Appeal 6002928

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 and conversion of agricultural building to dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) at [site address] in accordance with the application P/PAAC/2025/05451 and the details submitted with it.

The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) England (Amendment) Order 2024 came into force on 21 May 2024. This appeal relates to these ‘New’ permitted development rights and I have determined the appeal on this basis.

Under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO planning permission is granted for (a) change of use of a building that is part of an established agriculture unit, or a former agricultural building, and any land within its curtilage to a use falling within use class C3 (dwellinghouses) together with (b) the extension of the building and (c) building operations reasonably necessary to convert the building or to extend that building, subject to limitations and conditions.

[name].1(j) indicates that development is not permitted by Class Q(b) if it would consist of building operations other than 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 consider that the building operations would go beyond what could reasonably be considered a conversion, and so would not comply with the limitations of Class Q.1(j).

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.

In light of the Preliminary Matters above, the main issue is whether the required building operations are to the extent reasonably necessary to carry out the conversion of the building to comply with [name].1(j) of the GPDO.

The appeal building is constructed of treated timber poles and struts. The northern elevation comprises full height ‘hit and miss’ timber cladding. The majority of the eastern elevation comprises ‘hit and miss’ and timber cladding above fixed base boards. At the time of my site visit, the southern part of the building under an offshoot roof was partly open below the roof and above fairly loosely fitted base boards and gate. However, there was some cladding above loosely fitting base boards to the western elevation of the off shoot. The remainder of the western elevation comprises high level timber cladding above the two main openings to the barn. The roof is constructed from timber with metal sheeting. The floor to the barn comprises compacted earth and stone.

The GPDO states at paragraph Q.1(j) that development under Class Q(b) is not permitted if it would consist of building operations other than 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 dwelling house. Under paragraph Q.1(h), protrusions of up to 0.2 metres to accommodate building operations under Q.1(j) are permitted.

Paragraph 105 of the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that the right under Class Q assumes that the agricultural building is capable of functioning as a dwelling. However, the PPG is clear that it is not the intention of the permitted development rights to allow rebuilding work that would go beyond what is reasonably necessary for the conversion of the building to a residential use. Accordingly, it is only where the existing building is already suitable for conversion to residential use that the building would be considered to benefit from the permitted development rights.

Neither the GPDO nor the PPG define the term ‘reasonably necessary’. Consequently, this is a matter of planning judgement based on fact and degree of an individual case. My attention has though been drawn to the Hibbitt judgement 1 which relates to the difference between conversions and rebuilding dealt with under Class Q. This is important because if a development does not amount to a conversion it would fail to be development permitted under Class Q.

The Hibbitt case suggested that an agricultural building may be so skeletal and minimalist, that the works needed to alter it to be used as a dwelling would be of such a magnitude that it would be tantamount to a new build or rebuild as opposed to a conversion. Furthermore, Hibbitt reinforces that it is a matter of planning judgement as to whether the level of works involved would still constitute a conversion.

A Structural Inspection – Overview of [name] (the [name]) has been provided by the appellant. The Structural Report states that the existing building is reasonably sound and considered suitable for conversion under Class Q. 1 Hibbitt and another v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (1) and Rushcliffe Borough Council (2) [2016] EWHC 2853 (Admin). The Council have not provided any substantive evidence questioning the structural suitability of the building, provision of an upper floor, internal partitions or provision of concrete insulated floor, and I have no reason to disagree.

The proposal would retain the roof with the insertion of rooflights with retention of the existing timber frame structure, and cladding, with new internal wall lining as well as the introduction of doors and windows. No substantive concerns are raised by the Council with regard to these works.

Notwithstanding, I have had regard to the Council’s concerns about the extent of existing openings to the building and to base board panels being loosely fitting. I have also had regard to the Councils’ concerns regarding the inclusion of new walling comprising building paper, new 100mm timber frame fitted to the existing weatherboarding and fitted with insulation and new cladding, and the need for these works to enclose and weatherproof the building. Given that these works are detailed within the [name] and reflected on the [name] and Elevations ([name]. 24-0902/P1), I find that these works are proposed as part of the application.

However, the [name] and plans are clear with regard to the retention of the existing timber poles, cladding and roofing resulting in much of the existing fabric being retained. Furthermore, with regard to the new timber frame wall and weatherboarding, Class Q.1(j)(i) (aa) allows for the installation or replacement of windows, doors, roofs, and exterior walls to the extent reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwelling house. It also allows for the partial demolition to the extent reasonably necessary to carry out these building operations with the PPG advising that internal works are not generally development. Moreover, paragraph Q.1(h), allows protrusions of up to 0.2 metres to accommodate building operations under Q.1(j). Therefore, to my mind the vast majority of the works reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwellinghouse are covered under these items, including additions to, and changes to the walls.

Whilst some relatively considerable works to the building are proposed, particularly with regard to additional cladding/walling to infill existing openings and to replace base boards, particularly to the southern off shoot, many aspects will be retained, including the height, scale and footprint of the building. Furthermore, such boards and openings to barns are not unusual and, in this case, do not comprise the majority of overall elevational coverage with the building generally enclosed. As such I find that these works are all permitted under the GPDO. Furthermore, due to the retention of much of the existing building, lack of substantive evidence to suggest that the new walling would be required to structurally support the building, and with the installation and replacement of walls expressly permitted under Class Q, the appeal building would be capable of conversion to residential use and the proposed building operations would not amount to the complete or substantial re-building of the pre-existing structure, as was found to be the case within Hibbitt.

Therefore, based on the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the building operations proposed would be reasonably necessary in this instance and would not exceed the limitations set out in paragraph Q.1(j) of the GPDO. As such, the proposal would constitute permitted development as set out under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO.

Any prior approval and planning permission granted for the development under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO is subject to the condition under Q.2 (3) which specifies that the development shall be completed within a period of 3 years starting with the prior approval date. [name](12) of Schedule 2, Part 3 of the GPDO requires development to be carried out in accordance with the details submitted.

[name](13), Schedule 2, Part 3 of the GPDO allows conditions to be imposed that are reasonably related to the subject matter of the prior approval. In relation to this, I note the condition suggested by the Council related to barn owls. However, ecology is not a prior approval matter, with their protection covered by other legislation. Furthermore, as the GPDO requires development to be carried out in accordance with the submitted details, that in this instance includes the mitigation outlined within the [name] Assessment to address the potential presence of barn owls.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed and prior approval granted under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO subject to the standard conditions set out in paragraph Q.2 of Class Q.