Back in March 2018 I reviewed the Government's major new overhaul of its Class Q permitted development legislation and supporting guidance relating to the conversion of agricultural buildings to residential dwellings (see Changes to permitted develoment allow conversion of agricultural buildings into five new dwellings). The aim of the changes was to increase the number of dwellings that can be achieved using the permitted development right and to provide greater clarification on how proposals made under Class Q will be determined.

So, nine months on, what have we learned from working with the legislation and supporting guidance? It has certainly created new opportunities but there are also potential pitfalls to avoid and some trends are emerging in terms of the way in which these applications are being determined by local authorities.

The increase from three to five units

Experience to date suggests that proposals for four or five units are not giving rise to additional ‘planning risk’.

Class Q as a fallback position

It is established in case law that permitted development rights can legitimately represent a fallback position when considering alternative proposals for development at the same site. This was the case in one of our recent projects where, after having secured Prior Approval to convert a Dutch barn to a dwelling, planning permission was subsequently achieved for an alternative development involving the replacement of the Dutch barn with a larger and more valuable new build dwelling, creating an unencumbered ‘self-build’ plot in the countryside to present to the market.

Internal works ­

The change in government guidance clarified that internal works (for example, new floors and mezzanines) are not a form of operational development and so should not be taken into account when considering applications for Prior Approval. Although there continue to be instances where local authorities raise objections about internal works, these can generally be overcome with reference to relevant planning guidance and case law.

The structural issue 

The changes to government guidance sought to provide greater clarity over which buildings will and will not benefit from the permitted development right; stating that the works required to enable the change of use should constitute a ‘conversion’ rather than being so extensive as to represent a ‘rebuild’. This essentially meant the structural test was out and the practical, more rounded test about the general ‘convertability’ of the barn is in.

While the distinction between the two can be clear cut, this is often not the case and so there remains inconsistency in the way the guidance is applied by different local authorities. The key to success therefore will often come down to anticipating how a particular authority is likely to view a proposal made under Class Q. By using our experience from working with a particular authority, drawing on precedents of similar barns and presenting robust arguments in relation to ‘convertibility’, we can present the optimum strategy to maximise chances for success.

The 56-day rule

The Prior Approval procedure requires local authorities to determine applications made under Class Q within 56 days and as a result many applicants (and local authorities) had assumed that failure to meet this deadline would result in automatic approval. This is not strictly the case as the deemed consent only applies where the proposal also satisfies the relevant criteria of Q1.

So if, for example, a building is listed or the works required to convert it go beyond what is allowed under Q1, the building would not automatically benefit from deemed consent simply because the application was not determined within the 56-day period.  

There is a continuing need to tread carefully when taking forward any proposal to make use of Class Q permitted development rights in order to avoid the potential pitfalls. However, for those who proceed in the right way Class Q remains an excellent way to enhance the value of agricultural buildings and create high-quality homes.

Further information

Contact Savills Rural Planning