In March this year, I submitted an appeal against the refusal of Malvern Hills District Council to grant prior approval for the conversion of an agricultural building to a dwellinghouse.
The appellant had previously submitted three Class Q applications, all of which had been refused for similar reasons. The timeline for appealing the most recent decision had elapsed and so a fourth application was submitted to enable the appeal of its inevitable refusal.
The main issues for the Inspector to consider were:
Whether the required building operations were to the extent reasonably necessary to carry out the conversion of the building (Q.1(i)); and
The effect of the design and external appearance of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding rural area, including its effect on the setting of a Grade II listed building (Q2(1)(f)).
The building in question was a single-storey Dutch barn, with a steel portal frame and solid concrete floor. The bays of the barn, for the most part, were enclosed by concrete blockwork to a high-level. A large proportion of the barn, including its roof, was clad with metal corrugated sheeting. There was an existing lean-to structure on the barn’s end elevation that was also considerably clad in corrugated sheeting.
The Council contended that:
“the loss of a significant amount of the existing fabric of the building would go beyond partial demolition and the amount of new external materials, consisting of insulated corrugated metal sheeting to the roof and walls and the construction of part of the south wall with a substantial amount of glazing, which would constitute substantial rebuilding, would go beyond the remit of what would be reasonably necessary for the proposed conversion.”
Whilst the cladding was to be removed as part of the proposal, it was of no real structural significance and did not affect the building’s capability of conversion.
As regards demolition, there is no definition in the legislation of ‘partial’. The only conclusion which could be drawn from the contention that the removal of the cladding would “go beyond partial demolition” is that it would amount to complete demolition of the building; this was inarguably not the case. The appellant was only required to demonstrate that any partial demolition was reasonably necessary “to carry out building operations allowed by paragraph Q.1(i)(i).” Clearly, the removal of the cladding was reasonably necessary to enable the provision of windows and doors, as is permitted by Class Q.
The Council further contended—citing the judgement in Hibbitt—that “the condition and appearance of the steel portal frame building raises serious doubt that the existing fabric of the building would be suitable for retention for practical and aesthetic purposes due to the poor quality of the corrugated metal sheeting”. The only robust evidence to have been provided was by the appellant and was that of two qualified structural engineers who clearly concluded that the building was capable of functioning as a dwelling without structural alteration.
The judge in ‘Hibbitt’ stated in his judgement that the development in that case “was in all practical terms starting afresh, with only a modest amount of help from the original agricultural building.” In the case of this appeal, it was not possible to argue that the help from the original agricultural building was ‘modest’. The proposal retained all existing blockwork almost to eave height so that the building remained almost fully enclosed. It is common, and indeed permitted, in developments under Class Q for new sections of cladding to be introduced and the roof sheeting to be replaced. When taken together with the introduction of a small number of new openings, any contention that this would amount to anything other than a conversion was wholly untenable.
The Inspector was clearly in agreement:
“From the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the structural integrity of the building is sound and that it would be maintained to form an integral aspect of the new dwelling. Despite the Council’s concerns regarding the totality of the works, I consider that they do not exceed those permitted under Class Q.1(i) of the GPDO.”
The exterior of the dwelling was proposed to be rendered/painted masonry, clad with corrugated insulated sheeting to the eaves with a corrugated insulated sheet roof. The combination of masonry and cladding is not uncommon in the context of agricultural buildings.
The proposed dwelling contained a limited number of new openings which did not result in an unacceptably domesticated appearance as contended by the Council. Rather, they clearly preserved the agricultural and rural nature of the building. It is an inevitability with virtually any conversion that new openings would be required and, in fact, The Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development and Miscellaneous Amendments) (England) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020) introduced the following requirement in 2020:
(2A) Where the application relates to prior approval as to adequate natural light, the local planning authority must refuse prior approval if adequate natural light is not provided in all the habitable rooms of the dwellinghouses.
The Inspector was ultimately satisfied that the building would still largely retain an agricultural appearance, befitting of its rural context and that the proposal would not harm the character or appearance of the surrounding rural area. Furthermore, the overall effect of the proposed development would be neutral and therefore the setting of the nearby listed building would be preserved. It was deemed that the relevant provisions of the NPPF would be met, promoting high-quality design and conserving the historic environment. As such, the proposal was not considered to result in any harm with regard to Q2(1)(f) of the GDPO.
The appeal was allowed.