Appeal 6005173

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development set out in the banner heading above is taken from the application form. However, the appeal form and decision notice describe the development proposed as ‘prior notification under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q for the change of use of the main barn and the dairy to provide 3 units of tourist accommodation’. As this is a more accurate description of the proposed development, I have determined the appeal on this basis.

Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO permits the change of use of an agricultural building to dwellinghouses, subject to limitations and conditions. As set out in paragraph Q(a)(ii), this includes the change of use of a former agricultural building that was (but is no longer) part of an established agricultural unit and any land within that building’s curtilage.

Under paragraph Q1(b)(iii), development is not permitted if in the case of a site that was (but is no longer) part of an established agricultural unit, since ceasing to be part of an established agricultural unit, the site has been used for any non-agricultural purpose.

The main issue in this appeal is whether the proposal would meet the limitation in paragraph Q1(b)(iii).

The appeal site comprises three barns and the associated yard between the buildings. It is proposed to convert barns 1 and 2 into tourist accommodation and there is no dispute that they are structurally sound and capable of conversion without major alterations. The area between would be used for parking, a garden and terraces associated with the proposed use. At the time of my site visit, barn 1 was being used for the storage of hay and barn 2 accommodated agricultural machinery and some other equipment.

The Structural Assessment outlines the results of a visual inspection carried out by ABMH Structures Limited on 21 March 2025, including various interior photos of the barns. These show that barns 1 and 2 were not being used for the storage of agricultural equipment, but largely contained workshop apparatus including wood, tools and ladders.

In addition, the Planning Statement indicates that there was a small period when some small domestic items were temporarily stored in the barn. Further, whilst the barns have remained unaltered since the agricultural unit ceased, the appellant acknowledges that they have been used for the short-term storage of a few residential items given their proximity and relationship to the dwelling.

It is also suggested that the site access and forecourt have been used in connection with the owner’s construction business, though the appellant states that it was used for parking a van, with no storage of business equipment.

Therefore, even though barns 1 and 2 were both largely being used for agricultural purposes at the time of my site visit, from the evidence before me, the site has been used for non-agricultural purposes in the past. It has been put to me that this does not amount to a material change of use and the barns can lawfully be used for agricultural storage. Nevertheless, the relevant limitation under the GPDO relates to whether the site has been used for any non-agricultural purpose and in this instance, I have found this to be the case.

The appellant refers to the limitation relating to agricultural operations having been carried out on the established agricultural unit in the period 10 years before development under Class Q begins (paragraph Q1(g) of the GPDO). Nevertheless, all the limitations in paragraph Q1 apply and I have found that the limitation in paragraph Q1(b)(iii) would not be met.

There is reference to a 2021 appeal decision relating to a site in [name] District1 where the Inspector found a proposal met some limitations and conditions applying under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO at that time. However, the GPDO has since been amended, and I have considered the proposal against the relevant limitations in the current legislation.

Consequently, I conclude that since ceasing to be part of an established agricultural unit, the site has been used for a non-agricultural purpose, and thus the proposal would fail to meet the limitation in paragraph Q1(b)(iii) of the GPDO. Therefore, the proposed scheme would not be permitted development under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO.

The appeal site is within the zone of influence of the Pagham Harbour Special Protection Area (SPA). Article 3(1) of the GPDO grants planning permission for Schedule 2 permitted development subject to Regulations 75-78 of the Habitats 1 Appeal ref: APP/J1860/W/20/3263591 Regulations2. Regulation 75 states that it is a condition of any planning permission granted by a general development order made on or after 30 November 2017 that development which is likely to have a significant effect on a habitats site must not begin until the developer has received written notification of approval from the local planning authority (LPA) under Regulation 77. This effectively imposes a pre-commencement condition on all development that is permitted by the GPDO and would affect a habitats site such as the SPA. Accordingly, such development cannot be lawfully begun until the developer has made a Regulation 77 application and the LPA is satisfied that the development would not adversely affect the integrity of the habitats site.

There is reference to local and national planning policies and several other matters, including the character of the area, contamination, heritage assets, flood risk, electric vehicle charging points and highways. However, I am required to determine the appeal solely based on whether since ceasing to be part of an established agricultural unit, the site has been used for any non-agricultural purpose, as required under the GPDO.

The appellant is dissatisfied that the Council’s Planning Officer did not visit the site, but this is a matter between those parties and does not in this instance have any bearing on my determination of this appeal.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed.