Appeal 6006001

The appeal is dismissed.

The site address has been amended in the interests of clarity.

The description of development above is taken from the appellant’s Planning Statement as directed by the application form, with superfluous wording omitted.

Under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO, development is permitted for the change of use of a building and any land within its curtilage, from use as an agricultural building to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses) together with building operations reasonably necessary to convert that building, subject to limitations and conditions.

Where an application is made for a determination as to whether prior approval is required for development, the local planning authority may refuse the application where it considers that the proposed development does not comply with the conditions, limitations or restrictions that are applicable to such permitted development.

Whilst not a matter raised by the Council, the question of eligibility for the scheme to be considered under Class Q has been raised by interested parties. As such, it is necessary for me to consider this as a main issue.

Therefore, the main issues are: • whether the proposal would constitute permitted development in respect of paragraph Q.1; and • if it is found to constitute permitted development, whether prior approval would be required and should be granted in accordance with paragraph Q.2 with specific regard to whether the location or siting of the building makes it otherwise impractical or undesirable for the building to change from agricultural use to a dwelling.

The evidence indicates the site was used for agricultural purposes prior to the qualifying date of 24 July 2023 set out within the GPDO. It has been suggested the building was not used for agricultural purposes since it was sold in 2014 and then let to tenant farmers. However, the appellant has confirmed it has not been put to any other use since, a matter which my site visit also suggests is the case. Therefore, the proposal accords with Class Q (a) (ii) as land within the curtilage of a former agricultural building that was (but is no longer) part of an established agricultural unit.

Class Q (c) also permits building operations reasonably necessary to convert the building to a dwelling. The limitations include those at paragraph Q.1 (j) (ii) which allows for partial demolition to the extent reasonably necessary to carry out building operations allowed by paragraph Q.1 (j) (i). In addition to the laying of utility services, paragraph Q.1 (j) (i) also limits building operations to the installation or replacement of windows, doors, roofs, or exterior walls to the extent reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwelling.

The works advanced in this case relate to the demolition of the west gable end wall and part of its north elevation wall which would reduce the footprint of the building. These revisions follow the decision of a previous application refused1, in part, as the floor space exceeded the maximum [address] metres allowed by the GPDO. Whilst the submission notes that the demolition works would move the wall away from the neighbour and allow more space for maintenance, these in my judgement are not building operations that are reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwelling. Instead, they are operations necessary only to meet the threshold set by paragraph Q.1(c) which is a different requirement. This is supported by the fact that the initial application was made without the need for such operational development, which indicates it is not reasonably necessary.

Therefore, the proposal includes works that are beyond what is allowed by the GPDO and, as a result, it does not meet the limitations of Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q, insofar as it fails to accord with paragraph Q.1(j). Consequently, the proposal is not permitted development.

As the proposal does not constitute permitted development, it cannot benefit from the prior approval process. It is not necessary for me to consider the second main issue because, even if I did so, it would not alter the outcome of this appeal.

For the reasons set out above, the appeal should be dismissed.