Appeal 6006407

The appeal is dismissed.

Class Q permits development consisting of a change of use of a building and any land within its curtilage from a use as an agricultural building to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses), as well as building operations reasonably necessary to convert the building.

[name].1.(c) states development is not permitted if the floorspace of the resultant dwellinghouse exceeds [address] metres.

[name].1.(j) defines the building operations which can be undertaken. It states that development is not permitted if it would consist of building operations other than: (i) the installation or replacement of — (aa) windows, doors, roofs, or exterior walls, or (bb) water, drainage, electricity, gas or other services, to the extent reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwellinghouse; and (ii) partial demolition to the extent reasonably necessary to carry out these building operations.

The main issue in this case is whether the proposal would be permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (the GPDO), with specific regard to: • The resultant floorspace of the dwelling, and • The extent of the works proposed.

The submitted plans are annotated to show the contended floorspace that would be provided within the dwelling, this is stated to be 92.[address] metres (m 2) for the ground floor and 57.5 m2 for the first floor. However, at first floor level a balcony is shown, which the Council contend should be considered part of the floor space of the dwelling.

I am conscious of the appellant’s arguments in this regard, which first state that the relevant floor space limit is 465 m2, and not 150 m2, and secondly that the balcony is an external amenity space which is not normally accounted for in floor space calculations.

Taking the first of these, the development that is permitted under Class Q and the associated limitations were amended in May 2024, through the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) (Amendment) Order 2024/579. This included transitional arrangements allowing prior approval applications to be made under the previous arrangements until the end of 20 May

Under these previous arrangements a limitation of 465 m2 applied for the total floor space of new dwellings created within an agricultural unit. However, following the amendments to the GPDO, a limitation of 150 m2 is provided for each individual dwelling.

The application form is dated 26 August 2025, which is after the period during which applications could be made under the previous limitation, and as such the current application is subject to the floor space limitation set out in the amended GPDO, that of 150 m2. Therefore, this is the correct floor space limitation to assess the scheme against.

Turning to the second argument advanced by the appellant, while it is contended that the balcony is an external amenity space, the plans clearly show that it would sit above a section of the ground floor of the proposed dwelling, sit within the footprint of the building, be enclosed to two sides by a glass balustrade and to another side by part of a proposed extension to the building. The remaining side of the balcony would be formed from the proposed bi-fold doors that would serve the living space, which when entirely open would result in the balcony essentially becoming part of an extended living area for the dwelling, and in addition the balcony would be entirely covered by the roof of the building. It would therefore be substantially enclosed. Drawing all of these matters together, I am of the view that the balcony would comprise part of the floor space of the resultant dwelling and would not be simply an external amenity area. It would be part and parcel of the dwelling and thus should be considered as part of its floor space.

The Council highlight that the inclusion of the balcony would result in the floor space being in excess of 180 m2, and as a consequence of my findings above, the proposal would not therefore accord with the relevant floor space limitation.

The existing structure is a steel portal-framed agricultural building, comprising four bays, with a lean-to structure to the rear. The roof is covered in corrugated sheeting, with the two sides and rear also enclosed by corrugated sheeting. A structural survey has been submitted in support of the application which concludes that the existing steel sections are capable of taking the proposed loads without the need for any additional strengthening. It also sets out that it has assumed that the existing cladding materials to the walls and roof are to be retained.

However, the proposed plans detail that the roof is to be of standing seam zinc sheeting and the walls clad in untreated cedar cladding. This suggests that the entirety of the external facing materials of the existing building is to be removed and the only remain part of the structure would be the structural frame. The appellants grounds of appeal confirm this.

The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) at paragraph 105 advises that it is not the intention of the permitted development right to allow rebuilding work which would go beyond what is reasonably necessary for the conversion of the building to residential use. Therefore, it is only where the existing building is already suitable for conversion to residential use that the building would be considered to have the permitted development right.

In this case, given that the building would be stripped back to its barest skeletal frame, as a matter of planning judgement I consider that significant works are required in order to facilitate a residential use. As a result, the works go beyond what can be considered to be a conversion of an existing building.

The appellant refers to the Hibbitt case1. This case law confirms that there will be numerous instances where the starting point (the “agricultural building”) might be so skeletal and minimalist that the works needed to alter the use to a dwelling would be of such magnitude that in practical reality what is being undertaken is a rebuild. It goes onto explain that the correct view was that the works went a very long way beyond what might sensibly or reasonably be described as a conversion. The development was in all practical terms starting afresh, with only a modest amount of help from the original agricultural building. This mirrors the consideration of this case where only the structural frame remains, and all other elements would be new. As such, I find that the Hibbitt case does not support the appellants view of the proposal.

Accordingly, while I accept that the works set out in Class Q can, in some instances, be extensive, in this case I find that based on the evidence that is before me, the works go beyond what can reasonably be described as conversion of an existing building and thus the proposal does not comprise permitted development.

The Council’s second reason for refusal relates to insufficient information in respect of any possible effect on a Habitat Site, specifically the Wye Valley and Forest of Dean Bat Special Area of Conservation. However, if prior approval had been granted, Article 3(1) of the GPDO provides a pre-commencement condition which must be met, where the development would affect a European Site. This includes a separate application to the Council under Regulation 77 of the Habitats Regulations to allow the Council to undertake an appropriate assessment and, dependant on the outcome, determine whether the scheme could be undertaken 1 (Hibbitt and another v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Rushcliffe Borough Council [2016] EWHC 2853 (Admin) as permitted development. This would be sufficient to address the Council’s concerns in regard to this issue and as such this has not formed one of the main issues I have addressed above.

The proposal would not accord with the limitations set out under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO and would not therefore be permitted development, the appeal must therefore fail.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.