A Class Q barn appeal in Cheshire has been dismissed after an Inspector concluded that converting an agricultural building into four family homes would involve too much construction work to remain permitted development. The decision was issued on 30 October 2026 and concerns Forest Farm at Utkinton, near Northwich.
The plans proposed four substantial dwellings inside the footprint of an existing steel-framed barn. Each would have four bedrooms over two floors and a floor area below the Class Q limit of 150 square metres. The building already had a concrete floor, a roof and partly enclosed walls, and the Inspector considered it structurally sound.
The significant point in this Class Q barn appeal is that a sound frame and a list of normally permitted building operations do not guarantee approval. Looking at the extent of alterations together, the Inspector concluded that the proposal was more akin to rebuilding. The Inspector expressly took the High Court judgment in Hibbitt into account. I would treat that as a prompt to test the drawings and works schedule as a whole, rather than simply counting the steelwork retained.
Class Q barn appeal rejected over extent of works
The appeal concerned Cheshire West and Chester Council application 26/01044/PDQ and appeal reference 6012849. The decision names Chamberlain & Carpe Diem as the appellants, seeking conversion of an agricultural barn at Forest Farm, Heaths Lane. The Inspectorate’s online record lists Jon Powner as the applicant. The case was determined by Inspector J D Clark following a September site visit.
The barn had a steel frame, metal roof and a mixture of blockwork and cladding to its elevations. Its front and one end remained partly open. The Inspector described the barn as structurally sound and noted its steel frame and concrete floor. Some materials were still stored inside at the time of the site visit.
Each of the four proposed homes would have three double bedrooms, an additional single bedroom, living accommodation at ground-floor level, private outdoor space and two parking spaces. The plans retained the overall agricultural building envelope rather than proposing an entirely separate housing development on adjacent land.
The Class Q barn appeal nonetheless failed because the quantity of new openings, external walls and other changes necessary for that internal subdivision went further than the Inspector considered reasonably necessary for conversion of the existing building. The Inspector found that the overall scale “goes beyond what could reasonably be considered necessary to convert the building”.
Why the overall scale mattered more than the list of operations
Class Q permits specified building operations that are reasonably necessary to convert an agricultural building into a dwellinghouse, subject to its detailed requirements and limitations. Among them are installation or replacement of windows, doors, roofs, external walls and relevant services. They are not a general permission to reconstruct a building within its original outline.
The submitted scheme proposed a replacement roof, new external walls alongside replacement walls, timber cladding, sandstone facing over existing concrete perimeter walls, and numerous windows, doors and rooflights. The Inspector did not challenge the proposition that many of these individual types of work appear in Class Q’s permitted list.
The problem was their combined effect. The Inspector considered that, other than the building’s basic form, the completed scheme would bear no resemblance to its original function. The number of new openings needed to create four four-bedroom dwellings was found to be excessive.
That approach matters to developers reading a Class Q barn appeal as a numerical checklist. A proposed window or wall may fall within the type of work contemplated by the Order, while the totality of the works can still exceed what amounts to conversion. The analysis turns on the existing structure, actual design and realistic construction programme, not labels on the drawings.
The Hibbitt High Court judgment was central
The decision expressly referred to Hibbitt & Anor v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2016] EWHC 2853 (Admin). That is a High Court judgment, not another planning Inspector’s decision, and Planning Geek has a separate Case Law summary of it.
In Hibbitt, Green J upheld the distinction between genuine conversion and work that in substance amounts to rebuilding or constructing a fresh building. Retaining a load-bearing steel frame is relevant but does not conclusively resolve the question. Whether works cross that line is a matter of planning judgment on the facts.
The Inspector in the Class Q barn appeal applied that reasoning to a building described in the decision as structurally sound. A sound existing frame and concrete floor provided a starting point, but the proposed scheme would create extensive new residential elevations and openings. The Inspector found the extent of the operations fell outside the scope of the Order.
Importantly, Hibbitt was decided under an earlier version of Class Q, and the right has been amended since. The current Order must be read in its own terms. The continuing distinction between conversion and rebuilding is relevant, but the older judgment should not be used as a substitute for checking the present statutory wording.
The fuller statutory conditions and limitations are explained in Planning Geek’s Class Q agricultural conversion guidance, which should be read alongside the case law and the precise development proposed.
Why prior approval issues were never decided
The council’s refusal also referred to the suitability of the location, design and external appearance. It raised potential difficulties over living conditions for future residents, while acknowledging that contamination risks might be managed through a condition.
However, Class Q operates in stages of legal reasoning. First the proposal must qualify as development permitted by the Order. Only then does the question arise whether the specified matters require prior approval and whether that approval should be granted.
Because the building operations failed the initial permitted-development test, the Inspector expressly found it unnecessary to consider the alternative prior approval issues. It would therefore misrepresent this Class Q barn appeal to say the four homes were specifically rejected for unsafe living conditions or for an unacceptable rural location.
The result also did not depend on whether the dwellings individually complied with the 150-square-metre floor-space limitation. The Inspector recorded that the relevant agricultural-use and dwelling-size requirements were not in dispute. The Inspector’s concern was what would physically have to be built.
Comparisons with other barn conversions
The appellants submitted photographs of other agricultural buildings, as well as appeal and council decisions in which somewhat similar conversions had been accepted. The Inspector considered those examples but did not regard them as determining the outcome. Such determinations, the Inspector explained, are a matter of judgement based on fact and degree.
This Class Q barn appeal is a warning against relying solely on attractive images of previously converted barns or a general assertion that the original steelwork survives. A credible submission needs drawings and construction details showing what remains in place, what is removed and exactly what is added.
Energy efficiency and insulation were also raised. The Inspector recognised the aspiration for high standards but did not treat them as a reason to extend the legal limits of the permitted development right. Good design intentions cannot convert a non-qualifying scheme into permitted development.
The case is also relevant to discussions about the extent of partial demolition, replacement walls and structural works on other farm conversion schemes. It does not set a numerical maximum for new windows or establish that every four-dwelling barn conversion must fail. It illustrates a fact-sensitive threshold.
What this means for future Class Q applications
Before commissioning a detailed residential layout, inspect the agricultural building and prepare a schedule identifying the original structural components, load-bearing capacity, walls, openings, roofing and floor. Compare the proposed works against each applicable Class Q limitation and then assess the scheme as a whole.
Where the number of dwellings drives extensive new windows, subdivision and external reconstruction, test whether a more modest scheme would be materially different. If the proposed works are closer to a new building, a full planning application may be required rather than a prior approval notification.
The Class Q barn appeal was dismissed by Inspector J D Clark on 30 October 2026, reference 6012849, involving application 26/01044/PDQ at Forest Farm in Cheshire. The official Planning Inspectorate appeal record provides the primary decision. The decision is also available on AppealBase.
0 Comments