Appeal 6003914

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) for conversion of existing cattle barn into 2x single storey residential dwellings at [site address] in accordance with the application 25/1349/PDQ and the details submitted with it including drawing number MOD-91-09 revision F ‘[name] and subject to the following

No exterior walls or roof shall be installed on the development hereby permitted until details of the materials to be used in those walls or roof have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

An application for costs was made by the appellant against East Devon District Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

The appellant’s statement of case included additional information regarding the agricultural status of the site and an addendum to the structural engineer’s report in response to the two reasons for refusal. As the additional information supplements the appellant’s case, does not constitute a fundamental change to the application and the Council has had the opportunity to comment on it, I have taken the additional information into account in my decision.

Class Q.(a) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO) allows the change from a use as a former agricultural building to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses) of the Use Classes Order. [name].(c) allows building operations which are reasonably necessary to convert the building to such a use. Paragraph Q1 sets out the circumstances when development is not permitted by Class Q.

The supporting statement1 to the application includes as an appendix a solicitor’s opinion dated 27 March 2025 stating that paragraph Q.1(a) of the GPDO does not apply to the proposal as the site is no longer part of an established agricultural unit, having ceased to be following a change in the ownership in March 2016.

Notwithstanding this, the application form dated 24th June 2025 subsequently submitted to the Council stated, through ticked boxes on the form, that the site is both currently part of an established agricultural unit and was part of an established agricultural unit on 24th July 2023. The appellant’s appeal statement confirms that it is the appellant’s case that the proposal falls within paragraph Q.1(a).

There are two points at issue between the parties. The first point at issue is whether there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposal complies with either paragraphs Q1.(a) or Q1.(b) regarding whether it currently is or was part of an established agricultural unit and whether it was part of an established agricultural unit on 24th July 2023. The second point at issue is whether the proposal consists of building operations other than those permitted under GPDO paragraph Q1.(j).

Against this background, I consider the main issues in this appeal to be whether the proposal would be permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO, having regard to • whether the site is part of an established agricultural unit and if so whether the site was part of that unit on 24th July 2023; and • the building operations reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwellinghouse.

Part 3 paragraph X of the GPDO defines an “established agricultural unit” for the purposes of Class Q as meaning “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.

A letter dated 28 February 2022 submitted with the appeal indicates that all the farm buildings at [site address] were in full agricultural use until the farm was sold in March 2016. I have not been provided with any compelling evidence that the land was not occupied as a unit for the purposes of agriculture on or before the dates referred to in paragraph X.

Notwithstanding the supporting statement and solicitor’s opinion submitted with the application, the appellant’s case is that the holding remained active through to and including 24th July 2023. 1 “ [site address] , [site address] , [site address] [name]. Prior Approval Application for the Conversion of Agricultural Building to [name]” by [name] 2025

Another letter2 appended to the appellant’s statement of case states that following the sale of the farm, cattle were overwintered and sheep were lambed in “the large barn.” The letter states that there are 13 females and 3 males registered to the farm, and that rams are kept in the barn and cattle and sheep in the field to the rear of the barn. I also saw rams in the building and sheep in the field during my site visit. The letter states that these animals have been part of the farming activities at [site address] from 2016 until the ‘present date’. Whilst the letter is undated, it is evidence that the site and adjoining land was used for agricultural purposes after 2016.

The British Cattle Movement Records submitted with the appeal also show 18 cattle on the holding. Whilst these records and the barcode labels provided by the [name] also appear to be undated, the ‘official snapshot’ from the Rural Payments Agency 3 submitted with the appeal indicates 17 cattle were registered to the agricultural holding on 24th July 2023. This is evidence that the site was being used for agricultural purposes on 24th July 2023. Whilst it is not clear to me whether the information submitted with the appeal was available to the solicitors when they provided their opinion, it has not been challenged by the Council.

In my judgement, the evidence submitted with the appeal demonstrates that livestock have been kept in and around the building since 2016 and the snapshot’ from the Rural Payments Agency indicates that cattle were registered to the agricultural holding on 24th July 2023. Taking the appellant’s evidence in the round, I am satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the site has continued to be part of an established agricultural unit since it was sold in 2016 and has remained in that use. The evidence, and in particular the Rural Payments Agency records, also show that, on the balance of probabilities, the site was also part of an agricultural unit on 24th July 2023.

I am therefore satisfied that, for the reasons given above, the proposal meets the requirements of paragraph Q1.(a) of the GPDO.

The existing building comprises a part blockwork, part corrugated clad structure with large openings on its south western elevation. Its north eastern elevation is set at a lower level than the adjoining field which it abuts. The roof comprises corrugated sheeting supported by concrete columns.

The proposal is to create two single storey dwellings following the demolition of the north western section of the building. Window and door openings would be created in the elevations of the building. The notes on the proposed plans indicate that 70% of the existing blockwork would remain with 30% removed to accommodate new openings for windows and doors. Whilst the existing cladding and roof covering would be replaced, the existing roof supports and concrete uprights would remain in place. The existing floor slab would be replaced.

The structural engineer’s report includes a diagram showing the structural elements to be retained. It states that the proposed roof would be the same weight as the existing roof and therefore the structure does not need to be strengthened. 2 Appellant’s appendix C: ‘[name] letter’ 3 Appellant’s appendix D: DEFRA MI0091 [name] internal finishes and services would be supported by the proposed timber frame partitions meaning there would be no additional loading added to the existing structure. Foundations were inspected as part of the report and found to be in good order. The concrete columns, timber roof trusses, purlins and associated connections would all be retained and reused.

GPDO paragraph Q.1(j) allows for the installation of windows, doors, roofs or exterior walls to the extent it is reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwellinghouse. The replacement of the existing cladding and roof covering and the insertion of doors and windows is permissible under paragraph Q.1(j) (i) (aa). Similarly, Planning Practice Guidance makes clear that internal works are not generally development and that for a building to function as a dwelling it may be appropriate to undertake internal structural works. The internal partitioning of the building and new floor would be an example of such works.

The Council has referred to the Hibbit4 judgement suggesting that the proposed building operations exceed those reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwellinghouse. Whilst the structural engineer’s report contains some caveats and general observations, it states that all the existing structural elements can be retained and reused. I am mindful of the Hibbit judgement but have not seen any convincing evidence that the structure of the existing building means it is not capable of functioning as a dwelling or is not suitable for conversion to residential use. Therefore, from the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the proposed building operations would not exceed that reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwellinghouse.

[name].2 (1) of the GPDO requires that various other matters are considered in the determination as to whether prior approval is required. The site has an existing access to the unclassified [address] and raises no adverse transport and highway impacts. The building is sited close to other buildings but I have not been provided with any sound evidence that the proposal would result in adverse noise impacts. Nor have I seen evidence of flooding or contamination risks on the site.

The Council concluded that the location of the building would not make it impractical or undesirable for the change of use to residential use to take place and I have found no reason to reach a different conclusion. Subject to a suitable planning condition to require details of the replacement cladding and roofing materials if the appeal is allowed, the design and external appearance of the proposed dwellings would not be harmful to the character or appearance of their surroundings. The Council accepted that all the habitable rooms for both dwellings would receive adequate natural light. I have seen no evidence to arrive at a different conclusion on this.

I therefore conclude that the proposed building operations would not exceed those reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwellinghouse.

In view of my conclusion on the first main issue it is not necessary for me to assess the proposal against paragraph Q1.(b) of the GPDO. 4 Hibbitt v. SSCLG(1) and Rushcliffe Borough Council (2) [2016] EWHC 2853 (Admin)

The Council indicates that the site is located within 10km of the East Devon Pebblebed Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) and Special Area of Conservation (SAC). Article 3(1) of the GPDO grants planning permission for classes of development as set out in Schedule 2 subject to Regulations 75 to 78 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. This provides that it is a condition of any planning permission granted by the GPDO that development which is a) likely to have a significant effect on a European site or offshore marine site, alone or in combination with other plans or projects and b) not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site, must not begin until the developer has received written notification of the approval of the local planning authority under Regulation 77. A Regulation 77 application may be submitted and determined separately to an application for prior approval and I have determined the appeal accordingly.

I am aware of an appeal decision5 relating to the conversion of an existing farm building to a dwelling at [name] also in [name]. Whilst that appeal raised some similar issues to this appeal regarding the extent of the proposed building operations and was allowed, I am not familiar with the full details of that site or the proposals involved. I have determined this appeal on its individual merits.

Conditions imposed by the GPDO, such as that in paragraph Q2.(4) requiring that development must be completed within 3 years starting with the prior approval date, do not need to be repeated. However, in view of the proposed new cladding and roof materials, it is reasonable and necessary to impose a condition requiring that details of those materials be submitted to the local planning authority for its approval before they are installed.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed and prior approval should be granted.