to show that the land was not an established agricultural unit in 2013 or that the building was not part of an established agricultural unit in 2023. Therefore, the proposal falls within the definition of permitted development in Class Q in this respect.

As part of a previous prior approval application to convert the building into two dwellings, the Council accepted that the removal of the northern lean-to was reasonably necessary. This was in order to allow for adequate natural light into that side of the barn given its proximity to an adjacent building. The appellant indicates that the removal of the southern lean-to is necessary to achieve a high-quality design with suitable light provision.

There is no requirement to submit a structural survey with an application for prior approval. The elevational drawings show that the existing roof sheets would be repaired and replaced as necessary. New walls containing windows and doors are proposed to be installed along both long sides of the building. The existing southern lean-to elevation contains windows and a door which would be sufficient for light according to the Council.

To qualify under Class Q partial demolition can only be to the extent reasonably necessary to carry out the building operations allowed by paragraph Q.1(j)(i). In other words, to facilitate those operations, including exterior walls, which are themselves reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwellinghouse. However, in this case, the new southern external wall is only required because the existing lean-to section would be removed. If the lean-to remained then it would not be necessary. There is no evidence that the lean-to area is unsuitable for conversion, especially given its previous commercial use and as it was retained and included in the earlier proposal for two dwellings. Removing it is therefore not a reasonably necessary pre-cursor to achieving a residential use of the building and so the limitation in paragraph Q1 would not be complied with.

Therefore, the proposal would not be development permitted under Class Q.

The building is sound and in good condition. The Council refers to Hibbitt v SSCLG [2016] EWHC 2853 which indicates that the building must be capable of conversion to residential use without substantial or complete re-building of the existing structure or, in effect, the creation of a new building. The scheme involves the demolition of two elements of the barn equivalent to about 60% of the existing floor area as well as two new external walls. However, the end walls, frame and roof would remain intact. Therefore, whilst the building operations proposed would be extensive, they fall short of amounting to rebuilding and, from the available evidence, amount to a conversion.

The site is within [name] 3. The Flood Risk Assessment concludes that the probability of flooding from the localised drainage system is low. It is also not anticipated that the land would flood during the design life of the development from the watercourses of the [name] ([name]) or [name]. The Assessment nonetheless recommends that the finished floor level is raised by 0.3m above surrounding ground levels with 0.3m of flood resilient (recovery) construction above finished floor level. This could be secured by condition.

The Planning Practice Guidance on When is [name] confirms that internal works are not generally development. It goes on to say that for a building to function as a dwelling it may be appropriate to undertake internal structural works, including a floor ([name]: 13-105-20180615). This is not prohibited by Class Q and so the raising of the floor level would not take the proposal outside the parameters of Class Q.

Therefore, subject to the imposition of a condition, future occupiers would not be at risk of flooding.

In response to one of the reasons for refusal the appellant has provided a [name] and Bat Roost Assessment. However, there is no requirement to obtain prior approval for Class Q development in respect of ecology. Any conditions must be reasonably related to the subject matter of the prior approval and so this provision of the Order precludes those recommended in the Assessment and suggested by the Council. Although the appellant may have separate obligations under wildlife legislation, the effect of the development on protected species lies outside the remit of this decision.

The appellant wishes to work with the local planning authority to achieve a high quality scheme to convert the existing barn into a dwelling and has attempted to address the concerns raised initially through the design of the second application. This is appreciated but it does not alter the finding that the proposal falls outside the parameters for permitted development under Class Q.

Because the demolition of the southern lean-to is not reasonably necessary to carry out the building operations allowed by paragraph Q.1(j)(i) the proposal would not be permitted development. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.