Brookfields Farm Class Q split: two homes win, four fail

Two Brookfields Farm Class Q appeals went before the same Inspector on the same day. Two homes won; four homes failed.

At Brookfields Farm, Hankelow, two homes were allowed while four homes were rejected because their barn sat too close to agricultural activity that could intensify again.

Two Class Q appeals, one farm

Both appeals concerned Brookfields Farm, Longhill Lane, Hankelow, and both were decided by Inspector Ann Veevers on 22nd September 2026.

Appeal 6007422 sought two single-storey dwellings in a low mono-pitch barn. Appeal 6007456 sought four dwellings in a larger six-bay portal-frame barn.

Cheshire East Council had challenged whether the works were genuinely conversion works and raised prior approval concerns. In both cases, the Inspector accepted that the physical works could remain within Class Q. The difference came down mainly to where each barn sat in relation to the working farm.

The two-home barn had enough separation

The barn in the successful appeal was used for storage. It sat in a more discrete part of the farm, with existing dwellings and separation between it and the main focus of agricultural activity.

The Inspector accepted that the farm was operating at a limited level and was described as “winding down”, but did not assume it would stay that way. Parts of the roughly 40-hectare holding were within a biodiversity net gain habitat bank, restricting some activity for at least 30 years, yet livestock grazing and hay cutting could still take place.

Even allowing for possible future intensification, she found sufficient separation from livestock, machinery and farm traffic for the two proposed homes to coexist acceptably.

The unmade access track was also a public right of way and had no footway or lighting. That did not make the scheme unacceptable. Class Q is designed to operate in rural locations, and the limited extra traffic was not considered a highway safety problem.

A useful parking point also emerged. The proposed residential curtilage would be garden rather than parking, but the GPDO does not require parking to sit inside the Class Q curtilage. Existing hardstanding could potentially serve the homes, with any separate planning issue dealt with outside this prior approval.

The four-home barn was too close to the farmyard

The second barn was in a materially different position. At the site visit it contained some calves, hay and other materials and sat close to a large open-sided agricultural building, yard and feed hopper.

That neighbouring building was the main focus of the agricultural enterprise. The Inspector considered that future livestock, machinery and vehicle activity could generate noise and odour close to the proposed windows and gardens, including at unsocial hours.

Triple glazing did not solve the point because occupiers would open windows in warmer weather and would still use outdoor space. Nor did the quiet conditions on the site visit prove that future conditions would remain quiet.

Crucially, there was no sufficiently detailed assessment showing what disturbance and odour a more intensive agricultural use could generate or how it could be mitigated.

The four-home appeal was therefore dismissed because the location and siting made the conversion undesirable under the Class Q prior approval test.

Why the Brookfields Farm Class Q results split

The decisions are a neat reminder that Class Q is not decided by the farm name or by a generic assumption that rural residents must simply accept farm noise. The physical relationship between the particular barn, the retained agricultural operation and the evidence about future effects mattered.

Planning Geek’s Class Q guide covers the wider rules. Read the locally hosted decisions for appeal 6007422, the two-home scheme, and appeal 6007456, the four-home scheme. The Planning Inspectorate’s official records are also available for 6007422 and 6007456.