Appeal 6004919

The appeal is dismissed.

An additional plan1 has been submitted at appeal stage in order to clarify the extents and positions of the proposed residential curtilages and land subdivisions. I am content that no party with a potential interest in the outcome of the appeal is prejudiced by my acceptance of this plan for determination purposes.

The Council’s second reason for refusing prior approval relates to the potential for the development to result in recreational disturbance to the Chiltern Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation (the SAC), owing to the site’s location within its 12.6 kilometre Zone of Influence. However, at appeal stage, the Council has confirmed that it has adopted an updated approach to addressing such matters in relation to prior approval applications. This approach involves issuing an informative advising applicants that development cannot lawfully commence until written approval has been obtained under Regulation 77 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) (the Habitat Regulations), supported by a completed planning obligation to secure mitigation. I take no issue with the legitimacy of this approach and therefore do not propose to consider the effect of the proposal upon the SAC as a Main Issue in this appeal.

Whether or not the proposal would constitute permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO. 1 Ref: 2408-P1-03

Class Q(c) of the GPDO provides that, together with the change of use of an existing or former agricultural building to a use within Class C3 (dwellinghouses) of the Use Classes Order, building operations reasonably necessary to convert the building for this purpose constitutes permitted development.

[name].1 of the GPDO sets out a number of requirements which must be satisfied for development to benefit from permitted development rights. Failure to comply with any of these requirements means the development is not permitted under Class Q. The Council considers that, in respect of the appeal building, the proposal fails to comply with the requirement relating to the extent of building operations (criterion Q.1(j)). There is no dispute between the main parties that all other requirements of paragraph Q.1 are met, and I have assessed the appeal on this basis.

[name].1(j)(i) restricts permitted building operations to the installation or replacement of windows, doors, roofs, or exterior walls (together with certain service provisions), to the extent reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwellinghouse. I note that internal works, such as to allow for a floor, do not generally constitute development and are not prohibited by Class Q.

Planning Practice Guidance makes clear that Class Q is not intended to facilitate rebuilding works that go beyond what is reasonably necessary to convert an existing building to residential use. Only where a building is already suitable for conversion should it be regarded as benefitting from the Class Q permitted development right.

Reference has been made to a [address] judgement involving Hibbitt2. Although the full details of that case have not been submitted in evidence, I understand that the Court concluded that the scheme in question amounted to a rebuild rather than a conversion. Where proposed works amount to a rebuild, they would exceed building operations reasonably necessary for a building to function as a dwellinghouse and would thus fall outside of the scope of Class Q.

The appeal building is a four-bay steel portal frame barn of agricultural appearance. The roof and walls consist of corrugated cladding supported by metal purlins and timber side bars. The building is fully enclosed, aside from a single open bay providing access. A Structural Engineers Report (June 2025) confirms that there are no significant defects indicating progressive ground movement or structural distress. Furthermore, although no intrusive investigation of the foundations has been undertaken, the report concludes that the building is suitable for residential conversion without the need for structural intervention.

However, the asserted structural soundness of the building does not, in itself, determine whether the proposed works amount to a conversion or a rebuild. It is notable that only the steel portal frame would be retained, with all external walls and roof coverings proposed to be replaced.

While it has been suggested that the replacement timber wall cladding and standing seam metal roofing would not be structural elements, as they would be suspended off the existing steel frame, the effect would nonetheless be that the 2 Hibbitt and Another v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Rushcliffe Borough Council [2016] existing frame becomes enclosed within and subsumed by the newly proposed roofing and full-height walls to all four sides.

Reference has been made to criterion Q.1(h)(ii), recently introduced to allow protrusions of up to 0.2 metres to accommodate building operations. While such protrusions could quite legitimately include replacement external surfacing materials and associated insulation, this provision, which is linked to criterion Q.1(j)(i), is applicable only where the building is otherwise capable of conversion. Moreover, no material change to the principles established by the Hibbitt case has been robustly substantiated.

My attention has been drawn to successful Class Q appeal decisions at sites elsewhere. However, these cases are materially different from the proposal before me. In particular, each involved the retention – at least in-part – of existing enclosing components such as walls or roof structures. The scale and nature of interventions proposed here are not directly comparable, and accordingly those decisions are of little relevance.

A recent grant of prior approval3 under Class Q for the change of use of a barn to a dwellinghouse and associated building operations has also been brought to my attention. Whilst the full details of the condition of that building are not before me, it would appear to be of similar construction to the appeal building. Although this decision may indicate some inconsistency in decision-making elsewhere, it is for me to determine this appeal on its own merits and in accordance with the relevant provisions of the GPDO. Accordingly, that decision is of limited relevance.

For the above reasons, I find that the extent of the proposed building operations would exceed what is reasonably necessary for the appeal building to function as four dwellinghouses. The proposal therefore does not constitute permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO.

[name].2 of the GPDO requires certain matters to be considered in determining prior approval applications. However, such assessment is only necessary where the development is permitted, which is not the case here. It is therefore not necessary for me to consider those matters further.

I note that a [name] (UU) dated 10 February 2026 has been submitted in the interests of securing mitigation for potential recreational impacts on the SAC. However, given my findings under Preliminary Matters that this issue need not be assessed within the scope of this appeal, it is unnecessary for me to consider the UU any further. Moreover, whilst the Council has utilised resources to review the UU and sought to reserve its position regarding a possible application for costs incurred during the appeal process, this review was done in the context of it having separately indicated that such matters could be addressed outside of this appeal under Regulation 77 of the Habitat Regulations.

For the reasons set out above, the appeal is dismissed. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR 3 Ref: 2025/4958/PA, West Northamptonshire Council, 2 April 2026