Appeal 6002583

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] against the decision of Ashford Borough Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

Class Q(a) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (hereafter, GPDO) permits development consisting of a change of use of a building and any land within its curtilage from a use as an agricultural building to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses), Class Q(b) permits the extension of the building, and Class Q(c) permits building operations reasonably necessary to convert the building for that purpose. This is subject to certain criteria, and circumstances where development is not permitted are listed under [name].1.

[name].1.(a) the GPDO states 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 (i) on 24th July 2023, or (ii) in the case of a building which was in use before that date but was not in use on that date, when it was last in use, or (iii) in the case of a site which was brought into use after 24th July 2023, for a period of at least 10 years before the date development under Class Q begins.

As set out Q.1.(j), development is not permitted where it 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, and (ii) partial demolition to the extent reasonably necessary to carry out building operations allowed by paragraph Q.1(j)(i).

For the purposes of Class Q, Q.3.(1) indicates that "curtilage" means the lesser of (a) the piece of land, whether enclosed or unenclosed, immediately beside or around the building on an established agricultural unit or former agricultural building (as the case may be), closely associated with and serving the purposes of that building, and (b) an area of land immediately beside or around the building on an established agricultural unit or former agricultural building (as the case may be) no larger than the land area occupied by that building.

Having regard to the above, the main issue in this appeal is whether the proposal would be permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO, with particular regard to: • whether the area of curtilage would exceed the land area occupied by the buildings; • whether the buildings were used solely for an agricultural use as part of an established agricultural unit at the relevant date; and • whether the extent of building operations would be reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwellinghouse.

The appeal site is located at [site address] and comprises a group of six silos, arranged in a U-shape and sited on a concrete apron. The proposal seeks change of use and conversion of four silos to two dwellings.

The location plan should include all land necessary to carry out the proposed development. Therefore, the red line boundary shown on the plan is not necessarily coterminous with the extent of proposed residential curtilage. As indicated on the location plan1, the red line boundary includes the shared access track to the vehicular access, the group of six silos and surrounding land.

The appellant asserts the proposal refers only to a change of use of the buildings without reference to any land within the curtilage, and that a deliberate choice was made to omit a garden. However, this is inconsistent with the Planning Statement which states the proposal “seeks the change of use to Class C3 of existing agricultural buildings that are part of an established agricultural unit and the land within the buildings’ curtilage, with the associated building operations”2.

As illustrated on the site plan3, there would be a landscaped area at the front of the dwellings with paths leading to the front doors. In addition, the proposed dwellings would have a rear door providing access to an area shown as white land on the site plan. Therefore, the proposed dwellings would have a functional relationship to land at the front and rear, and these areas would comprise residential curtilage.

The Council accepts that not all land within the red line boundary would constitute curtilage. However, even excluding the land area of the silos, access track and 1 Drawing no PHA-PL-001 Location Plan / Block Plan 2 Paragraph 21, Planning Statement 3 Drawing no PHA-PL-007 A Site Plan proposed car parking area, it estimates the total area of curtilage would be 566sqm. The curtilage would therefore significantly exceed the 126qm land area occupied by the silos.

In conclusion, the area of curtilage would be larger than the land area occupied by the buildings, and the proposal would conflict with paragraph Q.3.(1) of the GPDO. Whether used solely for an agricultural use as part of an established agricultural unit

The group of silos are situated within a yard area of [site address] . To the immediate east and southeast of the silos are barns. In addition, close to the site there is an office building and a dwelling, [name].

The farm encompasses a mix of farmyard and pastureland of over 14 ha, with a further 97 ha farmed in the local area and comprises a sheep farming operation. The farm’s total livestock numbers at any one time may exceed 400, and the appellant is involved in agricultural contracting and hay sales from their land. Therefore, the farm enterprise is of a substantial and commercial scale of agricultural activity.

The Council allege that during the officer’s site visit, household items and outdoor equipment were seen inside one silo and therefore there was uncertainty whether the building was being used for agricultural storage. During my site visit, I noted that one of the silos was used for the storage of various items such as hand tools, ladders, buckets, rolls of wire fencing, reels of hose, and piles of wood and timber. The stored items and materials appeared relevant to the agricultural function of the farm, suggesting the silos remain in active use for agricultural storage.

The site is in the ownership of the appellant, with no tenancy in place. It is understood the silos have been in situ since at least December 1990 and the appellant indicates the buildings have been used solely for their farming business since they were constructed. The planning history does not suggest the agricultural use of the site has ceased at any time.

No substantive documentary evidence has been provided to demonstrate the site was in agricultural use at the relevant date. Whilst documents such as accounts and farm records may describe the activities of the farm as a whole, it is unlikely such evidence would confirm the use of the individual silos at a given date.

Therefore, for the purposes of assessing the proposal against the GPDO’s requirements, it is necessary to exercise judgement in concluding whether the site was used solely for an agricultural use. The site forms a part of an established agricultural unit, and the silos have a long-standing use for agricultural storage purposes. I have no compelling reason to consider the site’s circumstances were materially different at the relevant date. Therefore, for the purposes of the GPDO’s Class Q.1.(a), I am satisfied the site was part of an established agricultural unit at the relevant date of 24th July 2023.

The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) indicates building works are allowed under the right permitting agricultural buildings to change to residential use under Class Q of the GPDO4. As set out by the PPG, the right assumes that the agricultural 4 [name]: 105 [name]: 13-105-20180615 building is capable of functioning as a dwelling. It is not the intention of the permitted development right to allow rebuilding work which would go beyond what is reasonably necessary for the conversion of the building to residential use. Therefore, 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 silos are cylindrical structures, fully enclosed by corrugated steel sheeting, with conical roofs, and sited on circular concrete plinths. The silos have no internal supporting frame but are understood to be capable of supporting 100 tonnes of grain. Therefore, the silos are not of lightweight construction but comprise complete, permanent and substantial structures.

From my site visit, the silos appeared functional and had not fallen into disrepair. No structural assessment has been provided. However, this is not an explicit requirement of the GPDO or the PPG. I have not been provided details of the Council’s research of the integrity of concrete used in agricultural buildings and I have no evidence to support the assertion that extensive rebuilding of external walls, foundations and roofs would be required. As indicated by the proposed elevation plans5, the external structure of the silos would be retained.

The PPG confirms that internal works are not generally development and recognises that for the 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. Therefore, internal structural works are not prohibited by Class Q.

The appellant indicates that conversion of the silos would involve the creation of an internal timber frame, either on site or manufactured off site, with insulation included in the timber framework or installed between internal and external walls after fitting. Neither method would require removal of existing walls, and both approaches would utilise the existing concrete base. The proposal would not extend the height of the existing silos. Therefore, I have no compelling reason to consider the existing structures would require extensive rebuilding work.

Class Q(b) permits the extension of the building, and the PPG indicates the right permits building operations which are reasonably necessary to convert the building, which may include those which would affect the external appearance of the building and would otherwise require planning permission. This includes the installation or replacement of windows, doors, roofs, exterior walls, water, drainage, electricity, gas or other services to the extent reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwelling house; and partial demolition to the extent reasonably necessary to carry out these building operations.

As illustrated on the proposed floor plans and elevations, new fenestration would be inserted, a modest section of exterior wall would join two silos into a single unit, and a single storey projection would be added at the rear. I have had regard to the conclusions reached in the planning officer’s report that, whilst the building operations would be extensive, these would be reasonably necessary for the structures to function as two dwellinghouses and would not be superfluous. 5 Drawing no PHA-PL-004 [name]

For these reasons, I am satisfied the proposal would not involve extensive rebuilding work and the proposed building operations would not exceed that which is reasonably necessary to enable the buildings to function as dwellings. Consequently, the proposal would comply with Q.(c) and Q.1.(j) of the GPDO.

The appellant refers to other appeal decisions for the conversion of silos to dwellings6. However, the GPDO requires I assess the proposal against the criteria of Class Q, and therefore such decisions carry limited weight in my decision.

As set out above, the proposal would not comply with all relevant criteria of Class Q of the GPDO. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed, and prior approval should not be granted.