The Rutland application followed the grant of prior approval for the change of use of the neighbouring agricultural buildings which previously formed part of the same established agricultural unit. The application building was originally included in the previous application but was subsequently withdrawn from the proposal in order to avoid a lengthy appeal following disagreement with the local authority on the building’s capability of conversion.
The delegated officer’s report provided:
“The building being considered for conversion as part of this application formed part of application 2020/0003/PAD but was removed when the council queried the condition of the building and the works that would be required to convert it to a habitable dwelling. The Council informed the applicant that it considered that the building operations required to convert this building would go beyond what could be considered reasonably necessary to ‘convert’ the building under Class Q (b) and therefore the proposal would not be ‘permitted development.”
There is nothing in the wording of Class Q(b), or in the restrictions on permissible building operations set out in paragraph Q.1(i) that distinguishes in any way between structural and non-structural works. These provisions make no distinction between various types of building operations depending on whether the relevant works are structural or not.
Furthermore, it is significant that there is no longer any reference in the Planning Practice Guidance to a prohibition on the construction of new structural elements for the building. Nor is it any longer asserted that it is only where the existing building is structurally strong enough to take the loading associated with the external works to adapt the building for residential use that certain building operations will be considered to come within Class Q(b). Thus, internal structural strengthening of the building is not ruled out; and, if these works affect only the interior of the building, or do not materially affect the external appearance of the building, they benefit from the effect of section 55(2)(a) and do not therefore form any part of the building operations permitted by Class Q(b), and can therefore be carried out in any event, whether before, during or after the residential conversion of the building under Class Q. The 2018 revision of paragraph 105 in the PPG would seem to support this view.
An appeal decision in Warwickshire (Stratford-on-Avon DC) in November 2018 [3199453] neatly illustrates the point emphasised by the revised paragraph 105 in the PPG. The LPA had refused prior approval under Class Q on the basis that Class Q.1(f) disqualifies development if development under Class A(a) or Class B(a) of Part 6 has been carried out on the established agricultural unit since 20th March 2013. The works in question comprised the addition of purlins to the roof of the building in early 2017. The LPA’s objection was that this involved a structural alteration of the building since 20th March 2013, thus disqualifying the proposed Class Q development.
In rejecting the LPA’s argument, the Inspector noted that, whilst the definition of development in section 55(1A) includes in paragraph (c) structural alterations of or additions to buildings, this is subject to the proviso in section 55(2)(a) that operations for the carrying out for the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of a building, but which affect only the interior of the building, or do not materially affect the external appearance of the building, are not to be taken for the purposes of the Act to involve development of the land.
The Inspector pointed out that whether the purlins had been installed to facilitate the proposed change of use under Class Q was a matter of speculation. Bearing in mind that the installation of the purlins did not constitute development, they clearly constituted part of the existing building, and it was necessary to consider only whether this building in its form at the time of the prior approval application was already suitable for conversion to residential use. In light of paragraph 105, the LPA had taken the wrong starting point in considering whether, at an earlier stage, before the added purlins were installed, the pre-existing building would have been structurally strong enough for conversion. Paragraph 105 in its currently revised form points out that the relevant question is whether the building, as it exists at the time of the prior approval application, would be suitable for conversion.
There is no doubt that the works proposed fell within those intended and permitted by Class Q. The test which must therefore be applied is whether the works proposed go beyond what could reasonably be considered a conversion and would amount to a rebuild; such a position would not have been a reasonable one to adopt.
The local authority went on to concede that they no longer deemed the proposal would go beyond what could be considered reasonably necessary to convert the building and that the proposal was permitted development.
The application was subsequently approved resulting in the delighted client belatedly reaching the maximum number of dwellings permitted under Class Q.
Get in touch here, or by using our Eligibility Checker for a free, no commitment, property appraisal.
Comments