Appeal 6002876

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 change of use of an agricultural building to 1 no. dwelling and associated building operations under Class Q at [site address] , road from [name] to [address], Roborough, Devon [postcode] in accordance with the application Ref 1/0584/2025/AGMB and the details submitted with it, and subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos M363 24 201; M363 24 203 B; M363 24 302 D; and M363 24 301 D.

Prior to any residential occupancy of the development hereby permitted, the two buildings to the immediate south west, on drawing number M363 24 203 B shall permanently cease being used for any livestock, slurry, sludge or manure storage, and shall only be used for the storage of agricultural machinery and/or the storage of crops/harvested crops, or for a residential use where agreed with the local planning authority.

Should any contamination of soil or groundwater be discovered during development of the site, the local planning authority should be contacted immediately. Site activities within that phase or sub-phase or part thereof, should be temporarily suspended until such time as a procedure for addressing such contamination, within that phase or sub-phase or part thereof, is agreed upon with the local planning authority or other regulating bodies.

An application for costs is made by [name] against Torridge District Council, which is the subject of a separate decision.

The Planning Practice Guidance states that permitted development rights are a national grant of planning permission which allow certain building works and changes of use to be carried out without having to make a planning application. Permitted development rights are subject to conditions and limitations to control impacts and to protect local amenity. This is effectively a 2-stage process where it is necessary in the first instance to determine whether or not the proposal is permitted development.

Class Q of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the General Permitted Development Order (the GPDO) says that the change of use of a building that is part of an established agricultural unit or a former agricultural building and any land within that building’s curtilage to a residential use, together with reasonably necessary building operations, is permitted development.

Paragraph Q1 sets out circumstances where development is not permitted. Part (h) applies where the development would result in the external dimensions of the building extending beyond the external dimensions of the existing building at any given point. Development is not permitted under part (j) if the development would consist of building operations other than—(i) the installation or replacement of windows, doors, roofs, or exterior walls, or water, drainage, electricity, gas or other services, to the extent reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwellinghouse.

The Council refused the application on the basis that it considered the building operations to the northwest elevation would go beyond those reasonably necessary for a conversion. There is no dispute that the remainder of the works to convert the building would be reasonable, and I find no reason to disagree. The Council also expressed concerns that the proposed cladding would extend beyond the external dimensions of the existing building.

Therefore, I consider the main issue to be whether the proposal would be permitted development.

The appeal building comprises a fully enclosed, structurally sound, dual pitch barn that has been internally partitioned off to create two separate areas, each with its own entrance. The partition is likely to be relatively recent and is made up of a lightweight sheeting attached to a wooden and steel framework. I acknowledge previous descriptions of the building(s). Even so, the well-established external cladding forms a continuous frontage between the pitches and does not create any external physical separation. Having considered the available evidence and my own observations, I am satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the appeal scheme relates to a single building.

To separate the internal space, the proposal would require an upgrade to the partition running the length of the building, rather than starting afresh. The colour coding within the submitted cladding strategy is somewhat unclear. Nevertheless, this walling would be constructed using timber that the plans show would be attached inside the existing steel frame. Timber framework would be used to attach metal profile sheeting as a façade. Accordingly, the works necessary to create a weather‐tight exterior would utilise the existing structural framework and would not be excessive in scale or nature. Having had regard to the principles established in Hibbitt, these works can reasonably be regarded as necessary to facilitate a conversion, rather than amounting to a re‐build. The remainder of the building would be retained, and no substantive evidence has been presented to demonstrate that this could not be achieved while complying with the requirements of the GPDO.

Even if I were to conclude that the structure comprises two buildings, the plans indicate that both the proposed works and the required insulation would remain wholly within the line of the existing steel frame that runs the length of the structure.

Therefore, the proposed operations do not exceed those permitted under Class Q1.(h) or (j).

The Council has provided some suggested informatives relating to the time limit for completion, adherence to the plans, and a restriction on other development following the completion of any development permitted under Class Q. While noted, these have no bearing on the appeal outcome.

Any prior approval and planning permission granted for development under the GPDO is subject to the condition that it must be completed within a period of 3 years starting with the prior approval date, as well as the provisions of paragraph [name] provision also allows for the grant of prior approval unconditionally or subject to conditions reasonably related to the subject matter of the prior approval.

In the interests of clarity, I have imposed a plans condition. The submissions include a landscaping plan. While noted, it includes operations outside the scope of this appeal. I have therefore not included it in the list of plans set out above. To do so would be unnecessary.

The suggested restriction of the use of two adjacent agricultural buildings relates to a prior approval matter of the suitability of the location for a residential use. A condition is therefore reasonably necessary in the interests of the living conditions of future occupiers. For similar reasons in respect of another prior approval matter, I have imposed a condition to deal with unexpected contamination.

For the reasons given, the appeal succeeds.