Appeal 6003012

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the banner heading above is taken from the original application form, albeit shortened to only include necessary information.

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 Order), development is permitted for the change of use of a building and any land within its curtilage, from use as an agricultural building to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses) together with building operations reasonably necessary to convert that building, subject to limitations and conditions.

The Council may refuse the application where it considers that the proposed development would not comply with, or that the developer has provided insufficient information to enable the Council to establish whether the proposed development complies with, the conditions, limitations or restrictions set out in paragraphs Q.1 and Q.2.

The Council refused the application in relation to the extent of the works which would be required to enable the building to function as a dwelling and the suitability of the appeal building for conversion and, consequently, its non-compliance with paragraph Q.1(i). The Council has also refused the application on the grounds that the location of the dwelling would be unsuitable for conversion to residential use under paragraph Q.2(1)(e).

The main issues are, therefore, whether the proposed development would constitute permitted development in respect to Class Q and paragraph Q.1(i); and, if the proposal is found to constitute permitted development, whether prior approval would be required and should be granted.

The appeal building is a steel-framed barn comprising a metal frame with a shallow pitched sheet metal roof. The building is open to two sides, one of which is enclosed by the external wall of the adjacent building. The other two sides comprise blockwork walls to the lower half and vertical timber cladding above.

[name].1(i) of the Order indicates that development 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 dwellinghouse. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states that it is not the intention of the permitted development right to allow rebuilding work which would go beyond what is reasonably necessary, and that it is only where the existing building is already suitable for conversion to residential use that it would be considered to have the permitted development right.

In addition, the PPG specifically refers to the case of Hibbitt and another v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (1) and Rushcliffe Borough Council (2) [2016] EWHC 2853 (Admin) (the Hibbitt case). This case has also been referred to by both main parties. Amongst other things, the Hibbitt case explored the distinction between works required for the conversion of an existing agricultural structure or building to a dwellinghouse, and works amounting to its rebuilding or, in effect, the creation of a new building. [name] set out that this distinction is a matter of legitimate planning judgement.

In the case before me, the appellants have provided a [name], dated May 2025 (the structural appraisal). This concludes that the barn is in good structural order, that the steel portal frame and timbers are in good order and that there are no signs of leaks in the roof. Nevertheless, the structural appraisal does refer to bulging and cracking in the blockwork which I also saw on site.

While the existing barn might be in good condition overall, and I have no reason to dispute the findings of the structural appraisal, and no substantive evidence from the Council that challenges the appellants’ findings, whether the level of works involved would constitute a conversion is a matter of planning judgement. Whether the existing building is suitable for conversion to residential use, or whether the works amount to the creation of a new building, does not wholly depend on whether the existing structure needs wholescale demolition or rebuilding.

The two open sides would require the construction of new walls and the structural appraisal advises that the existing blockwork would require localised repair. The structural appraisal does not advise how much of each blockwork bay would be required to be rebuilt and there is no definition of ‘localised’. From my own observations, even without an alternative structural engineer’s assessment, the blockwork on three out of five bays would need to be rebuilt to some extent.

The rebuilding of the blockwork and the construction of two new walls would comprise new elements which, albeit not required to structurally support the existing frame, would be new structural elements. The extent of these structural elements, although not resulting in wholescale demolition or rebuilding, is significant due to the lack of existing walls and the extent of the damage to the blockwork. Consequently, it is my judgement that the works would amount to significant rebuilding.

In this regard the appeal before me is materially different to the [name] appeal1 referred to by the appellants in which the existing blockwork walls were to be retained and one new wall built. In that case the Inspector found sufficient differences to the Hibbitt case and also concluded that a considerable proportion of the existing building would remain.

The appeal before me has more similarities with the Hibbitt case, which was largely open to three sides and where the existing structure was capable of taking the loading for the new panels. Nevertheless, the judgment determined that the proposed works would not amount to conversion. Although there are similarities with Hibbitt, each case should be determined on its own merits, having regard to the particular circumstances. In this case, I have considered the evidence before me and my own observations.

Although internal works, such as the provision of both a new base and first floor, and insulation to the walls, would not constitute development, these works would not result in a building that is capable of conversion without the substantial new elements proposed in the current appeal.

I, therefore, find that the works required to infill the two open elevations, and to repair the existing blockwork walls, go a long way beyond building operations that are reasonably necessary for the existing building to function as a dwelling. The existing building is, therefore, not suitable for conversion. Indeed, while the proposed dwelling would retain the general appearance of the existing building, I am satisfied that, having regard to the Hibbitt case, the proposal would be more akin to a partial rebuild and new building work, rather than a conversion.

For the above reasons, the proposed development falls outside the scope of permitted development rights under Class Q.1(i). Accordingly, the proposal would not be permitted development.

I note the Council’s reasons for refusal included that the location and siting make the building impractical or undesirable for residential use due to its proximity to a farm yard and buildings. However, given my findings above I have not assessed the proposal against Q2 of the Order. I have, therefore, also not considered the occupation condition.

[name] saw that the adjacent building was not in use for animal housing or intensive agriculture storage, as it was used for storage of a horse wagon, logs and bales, it could be brought back into agriculture use without any further planning permission. The appellants current use and intended use of the other buildings within the farm would not justify the appeal scheme. 1 APP/D0840/W/18/3208377

For the reasons given above, and taking into account all other matters raised, the appeal is therefore dismissed.