Appeal 6003600

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) (GPDO) for Class Q prior approval for the change of use and conversion of [site address] and the land within its curtilage to a 1no. residential dwelling falling within Class C3 at [site address] , [site address] , Hamstreet, Ashford [postcode] in accordance with the application [name]/2025/0970 and the details submitted with it and subject to the conditions set out in the Schedule to this decision.

A description of the proposal was not within the application form; hence I have taken the description from the decision notice.

The appeal relates to an agricultural building (the barn). As such, Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO) is pertinent. Class Q was amended on 21 May 2024 via [name] 2024 No 579 ([name] 579). As set out in the transitional arrangements, prior approval applications could still be made in respect of the previous version of Class Q until 20 May 2025. The appellant sought prior approval under the transitional provisions. This means that Class Q as it was prior to the introduction of [name] 579 is the basis for the determination of this appeal.

The appeal submission includes an updated site layout plan which identifies the proposed curtilage around the appeal building. It is important that what is considered by the Inspector is essentially what was considered by the local planning authority, and on which interested people’s views were sought.

In this case, the updated site layout plan depicts additional detail in relation to amenity areas within the appeal site, rather than any amendments to the proposal. For this reason, I consider that there would be no prejudice to any party by considering the additional drawing. I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis of the additional drawing.

Class Q of the GPDO permits development consisting of a change of use of a building and any land within its curtilage from a use as an agricultural building to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses), and, under Class Q(b), building operations reasonably necessary to convert the building for that purpose. The Council considers, however, that the development is not permitted by Class Q, because the proposal contravenes the requirements of paragraph Q.1(i) in relation to the scale of building operations required to alter the use of the building.

The change of use permitted under Class Q also encompasses land within the curtilage of the building. Curtilage is defined by paragraph X of Schedule 2 of the GPDO. The Council consider the curtilage limitation is not met due to the size of the land shown within the red line site boundary.

On the basis of the above, the main issues are whether the proposed development would comply with the requirements under Article 3(1), Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO, with particular reference to whether: • the proposed building operations are reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwellinghouse; and • the curtilage complies with the requirements of the GPDO.

The appeal site comprises a former agricultural barn within an L-shaped site, accessed by an existing hard surfaced private drive. The barn is formed of two elements. To the front is a double-height section formed of precast concrete frames with a corrugated sheet roof. To the rear is a single storey element with a mono-pitch timber roof supported on timber posts and low level blockwork.

GPDO paragraph Q.1(i) states 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 dwellinghouse.

The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)1 advises that the right under Class Q assumes that the agricultural building is capable of functioning as a dwelling. It states that ‘it is not the intention of the permitted development right to allow rebuilding work which would go beyond what is reasonably necessary for the conversion of the building to residential use. Therefore, it is only where the existing building is already suitable for conversion to residential use that the building would be considered to have the permitted development right’.

Neither the GPDO nor the PPG define the term ‘reasonably necessary’. Consequently, this is a matter of planning judgement. Both parties have drawn my 1 Paragraph: 105 [name]: 13-105-20180615 attention to the Hibbitt Judgment2, which is also referenced in the PPG. Hibbitt related to the conversion of an agricultural building that was largely open on three sides and the judgment considered whether the works required to bring about the change of use amounted to a re-build or ‘fresh’ build as opposed to a conversion.

The building in this appeal is significantly more enclosed. Whilst it does contain large openings, these openings are commensurate with their agricultural use. It seems to me that the walls, roofs and structural framework of the appeal buildings are more substantial than what is suggested was present in the Hibbitt case. The circumstances between these two cases are not entirely comparable, and I have dealt with the appeal on its own merits.

The appellant has provided a report from a chartered structural engineer which concludes that the concrete frame is in a reasonable structural condition. A supporting letter3 from the engineer is also included within the appeal submission. Whilst there are areas of spalling, this relates to two small areas where local repairs are recommended to enhance the durability, although where the frame would be internal and protected from the weather the repairs are not considered to be essential. From a structural perspective, the report confirms that the frame as a whole can be reused.

In the rear section of the barn the structural report confirms that the existing timber posts are in good condition and a calculation shows that they are adequate to support the roof loads. The timber framed section would require some repairs and additional roof members inserted. These would be remedial works to treat the areas of decay, and given their nature and extent, the proposed repairs do not amount to significant works to the building’s structure. The structural report confirms that the existing concrete and timber frames of the buildings would remain as the main structural element of the proposals. I have no clear reason to find that these elements would amount to new structural works required to make the building structurally sound.

In relation to the foundations, the [name] supporting letter confirms that it has not been concluded that continuous perimeter foundations are absent. The purpose of the trial pits was to confirm that the primary structural supports are founded on adequate foundations, and it is stated that this has been confirmed. I have no substantive evidence to demonstrate otherwise.

The submitted evidence confirms that not all external cladding to the walls is unsuitable for residential use. The brick sections to the front and side elevations and the blockwork to the rear section could be retained. The submitted drawings indicate that the lightweight cladding would be retained and repaired where possible. This does not alter the fact that extensive works would be required to introduce vertical timber cladding, infilling of open areas of the elevation, and the replacement of the existing corrugated roof form with slate type roof tiles. These would be substantial works. However, the works all fall within those permitted under Class Q and would not relate to structural elements. All would be reasonably necessary for the conversion of the building to residential use. 2 2 Hibbitt and another v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (1) and Rushcliffe Borough Council (2) [2016] EWHC 2853 (Admin) 3 Appendix 6 of appellant’s Statement of Case

Internally a new floor would be added within the front section of the building in addition to the construction of internal walls to subdivide the space. Internal works will generally be required for most conversion schemes and the PPG confirms that internal works are not generally development and for the building to function as a dwelling it may be appropriate to undertake internal structural works, including to allow for a floor. The structural report confirms that the proposed first floor will be supported by a new steel frame, designed to be fully self-supporting. As a result, it would not depend on the existing concrete barn frame for stability.

Notwithstanding that the building has some open sides, the proposed works do not represent either substantial rebuilding of the pre-existing structure or fresh new builds. Therefore, while the principles established within the [name] are relevant, I do not see sufficient similarities between that case and the appeal schemes. In my planning judgement, the existing building is structurally sound and would form an integral part of the conversion into a new dwelling. The building operations proposed would be reasonably necessary for the conversion and would not exceed the limitations set out in the GPDO. As such, the proposal would constitute permitted development as set out under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO.

The change of use permitted under Class Q encompasses land within the curtilage of the building. The GPDO defines ‘curtilage’ for the purposes of Class Q as: (a) the piece of land, whether enclosed or unenclosed, immediately beside or around the agricultural building, closely associated with and serving the purposes of the agricultural building, or (b) an area of land immediately beside or around the agricultural building no larger than the land area occupied by the agricultural building, whichever is the lesser.

There is no requirement under Class Q for a proposed development to include a curtilage. It is for the applicant to decide whether to include a curtilage of any size, or at all. In this instance, the appellant’s updated site layout plan clearly identifies two amenity areas contained within a defined fence line and measuring [address] metres and [address] metres. Combined, these areas are smaller than the appeal building’s footprint of [address] metres.

The red edge of the application site includes further areas to the front of the barn used for parking, access and manoeuvring. When combined with the two amenity areas these are in excess of the land area occupied by the existing barn. The red edge is, however, not necessarily contiguous with the curtilage. I therefore conclude that the identified area is smaller than the land area occupied by the agricultural building and therefore in this regard, the proposal complies with the provisions of [name], Part 3, Schedule 2 of the GPDO.

[name] appreciate that the Council contends that the land is larger, the development could only lawfully proceed if it is in accordance with the curtilage requirements and is in fact permitted development having regard to the relevant conditions and limitations imposed on the planning permission granted by the GPDO.

This site lies within the catchment area of the Stodmarsh European Protection Site. It is Natural England’s view that a likely significant effect on the internationally designated Stodmarsh sites (Special Protection Area, Special Area of Conservation and Ramsar site) cannot be ruled out due to the increases in wastewater from new developments coming forward in the Stodmarsh catchment.

The grant of planning permission under Article 3(1) of the GPDO is subject to the provisions of the GPDO for each class of development and compliance with Regulations 75 to 78 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) (Habitats Regulations). Effectively, Article 3(1) provides a pre-commencement condition which must be met, where the development would affect a European protected habitat, such as a SAC, before the works can be undertaken as permitted development. This includes a separate application to the Council under Regulation 77 of the Habitats Regulations to allow the Council to undertake an appropriate assessment and, depending on the outcome, this would determine whether, in terms of that matter, the scheme could be undertaken as permitted development under the GPDO.

Therefore, it is not necessary for me to consider whether there would be any likely significant effects on the integrity of the SAC or undertake an Appropriate

The GPDO allows a prior approval to be approved unconditionally or subject to conditions reasonably related to the subject matter of the prior approval. I have had regard to the conditions put forward by the Council and have amended the wording where necessary in the interest of clarity. I have also had regard to the tests in the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), the PPG and the GPDO.

[name].(13) allows conditions to be imposed that are reasonably related to the subject matter of the prior approval. I have not applied a plans condition because prior approvals are granted subject to the submitted details and therefore this is not necessary.

I have imposed a condition related to the proposed external materials in the interest of character and appearance. I have not imposed the suggested condition requiring the provision of an electric vehicle charging point as the PPG sets out that compliance with other regulatory requirements, such as the Building Regulations, will not meet the test of necessity and may not be relevant to planning.

I have imposed the suggested condition requiring the provision of the parking and turning area. However, I have amended the condition. As the area is already hardstanding there is no requirement for additional surfacing and drainage. Furthermore, bearing in mind the PPG’s advice regarding the blanket removal of freedoms to carry out small scale domestic alterations, I have not been provided with sufficient evidence as to why it would be reasonable or necessary to restrict permitted development rights for the dwelling.

Conditions related to cycle parking and refuse storage remain necessary in the interest of highway safety and to provide satisfactory waste storage. Whilst the prior approval regulations do not expand to allow the provision of ancillary structures for these purposes, it seems to me that both refuse and cycle storage could be accommodated internally within the new dwelling.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would be permitted development and would be acceptable with regard to the prior approval matters. Therefore, the appeal is allowed and prior approval granted.

Prior to their use on site, details (including source/ manufacturer and colour) and samples (where required) of all materials to be used on the external surfaces of the building, including but not limited to brick, tiles and cladding shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the details so approved and retained for the lifetime of the development.

Prior to the first occupation of the development the areas shown on the approved drawings as parking spaces and the turning space to serve these spaces shall be provided. The car parking and turning space shall be retained for that use thereafter.

Prior to the first occupation of the development bicycle storage shall be provided and thereafter be retained solely for that purpose.

Prior to the first occupation of the development bin storage shall be provided and shall thereafter be kept available for its approved purpose at all times. END OF SCHEDULE