Appeal 6002543

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal site lies on the south side of [name] 553(C), and directly to the south of No 1 [address] Barns. [address] is nearby. The site address shown above is that given in the application form.

The application is made under the provisions of Class Q of the above Order (the GPDO). Broadly, Class Q permits the change of use of an agricultural building to dwellinghouses, together with building operations reasonably necessary to convert the building, subject to various exceptions and conditions. One of these is that before beginning the development, the developer must apply for a determination as to whether prior approval will be required, in respect of various matters. These include any transport or highways impacts, and whether the location makes the change of use impractical or undesirable.

The application was made on 28 March 2025, under the transitional provisions applying at that time, in accordance with the amendments to the GPDO introduced in May 2024.

The appeal building comprises a large, steel-framed barn. The lower walls are constructed of single-skin brick and blockwork, with the upper parts clad in timber boarding. The roof is a mixture of profiled steel sheeting and asbestos panels. The building is set in open countryside outside the village of Drayton, and at the time of my visit was in for use agricultural purposes. The appeal proposal would develop the building into 5 residential units, in a range of sizes.

[address] is a minor country lane, running from Drayton to Woodcote Green. Access from [address] to the appeal site is via [name] 552 and 553. Bridleway 552 has a metalled surface, and provides vehicular access to half a dozen or so existing dwellings, including some which have been converted from former farm buildings.

On my visit, I saw that Bridleway 553 is a rough farm track. The section that serves the appeal site is about 100m long, and is on a moderate incline. Its composition appears to be primarily bare earth, with a light top dressing of hardcore. In places, the surface is badly worn, and this has resulted in deep wheel ruts to the softer areas, with the hard ground in between standing proud. For most ordinary domestic cars and small or medium-sized vehicles, a rutted surface of this nature would be hazardous, due to the risk of grounding the underside. It would be open to the occupiers of the proposed dwellings to use only vehicles such as 4x4’s or SUV’s, with a higher ground clearance. But, to be acceptable for residential use, the new dwellings would need to be accessible by a wide range of other vehicles, including visitors, tradespeople, deliveries, and emergency services. The track in its present condition would not serve as an acceptable access for these purposes.

For pedestrians or cyclists, these sections of the route would involve some risk of tripping, slipping or stumbling. Furthermore, at the time of my visit it had recently been raining, although not heavily, and this had left the track surface muddy and waterlogged. In these conditions, the track would be inconvenient and unpleasant for non-motorised users, as well as increasing the potential hazards.

In addition, the use of Bridleway 553 for residential traffic would have the potential to affect existing users, such as walkers and horse riders. Whilst the vehicle movements generated by the new dwellings would be offset to a degree by the loss of those associated with the current agricultural use, the evidence suggests that the overall number would increase. Whilst it is unlikely that any vehicles in this location would be travelling at speed, it does seem probable that some would tend to drive faster than an agricultural tractor with a trailer. And although most residential vehicles would be smaller and lighter, there would also be some larger vehicles, such as refuse collections. I note that there is no official record of any injury accidents, and nor is there any apparent reason for concern regarding traffic capacity as such. But nevertheless, it seems to me that the development’s likely effect would be to increase the potential hazards for the bridleway’s leisure users, and also to cause the surface to deteriorate further.

I appreciate that the track could be improved, with a reconstructed base layer, new surfacing, and drainage. However, no such works are proposed. And in any event, works of this kind would appear to fall outside the scope of Class Q, as they would go beyond what would be necessary to convert the building itself.

In the light of these matters, I find that in terms of transport and highways impacts, the proposed conversion of the appeal building to residential use would have an unacceptably detrimental effect on both existing and future users of Bridleway 553. This impact seems to me to render the location of the appeal site both impractical and undesirable for the development proposed.

For these reasons, I conclude that prior approval for the development should be refused.

Both parties have made reference to the ‘Hibbitt’ judgement1, in which the scope of Class Q was clarified by the [address]. In that judgement, it was held that there is an important legal distinction between conversion on the one hand, on the other, works which amount to either a rebuilding or indeed the creation of what would be essentially a ‘fresh building’. Whilst this would be a matter of planning judgement in each individual case, it would be relevant to consider whether the existing building was capable of functioning as a dwelling.

In the present case, the proposed works would appear to involve amongst other things the construction of completely new external walls throughout, the provision of a floor slab to the main central part where none exists now, and substantial works to the roof, as well as providing all new doors and windows where none now exist. The installation of many of these elements is permissible, where reasonably necessary, but this does not override the legal requirement for the works to be a conversion rather than a new building. From the submissions that are before me, it is unclear what view has been reached as to whether the development now proposed would remain within the limits of what would be a genuine conversion.

Nevertheless, in view of the conclusion that I have come to on the matters discussed above, it is not necessary for me to seek further submissions on this point. For the avoidance of doubt, I have formed no view on the issue, and it has not affected my decision.

In addition, the provisions under Class Q include a requirement for adequate natural light to all habitable rooms. In this case, the building has a deep floorplan, and some of the proposed habitable rooms, particularly in units 1 and 2, would be some considerable distance from any external window or door. The submitted information does not demonstrate that the levels of natural light in these rooms would meet any recognised standards. Nonetheless, for the same reasons as above, it is not necessary for me to draw any conclusion on this issue, and I have not done so.

In order to create the residential curtilages for units 3, 4 and 5, as shown on the submitted plans, it would appear to be necessary to encroach onto part of the land over which highway rights are said to exist, relating to Bridleway 553. Any extinguishment of those rights would require a separate application under the relevant highways legislation. The bridleway is reasonably wide at this point, but I cannot speculate as to whether such an application would be likely to succeed. If the three units in question were unable to have the outdoor amenity space shown, this would significantly diminish their quality, but would not in itself preclude the scheme from benefitting from Class Q rights, as long as those rights are considered applicable in the light of the above matters.

I have taken account of all the other matters raised, but I find that none of these affects my decision. 1 Hibbitt v SSCLG [2016] EWHC 2853

For the reasons explained above, I conclude that the development would have unacceptable impacts in terms of transport and highways, and that on these grounds the location would be impractical and undesirable. Prior approval should therefore be refused. It follows that the appeal is dismissed.