Bromsgrove Class Q appeal wins as council makes a 2-barn mistake

A Bromsgrove Class Q appeal has succeeded after the council treated the possible demolition of two neighbouring barns as part of a proposal that never identified them for demolition.

Inspector D Marley allowed Mr Harvey’s appeal on 25th September 2026, granting prior approval to turn the main barn at Fairfields Farm Buildings, Brockhill Lane, Beoley, into one four-bedroom home. The Inspector also accepted the proposed building works as a conversion and found no evidence that the existing access track needed a hard surface.

The two barns that were not in the demolition plans

Bromsgrove District Council had read the submitted drawings as requiring two separate barns beside the conversion building to be removed. It believed they would obstruct the proposed parking area, and argued that demolishing them went beyond the building operations permitted by Class Q.

The plans in the Bromsgrove Class Q appeal marked a small part of the main barn for demolition, but neither of the two neighbouring barns. The Inspector asked the council about the discrepancy. Its response confirmed that demolition of the separate barns was an inference from the plans and the buildings’ relationship to the proposed parking.

Paragraph W.2 requires the written description and plans accompanying a prior approval application to identify the proposed development and building operations. Inspector Marley said that treating unlisted demolition as part of this proposal “would go beyond the provisions of Paragraph W.2”.

Nor was there substantive evidence that the two partly open-sided barns had to be removed for the parking layout or for the new home to function. The Inspector noted that the appellant might have obtained a later prior approval to demolish them, but that was a separate matter. The appeal concerned the proposal actually submitted.

A conversion, despite concerns about the structure

The Bromsgrove Class Q appeal also tested whether the main barn could be converted without substantial rebuilding. It has a steel portal frame, concrete block or corrugated lower walls, timber boarding above and a corrugated roof. The proposals included repairs, some enclosure of openings, doors, windows and internal insulation.

The Inspector considered the Hibbitt judgment, which limits Class Q to buildings capable of conversion without a complete or substantial rebuilding of the existing structure. Mr Harvey’s 2025 structural inspection was relatively high level. Even so, it had been professionally prepared and identified no major structural intervention, while the Inspector saw walls and roof largely in good order on the site visit.

Some cladding might need repair or replacement, but there was no evidence that a large amount of external fabric would be lost. The building was already relatively enclosed, and much of its material would remain. On that evidence, the works were reasonably necessary for conversion and did not amount to a fresh or substantial rebuild.

The gravel track could stay

The Bromsgrove Class Q appeal then turned to the access track. The track from Brockhill Lane was loose gravel or compacted stone for much of its length. Historic photography and the site visit supported its existence; the Inspector found it in good order, with a gentle slope and good visibility along the lane.

Bromsgrove argued that the lack of hard surfacing made the location impractical or undesirable and suggested that surfacing might require another planning permission. Inspector Marley said “I have not been given any specific reason why the track must be hard surfaced”, and he had no evidence of harm from leaving it as it was. He found the gravel and compacted stone likely to give vehicles enough traction, with no material deposited on Brockhill Lane. No hard surfacing condition was imposed.

The highways authority also sought cycle parking and a residential welcome pack. The Inspector had not been given the relevant cycle parking standards or evidence of transport harm without the spaces. On the welcome pack, the Inspector said Class Q did not test the sustainability of the location. Both suggested conditions were rejected on the evidence of this case.

What the decision allows

The appeal grants prior approval for one four-bedroom dwelling, with conditions requiring the approved vehicle parking spaces before occupation and a response if previously unidentified contamination is found during construction. It does not authorise demolition of the two separate barns as part of this conversion.

Interested parties also raised the site’s Green Belt location. Inspector Marley said that was outside the matters for this Class Q prior approval application.

There is an important timing point. This application used Class Q as it stood before 21st May 2024 under transitional arrangements, as the Inspector explained in paragraph 2. Readers assessing a new proposal should check the current Class Q rules, rather than copy the older paragraph numbers from this decision.

The Bromsgrove Class Q appeal offers a practical lesson: an authority can scrutinise what the drawings actually propose, but a suspected extra operation needs an evidential basis. A later Malvern Hills Class Q appeal shows the opposite problem: acceptable conversion works could not overcome missing agricultural evidence. The locally hosted appeal decision contains the full reasoning, and the Planning Inspectorate appeal record confirms the outcome and date.