Class Q planning appeal success in the High Peak!

Discharge of Planning Conditions HIgh Peak

Planning & Design Practice successfully overturned a decision to refuse Prior Approval for the change of use of an agricultural building to a house in Chinley, High Peak, Derbyshire, under Class Q of the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO).

An appeal Statement of Case was prepared by Planning & Design Practice Planning Team on behalf of the Appellants against High Peak Borough Council’s decision to refuse the application. The Council resolved to refuse planning permission for the proposed development under delegated powers following reasons:

1) The proposed change of use would, based on the submitted Structural Report dated 10th February 2022 which contains a schedule of demolition and construction works and proposed plans, amounts to a “re-build” as opposed to a “conversion” within the context of the ‘Hibbit’ High Court Judgement (2016) and as such does not a form permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the General Permitted Development Order 2015 (as amended).

2) Notwithstanding the fact the proposal does not comply with Part 6, Class Q, Paragraph A.1 of the GPDO the proposed change of use would result in a poor and unacceptable form by design, by virtue of retaining the visual appearance of an agricultural building as domestic dwelling which would include concrete profile sheeting which is wholly inappropriate for its intended use. The introduction of domestic fenestration and glazing would result in an odd contrived contrast with the external materials resulting overall in a design and external appearance that would be harmful to the character of the rural landscape, contrary to Local Plan Policies S1, EQ2, EQ3 and EQ6, the ‘High Peak Landscape Character Assessment’ SPD (2006), High Peak ‘Residential Design Guide SPD’ (2018) and relevant paragraphs under Chapter 12 of the NPPF; thus resulting in an unsustainable form of development, contrary to Local Plan Policy S1a and paragraph 11 of the NPPF.

We believe that High Peak Borough Council had taken an unnecessarily narrow approach to defining the scope of work that can be reasonably expected to convert an agricultural building to a residential dwelling through the misinterpretation of Q.1(i) and Q.2-(1)(f) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 and has over extended the procedure outlined in Paragraph W of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 with regard to the design and external appearance of the existing building and the proposed conversion.
With regard to the associated building operations ‘reasonably necessary’ to convert the building the Inspector found that the building would be capable of conversion to a dwellinghouse without necessity for extensive new/re-build.

With regard to the resulting appearance of the proposed conversion the Inspector found contrary to the Council’s position, the proposed development would not appear prominent or cause undue harm to the character and appearance of the wider sur-rounding area.

The Inspector resolved to grant the appeal and allow the conversion of the building under Class Q of the GPDO.

Class Q conversions are something Planning & Design Practice Ltd are well versed in, having helped lots of clients imagine and realise their dream homes.

The permitted development right legislation is a notoriously complicated and complex issue with many Planning Authorities. We have vast experience of working on rural projects for homeowners, landowners and farmers in including barn conversions (both via a planning application and Class Q).

If you have had planning permission refused or would like to discuss your options or chances at appeal, please get in contact for a free no obligation discussion on 01332 347371 or enquiries@planningdesign.co.uk.

Andrew Stock, Associate Director, Planning & Design Practice Ltd.

Appeals – Case studies

PDP_Appeals case Studies

As the following case studies illustrate, at Planning & Design Practice we are vastly experienced in the appeals process and know how to present your case in the best possible way and bring all relevant factors to the attention of the Inspector to maximise the chances of success.

The following case studies provide a flavour of the breadth of appeals we have dealt with over the last 5 years or so, for both residential and commercial clients.

Land to the west of Denby Hall Business Park, Denby, Ripley DE5 8LE; Public Inquiry; Appeal reference – APP/M1005/W/20/3265602

We acted as expert planning witness at a Public Inquiry relating to a refused application for 3 large commercial/industrial units at Denby Hall Business Park. The council had refused the application due to the site’s Green Belt location but the Inspector concluded that “the conflict with the development plan policies is clearly outweighed by the social, economic and environmental benefits in favour of the appeal proposal.”

Read more HERE

Brailsford Meadow, Risley Lane, Breaston DE72 3TT | Informal hearing | Appeal reference –APP/N1025/C/19/3238932 and 3238933

This was a complex appeal against an enforcement notice issued by the council which sought the complete demolition of a barn converted to a dwelling using Class Q permitted development rights. Whilst the Inspector felt that the building operations undertaken went beyond what could reasonably be described as a ‘conversion’, she concluded that our explanation of events and reasoning that led to the dwelling as built amounted to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development in the Green Belt.


Oaklands, 103 Duffield Road, Derby, Derbyshire DE22 1AE | Written Representations | Appeal reference – APP/C1055/W/16/3150234

This was a proposal for the change of use of a D1 clinic to a house, demolition of former coach house and construction of 9 terraced houses and associated access within the grounds for our client Meadowview Homes. There was a strong heritage focus to this appeal as the site lay in the Strutts Park Conservation Area and the buffer zone of the Derwent Valley Mills World Heritage Site but the Inspector accepted that the scheme was sympathetic to the character of the designated heritage assets and would.

Read more HERE

PDP_Oaklands Duffield Road Derby

Averill Farm, Evershill Lane, Morton, ALFRETON, DE55 6HB | Written Representations | Appeal reference – APP/C1055/W/16/3150234

Planning permission was secured for the construction of an innovative timber drying facility and associated storage facilities at a farm. With the help of a comprehensive Noise Impact Assessment and a landscape and visual appraisal we were able to demonstrate that there would be no adverse impacts in this rural location.

Read more HERE

75 Derby Road, Hilton, Derby DE65 5FP | Written Representations | Appeal reference – APP/F1040/W/20/3246651

Planning permission and a partial award of costs was secured at appeal for the construction of 9 light industrial/office buildings in place of a house and nursery buildings. The Inspector gave the council’s concerns about the impact on character and appearance and highway safety short shrift and agreed that the scheme was well designed and would sit comfortably within its context.

Hayes Gate Farm, Star Bank, Oakamoor, Staffordshire ST10 3BN | Written Representations | Appeal reference – APP/B3438/W/18/3202031

Another Class Q case, this one related to a building which the council stated was not convertible to a dwelling. However, the Inspector accepted that internal works carried out prior to the application did not require planning permission, that the proposal met the criteria in Class Q and that the development would improve the appearance of the building relative to its current form.

Often seen as a dark art shrouded in secrecy, Planning & Design Practice has 20 years experience of successfully achieving positive planning decisions. Our Director Richard Pigott demystifies the process with some key facts about what you can expect when you seek to challenge a council’s decision., in this companion article “Appeals – A beginners guide.”

If you have had planning permission refused or would like to discuss your options or chances at appeal please get in contact for a free no obligation discussion.

Developer to appeal after council rejects business park expansion

PDP_Developer Appeal

Following a recent decision by Amber Valley borough councillors to reject plans to extend Denby Hall Business Park we are planning to appeal on behalf of the applicant.

With 60,000 square metres of floor space, the extension to Denby Hall Business Park would create 680 new jobs as well as safeguarding 100 more in the first 5 years of the development going ahead.

Councillors and residents said safeguarding jobs and boosting the local economy did not justify construction on protected green belt land, which was formerly a colliery. This decision was against the recommendations of council officers.

We believe that the council’s decision is wrong and we have recommended that our client goes to appeal. The proposals represent a major investment in a sustainable location and the view of planning professionals is that the development should go ahead.

Defending a planning appeal could cost the council thousands of pounds. This could increase much further if government planning inspectors mandate that the council pay the developer’s appeal costs.

Jonathan Jenkin, Managing Director of Planning Design, acting as agent for the applicants, told the Local Democracy Reporting Service: “We were disappointed by the decision the planning board made last night to refuse planning permission.

“We put forward a very good case that had the support of planning officers. Developing in the green belt is not taken lightly. We were able to show that there are very special circumstances that outweigh the harm to the Green Belt.

“There are no reasonable alternative sites and this was confirmed by the council’s own independent report.

“The minimum amount of green belt land would be used; the project would create and protect 780 jobs and it would create a world leading indigenous and green manufacturing facility.”

Planning and Design Practice Ltd has extensive experience of the appeals system and can take forward written representation; informal hearing and full public inquiries. We also can deal with all types of enforcement action.

A planning appeal is there to allow the opportunity for an independent inspector to review the decision that was made by the Planning Authority and to assess it purely on its planning merits. Both the applicant and objectors can attend the Inquiry ad all points of view will be taken into account.

For more information about the appeals handling process, the types of procedure or to discuss your own case please get in touch.

Main Image: Derby Telegraph

Conversion of garage to home in South Derbyshire secured on appeal

PDP_Garage Dwelling

Planning & Design Practice have been successful in securing planning permission at appeal for the conversion of a garage to a dwelling in the village of Burnaston in south Derbyshire.

The client contacted us having had planning permission refused with very little contact from the council. We reviewed the scheme and amended the proposals in a way which we felt addressed some key weaknesses in the original submission. Unfortunately, the council still felt that the application was objectionable had concerns relating to the impact upon the character and appearance of the area, overlooking into a neighbouring property and highway safety. The overlooking issue was addressed by the relocation of a window and the inspector was content that there would be adequate space for future occupiers to manoeuvre and access the parking space using the shared private drive.

With regards the impact on the character and appearance of the area, the inspector felt that due to the scale of the garage building, which is located between the existing dwelling and the road, and because limited alterations are proposed, the new dwelling would still read as a subordinate building within the group of dwellings and the wider streetscene. The scheme would therefore not look out of place within the mixed streetscene and would maintain the character and appearance of the area.

Our client was naturally delighted with the news, particularly having had a challenging few months personally.

“We were delighted with the news, especially as we had prepared ourselves for disappointment. It was a rocky start to the process, during which we also experienced some other difficulties unrelated to the planning application, but which only added to our challenges. At every stage the team at PDP were approachable, and clear in the next steps and what could be achieved. Throughout the process PDP continued to strive to ensure that we received the best customer service and the whole team were professional and supportive in the management our expectations. This news has come at a perfect time to enhance our future plans. We would most certainly recommend PDP to others.”

This case was a prime example of a homeowner looking to make better use of their existing property. We are getting more and more enquiries along these lines, particularly since the start of the pandemic when circumstances and priorities have changed. The Inspector’s decision is perhaps recognition that the presumption should be in favour of allowing people to do this provided it would not lead to any significant harm in planning terms.

If you are looking to re-purpose any land or buildings or are simply keen to explore the options please get in touch.

Richard Pigott, Director, Planning & Design Practice Ltd

Planning & Design secure appeal win for low carbon energy system

PDP_Averill Farm Biofuels

Planning & Design have secured approval on appeal on behalf of Midlands Biomass Solutions Ltd, resulting in planning permission being granted for the construction of an innovative timber drying facility and associated storage facilities at a farm in Derbyshire. This will allow virgin FSC wood to be chipped, dried and stored at the site ahead of transportation to a factory in Derby, where it will be converted by the process of torrefaction into a low carbon, eco-friendly biofuel.

The appeal was made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against an earlier refusal to grant planning permission by North East Derbyshire District Council.

The development at Averill farm in Morton, Derbyshire will see the development of a bespoke timber drying facility and a change of use of an existing agricultural building for associated storage purposes, together with improvements to access at the site. The scheme has the potential to create 12 new jobs at the farm, helping to boost the local economy.

Torrefaction is a thermal process that converts biomass into a coal like material, which has better fuel characteristics than the original biomass. It is in alignment with local and national policies to encourage renewable energy developments.

The main issues that led to North East Derbyshire District Council originally rejecting the scheme were concerns about a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the area; as well as on the living conditions of nearby residents with particular regard to noise and disturbance.

However as detailed by Planning & Design at the appeal a comprehensive Noise Impact Assessment recommended a number of measures to mitigate noise including restricting delivery hours and wood chipping activities. In addition lorry routes to and from the site were agreed as part of a Delivery Management Plan. With no objections from the Environmental Health Officer or the Highway Authority, a refusal on either grounds of noise or highway safety were shown to be unjustified.

With regard to the character and appearance of the area, Planning & Design were able to demonstrate that the site is located within an existing working landscape, and within an existing group of agricultural buildings. The proposals include materials and form that reflect and reinforce the identity of the local surroundings and materials, ensuring that the local character and history is maintained. New hedgerow planting as part of the scheme will enhance the local green infrastructure as well as providing screening from any perceived noise or visual impacts.

Jonathan Jenkin, Managing Director at Planning & Design said

“We are pleased to have won this appeal. Climate change is a real and immediate concern. The development of low carbon fuel sources is important to the future of the economy and the nation. We are pleased to have received the support of the Secretary of State.

The company has high demand for its product and this approval will allow them to significantly increase production linked to their manufacturing facility in Derby.”

Do you know about the Party Wall Act 1996?

Most people are either unaware of the Party Wall Act, or unclear of the details. The Party Wall Act covers the protection of neighbours from work that may affect their property. There are a few examples of what a Party Wall actually is: a party wall can be a shared wall in a semi-detached property or a garden wall on a boundary line. The most common time a Party Wall Agreement is required is when an extension or new dwelling is proposed close to a neighbouring boundary.

The Party Wall Act itself is a very powerful piece of legislation that protects homeowners from any kind of negative impact on their property in the case where a neighbour carries out construction works. This most often occurs when a construction operation impacts the integrity of foundations of existing property, that property may then experience settlement or subsidence due to the new loading and effects of new elements.

This impact is exactly what the Act tries to limit, avoid completely or at least assign legal protection in the case in which something happens in the future.

If you are intending to do any traditional building work within 3 metres of the boundary with a neighbour it is your responsibility to agree terms with that neighbour. This should be done at the earliest opportunity so that you can avoid any unnecessary legal issues. If you do not approach your neighbour, they are entitled to come to you to address the situation and at that point they may involve Party Wall Specialised Legal teams and these can be chargeable to you directly, not the neighbour!

You can find more guidance on your responsibilities by following this link

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

GET IN TOUCH