Agricultural Permitted Development under Class Q Quashed

Successful challenge to the decision by Uttlesford District Council made on delegated powers to grant prior approval for change of use from an agricultural building to a dwelling under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 due to extensive structure works required.

The Claimant, John Harrison, owns a grade II listed farmhouse located in very close proximity to the application site. He had submitted a detailed objection to the application for prior approval on the basis that, inter alia, the proposed development went beyond what is permitted under Class Q due to the degree of the structural conversion works required. The objection concluded that the application fell outside the scope of Class Q and that prior approval should not be granted. This was supported by the applicant’s structural inspection report which identified that foundations would be need. In total the Claimant argued that the degree of works required to convert the building to a dwelling amounted to structural work and demonstrated that the building is not capable of conversion without rebuilding so the development falls outside of the scope of Class Q.

By decision notice dated 17 April 2023, Uttlesford District Council decided that the proposed development fell within the scope of Class Q and granted prior approval subject to conditions.

On instructions from Mr Harrison, our pre-action protocol (PAP) letter set out that the officer failed to give reasons to deal with the Claimant’s points about the degree of works required to convert the structure to a dwelling. The PAP letter referred to the case of Hibbitt v SSCLG [2016] EWHC 2853 (Admin) where it was held that to fall within the scope of Class Q, development must amount to a “conversion” which was conceptually different from a “rebuild”. In Hibbitt, it was held that development that includes new structural elements is one that involves a degree of rebuild and not a conversion.

The council consented to judgment on the basis that the delegated officer report failed to give adequate reasons on a principal controversial issue raised by the Claimant related to the degree of rebuild necessary to achieve the conversion.