Appeal 6003169

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs in relation to this appeal was made by [name] against [name] and Chester Council. This application is the subject of a separate

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) (GPDO) 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 GPDO is clear that the local planning authority may refuse an application where, in the opinion of the authority – (a) the proposed development does not comply with, or (b) the developer has provided insufficient information to enable the authority to establish whether the proposed development complies with, the conditions, limitations or restrictions set out in paragraphs Q.1 and Q.2.

There have been two previous applications for prior approval 1, in relation to the appeal building. The Council asserts that, following their assessment of the two previous prior approval applications, the building has been subject to alterations. It states that the changes include the construction of external walls, the installation of black timber cladding and the replacement of the roof. The appellant asserts that these works were carried out before the determination of the second prior approval application and where necessary in order to repair damage, make the building 1 24/03668/PDQ (refused 18/02/2025) and 25/02357/PDQ (refused 2/10/2025) watertight and replace asbestos sheeting. I have made my decision on the basis of the submitted plans and documents.

The appeal falls to be considered as to whether the scheme meets the requirements of paragraph Q.1 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015 (the GPDO) such that it would constitute development permitted under Class Q, subject to the prior approval of certain matters. For permitted development under Class Q(a), namely a change of use from an agricultural building to a Class C3 dwellinghouse, prior approval is required in respect to a number of matters.

The main issues are: • whether the development would consist of building operations reasonably necessary to convert the building; • whether the development had begun prior to the submission of an application for prior approval; • whether the location or siting of the building makes it otherwise impractical or undesirable for the building to change from agricultural use to dwellinghouses.

The GPDO states that it does not permit development contrary to any condition imposed by any planning permission granted.

The appeal site was included within the redline boundary for a previous application described as ‘farm redevelopment including conversion of buildings to 5 dwellings, demolition of several existing buildings and the erection of new agricultural buildings’2. This application included a condition requiring compliance with the proposed plans, which showed that the appeal building would be removed.

Given the description of the development and the removal of the appeal building from the proposed plans, its retention is contrary to the plans condition imposed on a previously granted planning permission. Therefore, the proposal conflicts with the terms of the GPDO. A condition specifically requiring the removal of the building is not necessary for this conflict to occur.

There is no evidence before me to demonstrate that the plans condition was since removed or replaced to allow for the retention of the shed that is the subject of this appeal. The proposed works cannot therefore amount to permitted development.

There is accordingly no need to consider further whether the proposed works would be reasonably necessary to convert the building into a dwelling, whether the development has begun, or whether the location or siting of the development is impractical or undesirable. 2 20/04324/FUL

As detailed above the retention and conversion of the appeal building would be contrary to a condition imposed on another planning permission. As such the development does not comply with the GDPO and information submitted by the appellant to support the view that the development complies with other conditions, limitations or restrictions set out in paragraphs Q.1 and Q.2 are not relevant.

My attention has been drawn to a Class Q prior approval at The Hayloft, Cheshire West3, which was allowed at appeal. However, I am not certain that the appeal building was contrary to a condition imposed on another planning permission. As such, I cannot be certain that the circumstances in that instance are the same as the appeal before me.

For the reasons given above the appeal is dismissed.