Suffolk barn conversion prior approval quashed

Richard Buxton Solicitors challenged Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Council’s decision to grant prior approval for the change of use of an agricultural building to a dwelling house in Semer, Suffolk. Once judicial review proceeding were filed, the Council conceded the claim, and the Court made an order quashing the decision and for payment of our client’s costs.

Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils granted prior approval for the change of use of an agricultural building to a dwelling house under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q (a) and (b) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (“the GDPO”). Permitted development under Class Q consists of: (a) a change of use of a building and any land within its curtilage from a use as an agricultural building to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses) of the Schedule to the Use Classes Order; and (b) building operations reasonably necessary to convert the building to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses) of that Schedule.

An earlier application had been refused on the basis that inter alia the applicant had “not demonstrated that the structure is capable of use for Class C3 residential purposes without being substantially re-built and, given its nature and condition, regards the likely conversion works as potentially falling beyond what can regarded as ‘reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwelling-house'”. The applicant then made some structural changes, which included bracing to the sides and columns and building a wall between the columns, said to be internal works that did not require planning permission. The Council then decided that the proposal was now permitted development and gave prior approval.

When challenged, the Council agreed it had not considered whether the works to the agricultural building prior to the application were development requiring planning permission. Article 3(5) of the GDPO states that the planning permission granted by Schedule 2 does not apply if, in the case of permission granted in connection with an existing building, the operations involved in the construction of that building were unlawful. Secondly, the Council accepted that it had not considered whether the proposals went beyond works of ‘conversion’, and amounted to a rebuild. If the latter, it would not have been development permitted by Class Q (Hibbitt v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (2016] EWHC 2853).

Mark Westmoreland Smith of Francis Taylor Building acted as counsel for the Claimant.