Appeal 6004595

The appeal is dismissed.

Class Q. of Schedule 2, Part 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (GPDO) grants planning permission for (a) a change of use of (i) a building that is part of an established agricultural unit and any land within its curtilage to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses) of Schedule 1 to the Use Classes Order ([name](a)(i)).

Paragraph Q1 of Schedule 2, Part 3 of the GPDO sets out the circumstances when development would not be permitted by Class Q. Of these, the Council cites the proposal as not satisfying the requirements set out in paragraph Q1.(a) relating to whether the appeal site forms part of an established agricultural unit. It is the Council’s opinion that the appellant has provided insufficient information to enable it to establish whether the proposed development complies with this condition and therefore it may refuse the application under paragraph W.(3)(b) of Schedule 2, Part 3 of the GPDO.

The main issue in this appeal is therefore whether the proposed development would be permitted under Class Q, with particular regard to whether the appeal site complies with paragraph Q1.(a), and specifically whether the proposed development forms part of an established agricultural unit.

[name](a)(i) grants planning permission for the change of use of a building forming part of an established agricultural unit. It is not a requirement of the provision that the building itself is, or has been, used (solely) for agricultural purposes as part of a trade or business. Rather, the limitations set out in paragraph Q.1(a) relate to whether and/or when the appeal site became part of an established agricultural unit.

[name] of Schedule 2, Part 3 of the GPDO states an “established agricultural unit” means agricultural land occupied as a unit for the purposes of agriculture, for the purposes of Class Q, on or before 20th March 2013 or for 10 years before the date the development begins.

The appeal site comprises part of a former stable building at [site address] (hereon referred to as the appeal building), granted permission in 2003 and constructed in 2004 as part of a wider stabling complex. The appellant contends that, since 2007, the appeal building has been used for the storage of equipment associated with the agricultural operations of [site address] .

Evidence has been provided in the form of a signed statement from a neighbouring farmer, confirming that he has managed adjoining grassland at [site address] for hay production for 10 consecutive years between 2013 and 2023. The land identified includes the appeal building. Nevertheless, while this indicates the presence of agricultural activity on land associated with [site address] , it does not, in itself, demonstrate that the appeal building forms part of that agricultural unit. Whether land is part of an agricultural unit is a matter of fact and degree.

On this point, the evidence is not conclusive. The appellant’s own submissions indicate that the appeal building has remained virtually empty since the cessation of its equestrian use in 2007. Furthermore, separate evidence submitted in support of a 2023 application for an agricultural building1 at [site address] states that the stables, by virtue of their size, were incapable of accommodating the agricultural machinery and equipment requiring storage.

The appellant refers to earlier statements, relating to a 2021 application at the stabling complex, confirming the storage use of the appeal building. Nonetheless, I do not have a copy of these statements before me and therefore I can only afford them limited weight.

Photographs submitted with the application show the storage of agricultural planting equipment and bulk bags within part of the stabling complex. However, it is unclear whether these relate to the appeal building itself, and the extent of storage appears minimal.

Taken together, the evidence suggests that any use of the appeal building in connection with the established agricultural unit has been limited and incidental, rather than forming an integral part of the operations. No clear or consistent link has been demonstrated between the appeal building and the agricultural operations described.

Moreover, the wider [site address] includes a mix of residential and commercial uses, with the stabling complex located adjacent to dwellings and physically separated from the surrounding pasture. From my observations on site, the appeal building appeared visually and functionally distinct from the agricultural land. There was no persuasive evidence that it has formed part of the agricultural unit in any meaningful sense. Although there were indications of agricultural activity in the vicinity, including a tractor and trailer parked outside the stabling complex and hay 1 Application Reference: 22/01270/FUL covering the floor of the appeal building, this, in itself, does not demonstrate that the appeal building forms part of the agricultural unit.

On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the appeal building forms, or has formed, part of an established agricultural unit for the purposes of paragraph Q.1(a) of Schedule 2, Part 3 of the GPDO. The burden of proof lies with the appellant, and this has not been adequately demonstrated. Accordingly, in line with paragraph W.(3)(b) of Schedule 2, Part 3 of the GPDO, insufficient information has been provided to establish whether the proposed development complies with paragraph Q.1(a). The proposal would therefore not benefit from the permission granted by Class Q, and the appeal fails on this matter.

The appellant highlighted that the proposal would comply with the remaining provisions of Class Q. However, while I recognise that Class Q of the GPDO is intended to provide a streamlined route for housing in rural areas, development can only benefit from these rights where all the criteria set out in Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q are met.

Furthermore, it is not within my remit to prejudge the outcome of any future application at the appeal site, and the prospect of a grant of full planning permission cannot therefore be treated as a fallback. In any event, such matters, including the absence of objection from neighbouring residents and consultees, are not material to whether the proposal constitutes permitted development under the GPDO and do not alter my findings.

For the reasons above, the appeal is dismissed.