Appeal 6003663

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development on the application form refers only to the ‘submitted documents.’ I have therefore taken the description of development in the banner heading above from the decision notice as it more accurately and fully describes the proposal, and this is the description used on the appeal form.

The appellant has submitted a revised plan which omits a roof flue shown on the proposed east elevation of the building. The planning appeals procedural guidance1 is clear that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme. However, the amended plan would not involve a substantial difference or fundamental change to the proposal. In omitting the flue, it would also not deprive those who were entitled to be consulted on the application of the opportunity to make any representations that they may have wanted to make on the application as amended. I have therefore based my decision on the amended drawing.2

On 21 May 2024, [name] 2024 No. 579 came into force amending Article 3(1), Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (GPDO). Due to transitional arrangements, I have proceeded to determine the appeal in accordance with the GPDO that applied when the application was made.

Class Q(a) of Part 3 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO permits the 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) of the Schedule to the [name] 1 Procedural Guide: Planning appeals – England. For appeals relating to applications dated on or before 31 March 2026. 2 Elevations_As_Proposed dwg no. 2026_09. Order. Class Q(b) of the GPDO permits building operations reasonably necessary to convert the building referred to in (a) above.

A determination must first take place as to whether the proposal constitutes permitted development against the limitations in paragraph Q.1(a) – (m). In the event development is permitted, paragraph Q.2(1) then requires the Council to assess the proposal against prior approval matters (a) to (g), which includes (f) the design or external appearance of the building.

[name](3) of the GPDO states that the LPA may refuse an application where, in its opinion, the proposed development does not comply with, or the developer has provided insufficient information to enable the authority to establish whether the proposed development complies with any conditions, limitations or restrictions specified as being applicable to the development in question.

On the basis of the above, the main issues are whether the proposal would constitute permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q (b) and Q.1(h) and (i) of the GPDO; and if the proposal does constitute permitted development, whether the design and external appearance of the building would be acceptable.

The omission of the metal flue as shown on the amended plan means that the development would not result in the external dimensions of the building extending beyond the external dimensions of the existing building at any given point, as required by paragraph Q.1(h).

[name].1(i) explains that development is not permitted by Class Q if, the development under Class Q (b) would consist of building operations other than – (i) the installation or replacement of – (aa) windows, doors, roofs, or exterior walls, or (bb) water, drainage, electricity, gas or other services, to the extent reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwellinghouse, and (ii) partial demolition to the extent reasonably necessary to carry out building operations allowed by paragraph Q.1(i)(i).

The Planning Practice Guidance (the PPG) provides some further clarification on the interpretation of Class Q3. It advises that the right under Class Q assumes that the agricultural building is capable of functioning as a dwelling. The PPG is clear 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. Accordingly, 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.

There is also caselaw from Hibbitt4 that the building in question must be capable of conversion to residential use without operations that would amount to complete or substantial rebuilding of the pre-existing structure or, in effect, the creation of a new building. Hibbitt found that the extent of the works themselves is not decisive, but it is for the decision maker to assess the extent of the works and decide 3 [name]: 105 [name]: 13-105-20180615 4 4 Hibbitt and another v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Rushcliffe Borough Council [2016] EWHC 2853 (Admin) whether they fall within, or go beyond, the statutory limits with regards a conversion or rebuild. There is no definition in the GPDO or the PPG of ‘reasonably necessary’ and neither indicate the scale or amount of replacement or installation of windows, doors, roofs or exterior walls. Therefore, as Hibbitt determined, whether building works are reasonably necessary is a planning judgement based on the existing building, the scope and extent of the proposed building operations and the facts of the case.

My site observations were that the appeal building is a substantially sized barn which is in two (connected) parts, comprising a ‘Dutch-barn’ type building with a curved roof, and a pitched roof building with low eaves. The structure of the barn is formed from steel portal frames with a roof of a corrugated material with rooflights. The pitched roof barn and part of the Dutch-barn is of masonry construction. Three of the four bays on the north elevation of the Dutch-barn are partially clad in timber boarding positioned atop a blockwork wall. The east elevation of the Dutch-barn is open. There is an internal masonry wall (with some openings) between the two parts of the building.

A structural inspection of the appeal building was undertaken in May 2025 (the SI), which is said to provide an update of a previous report undertaken on the same structures in April 2019. Whilst the SI states that ‘the structure was found to be suited to conversion and the recommendations made in [April] 2019 remain relevant,’ I do not have this earlier report before me or the recommendations which were (then) made.

Consistent with my own observations, the SI identified that there is some outward movement or bowing in the masonry close to the eaves of the Dutch-barn. The Proposed Elevations show the roof would be finished in a ‘profiled metal’, but no detailed specification or structural calculations have been provided to demonstrate the loading capacity of the existing roof trusses, deflection limits and appropriate weights of roof materials specified. Consequently, it is unclear whether the roof structure of the Dutch-barn would need or is proposed to be replaced, given the SI recommends a ‘re-roof to both barns’ and identifies that adding weight would increase the spread as the curved trusses deflect under the additional loading.

The PPG acknowledges that internal works are generally not development and that for the building to function as a dwelling it may be appropriate to carry out internal structural works, including the insertion of a mezzanine or upper floors. However, I have insufficient information before me to indicate the main structural elements of the proposal, the method of construction or a programme of works. Consequently, it is unclear whether the proposed upper floor of the Dutch-barn would be supported by the existing steel frame or whether it would comprise a structural element of the design which would restrain the masonry gables.

Despite some lateral displacement to the gables, the SI assesses that the existing masonry is in generally good condition, and it is assumed that although annotated on the [name] as being a ‘local brick’ the existing masonry would be retained. However, it is unknown whether the new external walls to the north and east elevation (which is fully open) of the Dutch-barn would be entirely supported by the steel frame, or how different elements would be fixed or tied-together.

The SI recommends that the foundations and the concrete slab should be exposed and checked before or during works to assess their adequacy with respect to proposed loading. Whilst it is likely that the steel frame already has some type of foundation, I am not satisfied that the submissions identify the full extent of foundations required for the proposed development. Foundations are not included in the list of permitted operations under Q.1(i)(i)(aa) of the GPDO.

The replacement of the roof, installation of internal walling and floor, timber cladding to the east elevation and part of the north elevation, and the installation of windows and doors, individually, would not appear to fall outside the operations in paragraph Q.1(i) of the GPDO as described above. The removal of the timber boarding on the northern elevation of the Dutch-barn would also fall within the scope of Q.1(i)(ii).

However, it is apparent from the submitted plans and the information before me that the proposed alterations would likely result in a significant overhaul and replacement of the existing building fabric. The roof materials (and potentially the roof structures) would be replaced, and significant areas of new external walling would be required, particularly to those elevations that are currently open or are formed by timber boarding. In my judgement, these works go well beyond ‘repair, replacement and reinstatement’ as asserted by the appellant.

Consequently, based on the evidence before me, I find that the totality of the proposed works would be tantamount to a significant rebuild rather than a conversion. Moreover, given the limitations of the SI and technical information provided, I cannot be certain that the building is sufficiently sound or robust to sustain conversion without significant further works to the structure and/or foundations. Accordingly, I conclude that the proposal would not constitute permitted development as it fails to satisfy Q.1(i)(i).

Therefore, there is no requirement for me to go on to consider whether the design and external appearance of the building would be acceptable, which would include the impact of the development on the setting of nearby listed buildings.5

The appellant asserts that the proposal is identical to an application previously allowed in 20216 (‘the 2021 approval’) Development permitted under Class Q is permitted subject to the condition that it is completed within a 3-year period starting with the approval date, and there is no dispute between the parties that this approval has time expired. I have not been provided with the full plans or technical information, including the structural inspection or survey, submitted with this application. I therefore have insufficient information before me to ascertain the basis on which the Council made its decision. Accordingly, the 2021 approval lends little support to the proposal, and, in any event, I have exercised my own judgement on the current condition of the building and on the evidence before me.

I have also been referred to an appeal decision in [name] District7 for change of use of an agricultural building to a dwelling. However, as no further details have been provided, this does little to dissuade me from my findings above. 5 [name]. 1072113 & 1362323 6 [name]. 3/2020/1042 7 APP/J3530/W/17/3169488

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposed development would not be permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.