Appeal 6003380

The appeal is dismissed.

The address in the banner heading is taken from the planning application form. However, I have removed the superfluous words that are not acts of development.

The appeal proposal relates to a prior approval notification made under Article 3(1), Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q, of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015, as amended (the GPDO). Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q(a) of the GPDO permits development consisting of a 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). [name].1 outlines the circumstances where development is not permitted by Class Q.

The parties disagree as to whether the proposed development would satisfy the requirements of paragraphs Q1.(a) in relation to whether the site was part of an established agricultural unit on the operative date and Q.1 (h) and (i) having regard to the siting of the proposed extension.

The main issues are therefore whether the proposal would constitute permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO, with particular regard to: • whether the building was part of an established agricultural unit on the 24 July 2023; and • whether the proposed extension would meet the relevant limitations set out in paragraphs Q.1 (h) and (i) of the GPDO.

At paragraph Q1. (a) of the GPDO development is not permitted by Class Q if, in the case of a site that is part of an established agricultural unit, the site was not part of the unit on 24 July 2023 or where the site became a part of the established agricultural unit after 24 July 2023, for a period of at least 10 years before the date development under Class Q begins.

For the purposes of Part 3, paragraph X states that an ‘agricultural building’ means a building (excluding a dwellinghouse) used for agriculture and which is so used for the purposes of a trade of business; and ‘agricultural use’ refers to such uses’. An ‘established agricultural unit’ is defined as agricultural land occupied as a unit for the purposes of agriculture, on or before 20th March 2013 or for 10 years before the date the development begins. The Council contends that the appeal proposal is not permitted development under Class Q and the limitations specified under Q1. as it has not been demonstrated that the building was part of an established agricultural unit on 24 July 2023.

The appeal building is a relatively small, single storey building on a holding which comprises 3 acres of land. At the time of my site visit I observed that the building was in use primarily for the storage of hay, as well as a few logs and wooden pallets. I understand the planning permission was granted in 20101 to stabilise and strengthen the existing building in connection with its use for lambing. The appellant states that the building was subsequently used in connection with their agricultural business, which consists of the sale of hay from grass cut from the holding, since 2008 and was therefore in agricultural use as part of an established agricultural unit on the 24 July 2023.

The production of hay at the site clearly falls within the definition of agriculture taken from s336(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. There is no clear reason to suggest that the modest size of the unit would alter this assessment. In addition to the above, the evidence submitted in support of the proposal includes the appellant’s holding number and SBI number, which I understand is allocated to farm businesses that claim subsidies or agri-payments from the RPA. I recognise that the 2010 permission does not itself demonstrate that the building was part of an established agricultural unit on the operative date. Furthermore, even if the holding and SBI numbers confirm the registration of the holding only, as suggested by the Council, there is no substantial evidence before me that the site is not part of an agricultural unit.

The appellant has set out that the site is in agricultural use, and was so on 24 July 2023, and I have no factual proof to demonstrate otherwise. Consequently, on the balance of probability, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I find no reason to conclude that the site was not part of an established agricultural unit on the operative date and that this use continues to the present day. As such, the proposal would benefit from permitted development rights under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q(a) of the GPDO. 1 [name]: 02/0016/10/F

Paragraph Q1.(h) of Class Q sets out that that development is not permitted if it would result in the external dimensions of the building extending beyond the external dimensions of the existing building at any point, other than, among other circumstances (i) extension of the building allowed by paragraph Q.1(i). At paragraph Q1.(i) development is not permitted 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).

The second refusal reason sets out that the proposed extension would fail to satisfy these criteria as the extension would not be located to the rear of the building, but rather to its side elevation. However, the Council’s appeal submissions indicate that it considers the northeast elevation, from which the extension would project, to be the front elevation in this case. Notwithstanding this discrepancy, the first matter in dispute is whether the extension would extend beyond the rear elevation of the existing building.

The appellant contends that the southwest elevation of the building is the principal elevation, and the northeast elevation is thus the rear elevation. My attention is drawn to guidance2 which states that; in most cases the principal elevation will be that part of the house which fronts (directly or at an angle) the main highway serving the house (the main highway will be the one that sets the postcode for the house concerned). It will usually contain the main architectural features such as main bay windows or a porch serving the main entrance to the house. While this guidance does not directly relate to the conversion of agricultural buildings to dwellinghouses, it nonetheless provides a useful starting point in ascertaining which aspect of the building may fall to be considered as its principal elevation.

The southwest elevation of the building is orientated to face the boundary hedge to the site which runs parallel with the A379. However, access to the building is via the single track to the south of the site. Notwithstanding the absence of intervening land between the appeal building and the A379 and any visibility of the building from the A379, the A379 does not, therefore provide access to the building and cannot be considered to be the main highway serving the house. Moreover, the southwest elevation is devoid of any architectural features.

In contrast, the open fronted aspect of the northeast elevation, which contains the gated entrance to the building, despite facing into the site, would clearly represent the front elevation of the building. For these reasons I find that the southwest elevation, which faces the hedge, is the rear elevation of the building. The proposed extension, to the northeast elevation of the building, would therefore be sited other than to the rear of the existing building, and on that basis would fail to comply with the limitations set out at paragraph Q1.(i) part (ii) of Class Q and therefore paragraph Q1.(h)(i).

Reference is made by the appellant to various caselaw and appeal decisions on this topic; however, I have not been directed to any specific examples in that regard. 2 Permitted development rights for householders: technical guidance, Updated 10 September 2019

In addition, the Council contend that the proposed extension is not permitted under Class Q1. (i) part (vii) of the GPDO as it would be sited on land that is not covered by a hard surface that was provided on the land on or before 24th July 2023. Even if it did satisfy part (vii), the proposal must meet all parts of Q1. so as to constitute permitted development. Thus, given my findings regarding the siting of the proposed extension set out above, it is not necessary for me to consider further whether it would be sited on land covered by a hard surface.

I therefore conclude that, as the proposal would not meet the requirements set out in paragraph Q1.(i) and would consequently fail to satisfy the limitations set out at paragraph Q1.(h), it would not therefore be development permitted under Class Q of the GPDO.

I note the generally modest scale of the extension, which the appellant indicates is necessary to meet the nationally described space standards for a 1 bedroom dwelling. However, this is only achievable with an extension, which paragraph Q1.(o) explicitly prohibits.

Furthermore, while I am mindful of representations from interested parties in support of the proposal, these do not alter my conclusions on the appeal overall.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.