Class Q appeal in Staffordshire Moorlands establishes that modern agricultural building conversion is acceptable

PDP_Class Q Appeal

Planning & Design Practice have recently won an appeal against refusal of Prior Approval by Staffordshire Moorlands District Council, in relation to a barn conversion under Class Q of Permitted Development.

This permission was hard won, involving 2 applications for prior approval and several re-designs of the scheme, along with the appeal against the second refusal, as well as providing comments in relation to the updated NPPF (July 2018) during the appeal process. Several members of the team were involved in the whole project, eventually achieving the result our clients were after by gaining approval from the Secretary of State’s appointed Inspector.

The Council has a reputation for strongly resisting applications under Class Q, when the building in question is of modern construction, as opposed to more historical barns that are built from brick or stone. However the permitted development legislation makes no distinction in this respect.

Indeed, it could be argued that Class Q has been enacted to facilitate the conversion of modern agricultural buildings, given that a normal planning permission for change of use is still an available route for applicants with traditional buildings.

Key points from the Inspector’s report that found favour with our arguments and evidence included; that the building is structurally capable of conversion; that none of the proposed works would fall outside of those building operations permitted, that they would be reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwelling; and that the replacement of the roof materials, provided they are not structural elements, would fall within the scope of works permissible.

Other more general comments of note by the Inspector include:

“The nature of agricultural buildings will invariably mean that they will not have all of the necessary elements of a residential dwelling, or have them to the necessary standard or condition, hence the provisions of paragraph Q.1.(i).”

On the matter of the number of windows in the proposed scheme:

“I do not share the Council’s view that the number of windows proposed is excessive or unnecessary.”

In relation to the Council’s criticism of a ‘domestic’ appearance of the scheme:

“The very nature of a change from an agricultural building to a dwelling will invariably introduce a more domestic appearance in the form of windows and doors.”

In response to the Council’s criticism of full height windows:

“The full height form of the windows would not be uncharacteristic in my view, given the size of openings commonly found on agricultural buildings.”

The most interesting comment from the Inspector however, in my opinion, draws a line once and for all under Staffordshire Moorlands District Council’s “resistance in principle” to the conversion of modern agricultural buildings:

“…the permitted development right under Class Q, which as its starting point, grants permission for agricultural buildings to be converted to dwellings, andit must therefore be the government’s intention that, in principle, such buildings can remain in the landscape and serve a new function as dwellings.”

This appeal decision sets a clear precedent for the acceptability of conversion of modern agricultural buildings under permitted development, and there are many sections of this appeal decision that we will refer to in future. It is hoped that the Planning Officers at SMDC will take on board the Inspector’s reasoning and take a more pragmatic view of these types of applications in future.

If you are considering a barn conversion under Permitted Development Class Q or are currently experiencing difficulties with, or a refusal of, a submitted application, please get in touch with us at Planning & Design Practice for advice on 01332 347371 or email enquiries@planningdesign.co.uk.

Class Q Appeal

Opening ceremony at restored John Smedley cottages

PDP_John Smedley opening

Thank you to John Smedley Ltd for an enjoyable afternoon last month at the unveiling ceremony for their restored C18 cottages. The Grade II Listed cottages have been saved by the company from a state of substantial disrepair using monies generated from the ‘East Site’ planning application. Those involved in the project, including ourselves and Evans Vetorri Architects, were invited to look around the newly restored terrace and celebrate their completion.

Planning Design were instructed as planning consultants (alongside Evans Vettori Architects) to deliver a complex set of proposals for redevelopment, conversion and part demolition of surplus land and buildings at John Smedley Ltd, the last working textile mill in the Derwent Valley World Heritage Site and the “oldest manufacturing factory in the world”.

Development was needed to secure a beneficial future use for the land and buildings and to support the company’s development and expansion. The scheme included the renovation of three late C18 Grade II Listed cottages which were in a very poor state of repair and on the “heritage at risk” register.

Conversion of Rural Buildings under Class Q

PDP_Conversion of Rural Buildings under Class Q

Implications of Hibbitt v. SSCLG

The conversion of steel framed agricultural buildings to dwellings has been contentious ever since it was introduced in 2014. It is unique within Part 3 of the General Permitted Development Order in that it allows building works to be undertaken which affect the external appearance of a building. It specifically allows new walls, new roofing, new windows and doors. It also allows for mains services and the provision of drainage.

Direction on how to deal with these types of prior notification is provided within National Planning Guidance (NPG). In preparing planning applications we have found problems with the structure of some steel framed barns which were not built to be converted into dwellings. The NPG states: It is not the intention of the permitted development right to include the construction of new structural elements for the building. Therefore it is only where the existing building is structurally strong enough to take the loading which comes with the external works to provide for residential use that the building would be considered to have the permitted development right.

Under Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 building works for alteration, maintenance or improvement which are internal or do not materially affect the external appearance of a building are not development and cannot be controlled through planning. This allows for an enclosed agricultural building the possibility of strengthening the internal steel frame so that it is strong enough to take the loading which comes from the external works. These works to a weak structure would have to be undertaken first before a planning application is made.

The problems around structure have led to LPAs to require structural surveys to accompany applications. For some council’s this requirement is triggered by the proposed insertion of a first floor. For others a structural report has to be submitted on each application.

The Hibbitt case was referred to the High Court by the appellant. The building consisted of an open structure with a mono-pitch roof with flimsy steel sheet cladding on one and a half sides. The structure was held to be structurally sound and capable of taking the loading which would come from the external works to provide for residential use. The case went to the high court after the appellant was unhappy with his appeal decision. The inspector found that the extensive works required to make the building habitable were tantamount to a re-build or fresh build. The inspector’s decision was supported by the Secretary of State.

The high court judge held that there is a conceptual difference between a “rebuild” and a “conversion” and that the concept of “conversion” introduces a discrete threshold. His reasons include the fact that the concept of conversion is found in the overarching provisions of Class Q (i.e. not in Q.1). Further, he states that it is inappropriate to look to the dictionary when seeking to define the distinction as the Order was drafted for a professional audience and the distinction should be understood in a planning context.

This judgement will provide some encouragement to local planning authorities seeking to restrict the development of agricultural barns into dwelling-houses. Nevertheless, the distinction between a conversion and a rebuild is indefinite. The judge makes clear that the extent of the works is not decisive. In §34, he states, “In many permitted developments the work might be extensive yet that does not thereby disqualify a development from automatic permission.”

In discussions with local Planning Managers councils are grappling with the amount of ‘new build’ which acceptable under Class Q. The implications of the Decision are that open sided barns, hay barns and the like cannot now be converted under Class Q. More enclosed barns (those with 3 or 4 sides enclosed) should be acceptable but conversion also means leaving more of the original building intact. This could mean retaining external steel sheeting and incorporating existing walling and roofing materials into the converted building. A traditional barn conversion has always meant using the building you have in broadly the un converted form – use of existing opening etc. Class Q will continue to give greater flexibility but the options have been reduced and early pre-application discussions will probably be needed unless further guidance is issued by the government or a council has determined exactly what can or cannot be converted.

This Barn would FAIL the Hibbitt threshold.

This agricultural building should PASS the Hibbitt threshold

This building MIGHT be acceptable to some LPAs.

For an update on more recent changes in Permitted Development including changes of use to Class Q, which allows Change of Use and conversion of agricultural buildings to dwellings and Class R, which allows Change of Use from agriculture to a flexible business use, please click HERE

Please contact Michael Bamford if you require assistance with planning applications, appeals or local plan representations or require advice on lawful development certificates or development appraisals – michael.bamford@planningdesign.co.uk or telephone 0114 221 0618.

GET IN TOUCH