Class Q Permitted Development Rights offer a unique opportunity to repurpose agricultural buildings into residential spaces without full planning permission. Yet, as a recent South Oxfordshire appeal demonstrates, the distinction between conversion and rebuilding can make or break a project.
Background on Permitted Development Rights
Permitted development rights (PDRs) allow for certain building projects and modifications without the need for planning permission. Although planning permission is not required, an application does need to be made to the Local Authority to determine if the proposal meets the Class Q criteria. These rights provide flexibility in a planning system often criticized for its rigidity.
One notable PDR, known as Class Q, has garnered significant attention. Class Q permits the conversion of agricultural buildings into residential homes, a process that would typically be denied if a full planning application were required. Detailed in the General Permitted Development Order 2015, Class Q allows for the transformation of barns into homes, including necessary building operations within specific constraints.
Recent changes to Class Q
In May, we discussed updates to Class Q PDRs that enhance their applicability and flexibility. These changes include allowances for extensions beyond the original barn’s dimensions, up to 0.2 meters, to accommodate building operations such as installing downpipes and flues.
However, it remains crucial for those utilising Class Q rights to proceed with caution and adhere strictly to the rules.
Conversion versus rebuilding
The case of Hibbitt and Another v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2016] EWHC 2853 (Admin) clarified the difference between converting an existing barn and rebuilding a house on the site of a demolished barn. Class Q pertains to conversions only; if the work constitutes a rebuild, it is not permitted under Class Q. This distinction relies on planning judgment and the specifics of each case.
The South Oxfordshire case
This distinction was reaffirmed in a recent appeal involving a dilapidated 3-bay barn in South Oxfordshire (ref: APP/Q3115/W/23/3317169). The local planning authority (LPA) had initially approved the conversion, but the decision was later quashed by the courts. The court urged a critical examination of whether the proposal was a true conversion or a rebuild.
The applicant intended to retain the concrete supports and compacted base, but only the skeletal steel frame of the original barn would remain. The barn’s sides and roof were to be demolished. The Inspector concluded that the proposal amounted to starting anew with minimal use of the original structure, thus not qualifying under Class Q.
Open-countryside considerations
Additionally, the Inspector evaluated the proposal as a planning permission application. The open-countryside location meant it did not meet local sustainability policies, leading to a refusal. This case underscores the utility of Class Q PDRs, as proposals benefiting from Class Q might not succeed under standard planning application criteria.
Had the original barn been more structurally sound or the design adjusted to better support a conversion, the outcome might have been different.