Appeal 6006599

The appeal is allowed and prior approval is granted under the provisions of Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) for the change of use of a building (Barn 2) from agriculture to a use falling within Class C3 (dwelling houses) including associated building operations at [site address] in accordance with the application Ref 25/01794/COUQ and the details submitted with it, and subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

I have amended the description given in the application form in my formal decision to remove superfluous wording to ensure a more concise form of words.

The parties have confirmed that reference to paragraph Q1.(i) of the GPDO in the reason for refusal, as well as a number of other places within the submissions were in error and should have instead referred to paragraph Q1.(j) of the GPDO. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

The appellant has submitted an annotated plan of the proposed elevations and floor plans indicating the structural elements to be retained. Due to the nature of this plan, and that the Council has had the opportunity to review it, I am satisfied that taking it into account would not cause procedural unfairness to anyone involved in the appeal. As such, I have accepted the plan.

In its role as local planning authority, the Council may refuse a prior approval application where it considers that the proposed development does not comply with, or that the developer has provided insufficient information to enable it to establish whether the proposed development complies with, the conditions, limitations or restrictions set out in paragraphs Q1 and Q2 of the GPDO.

Paragraph Q1 sets out criteria that must be met for a proposal to be considered permitted development and paragraph Q2.(1) requires that an application is made for a determination as to whether prior approval is required for the proposal as to various matters listed (a) to (g).

The area of dispute centres of paragraph Q1.(j). The Council considers that the building operations would exceed the scale of works reasonably necessary to convert the building into dwellinghouses and the development would be tantamount to the erection of new dwellinghouses.

There is no disagreement between the parties relating to the other conditions, limitations or restrictions. Based on the evidence before me, I see no reason to reach a different conclusion. As such, there is no reason to give them further consideration in this decision.

The main issue is therefore whether the proposal would constitute permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO, with particular regard to whether the development would comprise building operations reasonably necessary to convert the building into dwellinghouses.

Paragraph Q1.(j) of the GPDO permits, amongst other things, the installation or replacement of windows, doors, roofs, or exterior walls to the extent reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwellinghouse. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) provides further guidance in this regard, highlighting 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. As clarified in case law1, whether works amount to ‘reasonably necessary’ is a matter of planning judgement based on the fact and degree of each case.

No dispute exists between the parties on the conclusions of the structural survey. Based on this evidence and the lack of anything to the contrary, as well as my own observations, there is no reason to disagree with the findings that the barn is in a good condition and suitable for conversion without requiring structural remedial repairs.

In creating covered links between the 3 dwellings, a large section, as well as smaller sections, of cladding would need to be removed from the north and south elevations respectively. However, all the dwellings would remain within the retained structural frame and foundations that would continue to serve their load-bearing function and no demolition would occur. 1 Hibbitt and another v SSCLG (1) and Rushcliffe Borough Council (2) [2016] EWHC 2853 Admin

Much of the remaining upper cladding to the elevations would be retained with lower sections replaced as well as windows and doors inserted. These, along with the replacement of the existing asbestos cement sheeting to the roof with new panels, would be reasonably necessary to make the building weatherproof and suitable for human habitation.

Whilst new walls would be created to the dwellings where they face these covered links, they would be internal to the building envelope and accord with the PPG, which highlights that internal structural works such as internal walls are not prohibited by Class Q. Even if these new walls were considered not to be internal as they form part of the exterior walls of the units, I have found that, with the particulars of this case including their positioning within, and support from, the structural frame and slab, they would be reasonably necessary for the building to function as dwellinghouses. Moreover, there is no substantiating evidence that these new walls would have very little reliance on the existing building.

My attention has been drawn to previous proposals, including a scheme that was dismissed at appeal. However, I have little information relating to the details of these schemes and whether the circumstances are comparable to the appeal proposal. As such, a comparison is of limited relevance in this instance, and I have considered the appeal before me on its individual planning merits.

For the above reasons, I am satisfied that the appeal building is capable of conversion to residential use without amounting to complete or substantial reconstruction of the structure. I conclude that the building operations would be reasonably necessary in this instance and would not exceed the limitations set out in paragraph Q1.(j) of the GPDO. As such, the proposal would constitute permitted development as set out under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the GPDO.

[name](13) of the GPDO allows a prior approval to be approved unconditionally or subject to conditions reasonably related to the subject matter of the prior approval. I have had regard to the conditions put forward by the Council and have amended the wording where necessary in the interest of clarity. I have also had regard to the tests in the National Planning Policy Framework, the PPG and the GPDO.

I have attached a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans, in the interest of certainty.

A condition relating to contamination and remediation is reasonable and necessary in order to protect the health of occupiers of the proposal and to ensure that any contamination risks are mitigated.

I have not imposed a condition restricting the area of the curtilage as this is covered by the approved plans condition.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be allowed and prior approval is granted. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos. 23/093/L01 Barn 2- Location Plan and Existing Site Layout, 23/093/P01 Barn 2 – Proposed Site Layout & 23/093/P02 Barn 2 – Proposed Floor Plan and Elevations.

No development shall take place until an assessment of the risks posed by any contamination, carried out in accordance with [name] 10175: Investigation of potentially contaminated sites - Code of Practice and the Environment Agency‚ [name] (LCRM) (or equivalent [name] and [name] if replaced), has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. If any contamination is found, no development shall take place until: i) a report specifying the measures to be taken, including the timescale, to remediate the site to render it suitable for the development hereby permitted has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority; ii) the site has been remediated in accordance with the approved measures and timescale; and iii) a verification report has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. If, during the course of development, any contamination is found which has not been previously identified, work shall be suspended until: i) additional measures for the remediation of the site have been carried out in accordance with details that shall first have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority; and ii) a verification report for all the remediation works has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. **END OF SCHEDULE**