The Ashton Farm Class Q appeal for seven homes has been dismissed because its noise evidence did not give the Inspector enough certainty about living conditions beside continuing agricultural activity.
The decision is striking because the appellant won the two building-works arguments that might have ended the scheme. Inspector C Butcher accepted that the disputed demolition could be reasonably necessary and that the works would still amount to conversion rather than rebuilding. Noise nevertheless sank the appeal.
The demolition passed the Class Q test
The proposal was to convert two agricultural barns at Ashton Farm into seven C3 dwellings. Part of barn 2 would be demolished.
Somerset Council was concerned that the demolition was really being used to reduce the building so that the development fitted within Class Q’s limits. The appellant said it was needed to create workable walls and elevations, a functional residential layout and garden space.
The Inspector accepted that Class Q does not require demolition to be absolutely unavoidable. The question under paragraph Q.1(j)(ii) was whether the partial demolition was reasonably necessary for the building operations.
Looking at the proposed layout, he considered the demolition a course a reasonable person could choose because it enabled a suitable internal arrangement and rear gardens. That part of the appeal therefore complied with Class Q.
The barns were still capable of conversion
The council also raised concern that the works would amount to a partial rebuild rather than a conversion.
That argument did not persuade the Inspector. The whole of barn 1 and the majority of barn 2 would remain. A structural survey by Splinter Structures said no structural intervention or reinforcement was required and that the proposed works could be supported by the existing structure.
After seeing the buildings, the Inspector agreed. The partial demolition would not undermine barn 2’s structural integrity and the project remained a conversion.
Its reasoning is tied to the retained fabric, the structural evidence and the particular works proposed at Ashton Farm. Planning Geek’s Class Q guide covers the wider conversion rules.
Why noise sank the Ashton Farm Class Q appeal
The converted barns sit within a group of agricultural buildings around a courtyard. A May 2026 noise review considered some of the continuing activity, but the Inspector found important gaps.
One nearby building, identified as barn 3, was dealt with by a signed unilateral undertaking requiring either its demolition or the permanent cessation of agricultural use. The Inspector was satisfied that this particular source of concern could be controlled.
Other nearby agricultural buildings were different. They were said to store bedding materials, with a telehandler moving those materials two or three times a week. The review considered indicative telehandler noise and suggested screening as mitigation.
But it did not establish whether the existing activity actually required mitigation, what effect the proposed mitigation would have, or what might happen if the remaining agricultural buildings were used more intensively in future.
That uncertainty was decisive. The council’s environmental health officer had suggested a condition could deal with the matter, but the Inspector considered that the decision-maker needed enough certainty about noise before prior approval was granted. On the evidence provided, that threshold had not been reached.
The proposal therefore failed the Class Q prior approval requirement in Q.2(1)(b) concerning noise impacts.
The costs claim failed as well
The appellant also sought a full award of appeal costs against Somerset Council. That application was refused.
The Inspector dealing with costs accepted that the council had departed from its environmental health officer’s suggestion that a condition might work, but said planners were entitled to reach a different judgment where it was explained. In his view the missing noise evidence required a fresh application rather than a condition attached to this appeal.
The planning appeal and costs application were both decided on 21st September 2026.
The result is a useful warning for Class Q schemes next to retained farm operations: winning the argument about the physical conversion does not cure a separate prior approval evidential gap.
Read the locally hosted appeal decision and costs decision, or see appeal 6010649 on the Planning Inspectorate service.
0 Comments