Two Class Q appeals decided on 26th October 2026 have produced opposite outcomes for agricultural building conversions in York and Lancaster. An Inspector allowed one home near Skelton, York, while another dismissed the proposed conversion of a barn near Lancaster because the evidence did not establish its qualifying agricultural-unit status.
The York appeal, reference 6010725, involved questions about the existing rural access road, flooding, isolation and the statutory deadline for prior approval. The Lancaster appeal, reference 6015073, concerned a site with evidence of livestock use alongside seasonal camping and leisure activities.
These Class Q appeals matter because a building can qualify despite being remote and reached along an unsealed track. I would not rely on its rural appearance alone: a barn which houses livestock may still fail if the applicant cannot prove its relationship to an established agricultural unit or another eligible route.
Why the Class Q appeals reached different results
Class Q is the permitted development right in Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the General Permitted Development Order 2015. It can permit qualifying agricultural and certain former agricultural buildings to become Class C3 dwellinghouses, subject to limitations, restrictions and a prior approval process.
This means the council must first be satisfied that the building and its site qualify for the right. Only then do the specified prior approval matters become decisive. It is not an ordinary full planning application that invites every possible planning objection.
The Planning Geek Class Q guide explains the distinction, including the separate routes for agricultural units and former agricultural buildings, the restrictions on conversion works and the prior approval procedure.
Both Class Q appeals also generated separate applications for costs. Those applications were refused in both cases, even though one of the underlying appeals succeeded.
Why the Skelton agricultural building could become a home
Inspector H Jones granted prior approval for a one-home conversion off Moor Lane, Skelton. A continuous hard-surfaced route led from the building, across the adjoining yard and along a private track to the public highway.
The track did not have a conventional tarmacked finish, but its surface was firm. For the limited amount of traffic reasonably anticipated from one dwelling, the Inspector found it suitable under paragraph Q1(p). There was insufficient evidence that the road was heavily trafficked or that visibility was inadequate.
Questions over private rights to use the track and who paid for its maintenance were not determinative in this case. Nor was remoteness from shops or public transport a reason for refusing prior approval. The Inspector considered that treating rural isolation alone as decisive would undermine the purpose of allowing eligible farm buildings to become homes.
Flood concerns were considered separately. The building was in Flood Zone 1, and the available photographs of standing water did not demonstrate an unacceptable risk at the site. A condition requiring further detail about surface and foul water drainage could address remaining matters.
Conditions also covered contamination, where necessary, and the approved plans. The successful Class Q appeals outcome in York was therefore a grant of prior approval subject to safeguards, not an unrestricted permission to rebuild the barn as any dwelling.
A crucial mistake in counting the 56 days
One of the most useful findings was not about the building at all. The parties disputed whether the council had failed to decide the prior approval application in time. Both the applicant and council calculated that the decision should have been issued by 9th February 2026.
Inspector Jones found that the application was received on 16th December 2025, so the 56-day clock began on 17th December. In his words, Day 56 was 10 February 2026
. The council’s decision on 9th February 2026 was therefore within the statutory period.
Prior approval had not been deemed granted through delay, although the appeal succeeded on its merits. The appellant’s related partial costs application was refused because the council had not missed the actual deadline or behaved unreasonably in defending its position.
Our guide to prior approval deemed consent explains the time-limit questions. It is essential to establish when a complete application and fee were received, when the period begins, and whether any extension was agreed in writing.
Lancaster fails to prove its agricultural unit
In Lancaster, Inspector E Heron dismissed the proposed conversion of a barn at Littlefell Lane. March 2026 photographs showed livestock inside, but photographs from July showed tables, chairs and food or drink sales from a pod-like structure. Other land appeared equipped for camping and leisure activities.
The applicant said camping was seasonal diversification and that the site remained part of a 27-acre farmstead, with land around a mile away. The claim included livestock, young-stock rearing and silage production. The council had previously accepted an agricultural-unit connection on an earlier application, but later information raised new doubts.
For the current case, the applicant had not supplied sufficient material demonstrating the holding’s extent, occupation as one agricultural unit, relationship to the barn or farming as a trade or business. An agricultural holding number alone did not fill the gap left by missing land maps, grazing information and stocking records.
The Inspector was careful not to say mixed agricultural and leisure activity automatically defeated Class Q. Her decision states: I have not found against the proposal because of mixed agricultural and leisure use of the building
. The difficulty was the lack of evidence for eligibility.
This is the key contrast between these Class Q appeals. A building may have agricultural characteristics and still fail the statutory threshold. In Lancaster, that threshold was not met, so the Inspector did not need to determine the remaining question about nearby trees and whether they made the conversion undesirable.
Costs were refused in both appeals
The Lancaster applicant sought a full award of costs, arguing that the council had inconsistently assessed the same site in successive applications and adopted the wrong approach to Class Q. The Inspector rejected the claim after reviewing the further evidence and the council’s reasoning.
An authority can legitimately reach a different conclusion when later information raises new questions. Disagreement with an applicant, or changing an earlier assessment, does not automatically constitute unreasonable conduct causing wasted appeal expense.
York also ended without a costs award, despite the appellant winning prior approval. The Inspector rejected the suggestion that the authority had missed its statutory deadline. These separate costs decisions are essential to understanding the complete outcomes.
What landowners and advisers should check
For anyone handling Class Q appeals, these decisions show why evidence should be assembled before relying on the appearance of a barn. The qualifying agricultural unit, its date history, occupation, business activities, ownership arrangements and any subsequent non-agricultural use may all require proper documentation.
Applicants should also distinguish statutory eligibility from prior approval merits. A rural building’s isolated position does not automatically exclude conversion. Conversely, one episode of livestock use is not necessarily enough to prove that the site falls within the right.
Timing disputes demand equal care. Counting a statutory period from the wrong day can undermine a deemed-consent argument and even the basis of a costs claim. In the York decision, the arithmetic mattered independently of the Inspector’s eventual approval of the conversion.
Taken together, the Class Q appeals show why there is no reliable shortcut based on a building being rural, historic or apparently agricultural. The actual law, the site evidence and the precise prior approval matters must be examined separately.
The primary appeal decisions and costs decisions
The York decision is Planning Inspectorate appeal 6010725. The Lancaster decision is Planning Inspectorate appeal 6015073. Separate costs decisions in both cases were also checked. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase for York, alongside the Lancaster case.
Brief verbatim extracts from the Inspector decisions are reproduced under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
0 Comments