In Hibbitt and another v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and another [2016] EWHC 2853 (Admin), the High Court considered the meaning of “convert” in Class Q(b), Part 3, Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (“GPDO”).
Rushcliffe Borough Council (“RBC”) refused the claimants’ prior approval application to convert a barn to a residential dwelling. RBC considered that the proposed development was not permitted development.
The barn was a modern, steel framed structure with a monopitch, roof. It had a concrete floor slab and was largely open on three sides. In order to convert the barn into a dwelling the existing steel frame and roof would be retained. No demolition was proposed. Structural infill panels would be used to construct the four external walls and a ceiling within the existing frame. The existing foundations were capable of taking the additional loading.
The claimant appealed against the refusal and the appeal was dismissed. The inspector considered that the agricultural building would not be capable of functioning as a dwelling without substantial building works, including the construction of all four exterior walls. She considered that for the development to amount to a “conversion” the nature and extent of the works needed to fall short of a rebuild. The proposed works to the agricultural building went “…well beyond what could reasonably be described as conversion…”.
The claimant then applied to quash the inspector’s decision letter. The High Court dismissed the claimant’s application and declined to quash the inspector’s decision. The High Court decided that the concept of “conversion” was in the overarching provisions of Class Q and introduces a “discrete threshold issue”. If a development does not amount to a “conversion” it falls at the first hurdle and as a result there is no need to consider the exceptions set out in Q.1. It is a freestanding requirement that must be met.
The judge accepted that development following a demolition is a rebuild, but did not accept that this was where the divide lay. Where the line is drawn is a matter of planning judgment. In this case, the works went a very long way beyond what might be described as a conversion. The development was in all practical terms starting afresh, with only a modest amount of help from the original agricultural building. The court held that there was no need for “convert” to be defined in the GPDO 2015. The GPDO 2015 is directed towards a professional audience and the persons who make an assessment of whether works amount to a conversion, are experts who are able to understand what the term means in a planning context. The court considered that the distinction between a conversion and rebuild is implicit in paragraph 105 of the Planning Practice Guidance, which states in relation to Class Q that it is not the “… intention of the permitted development right to include the construction of new structural elements for a building”. It was argued that one reason for this conclusion is that a development that includes “new structural elements” is one that involves a degree of rebuild and is not a conversion.
Martha Grekos is a partner and head of planning at Howard Kennedy LLP
