Appeal 6002881

The appeal is dismissed.

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

Under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, as amended (the GPDO), planning permission is granted for development consisting of a change of use of a building that is part of an established agricultural unit and any land within that building’s curtilage to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses) together with building operations reasonably necessary to convert or extend the building. Limitations to the development permitted under Class Q are set out in GPDO paragraph Q1.

Paragraph Q1(i) states that development is not permitted by Class Q if the development under Class Q(b) would result in an extension that, amongst other criteria, is sited anywhere other than to the rear of the existing building (criterion ii), or extends beyond a wall that forms a side or principal elevation of the existing building (criterion vi), or would be sited on land that, before the development under Class Q(b), is not covered by a hard surface that was provided on the land by virtue of any development (criterion vii).

The Council refused the application on the basis that the proposed extension to the building would not be located on the rear elevation of the building; and that the area where the extension is proposed does not comprise hardstanding or a hard surface.

Based on the submissions of the main parties there is no reason for me to believe that the other criteria of Class Q are not satisfied. Consequently, there is no need to give them further consideration in this decision.

Given the foregoing, the main issue is whether or not the proposal would be permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO, having regard to the provisions and limitations of paragraph Q1(i).

The appeal site comprises a traditional, rectangular steel portal framed agricultural building, with concrete panels on the lower sections and profiled steel sheeting above. It has a pitched roof covered with profiled steel sheeting, which matches the upper walls of the building. A large door is located to one end of the building. The door is the only opening to the building.

The building is located next to existing stable buildings and near to a manège and grassed area, accessed off the busy A491 [address] by a track and driveway. There are areas of compacted ground around the agricultural building.

The appeal scheme includes an extension to the building. The extension would be located on the opposite end of the building to the elevation which has the door opening in it.

The location of the site, accessed via the relatively long track and driveway, means that the building does not have a relationship with a highway. However, that is not unusual for an agricultural building. Particularly one that is set amongst a cluster of other rural buildings.

The building can be viewed from the access track and due to the orientation of the building, its location within the site and juxtaposition next to existing buildings, the elevation with the large door naturally appears as the front of the building. In addition, the two longer elevations appear as side walls to the building.

As the extension would be on the opposite end of the building to the elevation with the door, in my planning judgement, the proposed extension would be located at the rear of the barn, and the proposal would comprise a rear extension to the building.

Land around the agricultural building is largely compacted ground. In particular, it appears to be a mixture of hardcore and earth. There is a large section of bare ground to the front, which again appears to be a mixture of hardcore and earth. The area to the rear of the building is less compacted and had vegetation growing.

There is no definition within the GPDO of what constitutes a ‘hard surface’. As such, a judgement is required, based on fact and degree, and the circumstances of an individual case.

The appellant refers to the area as a stoned surface, comprising “compact dense granular fill”, at the rear of the barn. In particular, the appellant’s [name] confirms that the area is a hardstanding, as supported by the leader of the Council. However, as suggested by the appellant, Class Q of the GPDO does not refer to a ‘hardstanding’. The judgement to be made is whether the land at the rear of the building is a hard surface or not.

I understand the ordinary meaning of a hard surface to be a surface that is solid, firm, not easy to bend or break. It appears to me that the land could be manually dug. Indeed, vegetation is growing through the surface and even though the vegetation may only be on the surface of the ground, the trial hole shown in the appellant’s photographs suggest that the material is the same at that depth also. To my mind, in these circumstances, this would suggest that the land is easy to break.

In addition, although the land at the rear, and around much of the building is compacted ground, it does not appear to be solid ground. For these reasons, the area of land at the rear of the building is not a hard surface. As such, although the proposed extension is at the rear of the building it is not on land covered by a hard surface.

Drawing my findings together, I find that the proposed development would fail to comply with paragraph Q.1(i) of the GPDO and would not benefit from the permitted development rights under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposed development is not permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO and the appeal should therefore be dismissed.