A Class Q appeal for seven homes in three agricultural buildings at Whiddon Down in West Devon has been dismissed because of the effect of mature protected trees on future living conditions. The Inspector also found that adequate natural light had not been demonstrated for two proposed dwellings.
Inspector C Cooper-Young issued the decision on 12 November 2026, upholding West Devon Borough Council’s refusal of prior approval for land adjoining Martin Farm, Exeter Road. The application sought to convert three agricultural buildings into seven Class C3 homes under Part 3, Class Q of the General Permitted Development Order.
This Class Q appeal is useful because the applicant had already revised the layout following an earlier refusal and appeal. The changes reduced direct views towards trees, but the Inspector found that the buildings’ physical relationship with them, and the absence of technical daylight evidence, remained decisive.
Why the Class Q appeal failed in Devon
The Class Q appeal was a resubmission of application 2519/25/PDM, which had been refused and that refusal upheld under appeal reference 6002745. For the latest application, 1105/26/PDM, Barn 3 was reconfigured, habitable accommodation was repositioned, windows were altered and external curtilage was removed from the eastern side.
Those changes addressed some direct relationships between living rooms and the neighbouring trees. They did not, however, increase the separation between the barn and a collection of large mature trees, some of which were protected. Their branches and canopies remained close to the building, and their influence would continue as the trees developed.
The council’s remaining objections concerned whether the location was suitable for residential occupation and whether habitable rooms would receive adequate natural light. It raised no concerns regarding other Class Q requirements in this appeal, and the Inspector said there was no reason to reach a different conclusion on those matters.
Protected trees and the location test
Class Q is a national permitted development right, but prior approval still involves assessing specified effects. Paragraph Q.2(1)(e) allows consideration of whether the location or siting of a building makes a residential change otherwise impractical or undesirable. That is separate from whether it has the necessary agricultural history and falls within numerical limits.
The Inspector visited when the trees east of Barn 3 were in full leaf. Their height, broad crowns and proximity were readily apparent, as was extensive shade along the eastern elevation. The Inspector accepted that statutory controls would remain in force and that the conversion might begin without physically harming the trees.
The concern was what could happen once homes were occupied. Falling debris, shade, overhanging branches and perceived safety risks might prompt residents to seek pruning or felling. In the Inspector’s words, the revised layout does not overcome the underlying concerns regarding the desirability of the proposed residential accommodation in this location.
The Class Q appeal therefore failed the location and siting test. The decision does not say that homes near a Tree Preservation Order are automatically unacceptable. It concerns the particular proximity, scale and influence of these trees, and realistic long-term pressure that occupation could put on their retention.
Planning Geek’s Tree Preservation Order guidance sets out the controls for protecting trees. Statutory protection matters, but does not necessarily demonstrate that a residential layout will be satisfactory over time. Future residents’ likely experience of the site remains a material part of this prior-approval question.
Missing daylight evidence for dwellings six and seven
Natural light was the second independent problem. Paragraph Q.2(1)(g) requires adequate natural light in all habitable rooms of the proposed homes. The Inspector noted that the application contained no formal daylight or sunlight assessment, even though the site had already been examined through an earlier application and appeal.
Barn 3 was constrained by trees to the north and south, which would affect the main source of daylight and sunlight for dwellings six and seven. Dwelling seven was particularly affected by trees to the east and south, with substantial branches extending over parts of the building and its garden.
The appellant argued that revised internal arrangements and window positions resolved the objections. That argument lacked technical analysis. Without evidence showing how the rooms would perform, the Inspector could not conclude that adequate natural light would be provided throughout the conversion, and therefore found conflict with paragraph Q.2(1)(g).
In this Class Q appeal, a redesigned floor plan was insufficient. A proportionate daylight assessment could have addressed the evidential gap, although it would not necessarily have resolved the separate objection about protected trees and the risk of future management pressure. Evidence on one issue does not automatically overcome another.
Why seven dwellings were not enough to secure approval
The overall scheme involved three agricultural buildings and seven proposed dwellings, but the disputed physical relationship centred on Barn 3. It would be misleading to describe the dismissal as a general finding that seven homes exceed Class Q’s numerical ceiling, or that none of the agricultural buildings could ever be converted.
The refusal concerned two particular prior-approval matters specified in the legislation. Even where the qualifying criteria are met, a proposal can fail if the location is undesirable or the evidence does not establish adequate natural light. The Inspector dismissed the entire appealed proposal on those grounds.
Planning Geek’s Class Q barn conversion guidance explains current limits, building eligibility, permitted operations and prior-approval tests. The right can permit up to ten homes subject to detailed requirements; that does not guarantee prior approval for a particular seven-home design.
What the Class Q appeal means for future applications
Developers should map large trees and their canopy relationships before fixing conversion layouts. Where protected trees sit close to proposed windows and private amenity space, the long-term experience of residents can be as important as the immediate feasibility of the conversion. This is especially relevant when homes are introduced into formerly agricultural buildings.
The Class Q appeal also demonstrates the value of testing daylight before resubmitting. Altered windows may improve a drawing, but they need evidence where canopies cast extensive shade. A properly scoped assessment can help identify whether habitable rooms receive enough light and what other arrangements might be feasible.
There is a broader lesson in the earlier refusal. Revising details does not necessarily answer an objection founded on the physical relationship between a building and its surroundings. Applicants should distinguish elements that can be redesigned from constraints that remain despite alterations to floor plans and glazing.
The appeal was dismissed on 12 November 2026 under reference 6015396. The local application is 1105/26/PDM. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase.
0 Comments