Class Q deemed consent has been confirmed for a four-home barn conversion in Devon after Mid Devon District Council missed the 56-day prior approval deadline. An extension agreed the following day came too late to prevent the deadline from expiring.
Inspector R Curnow allowed James Persey’s lawful development certificate appeal at Chaldon Farm, Mutterton, near Cullompton, on 2nd October 2026. The decision establishes the lawfulness of the proposed change of use and associated works.
However, this was not simply a victory secured by counting days. The owner also had to show that the barn could genuinely be converted under Class Q. The Inspector rejected the council’s argument that the scale and nature of the works would amount to rebuilding.
How the Class Q deemed consent deadline was missed
The council received the original prior approval application, reference 23/01339/PNCOU, on 23rd August 2023. It was common ground in the appeal that the council had made an error in registering it.
The Inspector found that the application should have been registered from 24th August 2023. The 56-day period therefore ended at midnight on 18th October 2023.
Mid Devon asked the applicant to agree an extension of time. He agreed on 19th October 2023, after the statutory period had already elapsed. The council subsequently issued a refusal dated 17th November 2023.
The timing matters. Article 7 of the GPDO allows an applicant and authority to agree a longer decision period in writing. Here, though, the agreement was reached after the original deadline had passed.
Under paragraph W(11)(c), the prior approval procedure includes a route through expiry of 56 days without the authority notifying the applicant whether prior approval is given or refused. Our prior approval deemed consent guide explains the mechanism and its limits.
For anyone tracking a Class Q deemed consent claim, this is a reminder to establish the actual receipt date and keep the extension correspondence. An incorrect registration date can have real consequences.
Why the owner sought a lawful development certificate
The late refusal left the owner with an unresolved problem. Mid Devon accepted that the proposal met the relevant Class Q limitations and conditions, but maintained that the building works themselves fell outside permitted development.
Starting the conversion could therefore have exposed the owner to enforcement action. Even without enforcement, an outstanding dispute about lawfulness could make the resulting homes difficult to sell.
Legal advice submitted with the appeal recommended a certificate application. The owner applied on 18th March 2024, under reference 24/00473/CLP. Mid Devon refused that application on 13th May 2024.
The appeal concerned that refusal. It was made under section 195 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, following an application under section 192 for proposed development.
Mid Devon suggested that the owner should instead have appealed the 2023 prior approval refusal. The Inspector acknowledged that route was available, but found that the valid certificate application and subsequent determination also gave him the right to pursue this appeal.
A certificate of lawfulness of proposed use or development addresses the planning lawfulness of the specified proposal. In this case, it provided the means of resolving the Class Q deemed consent dispute before the conversion proceeded.
The burden remained on the appellant to establish his Class Q deemed consent case on the balance of probabilities. The expired timetable did not remove that evidential task.
An agricultural barn with open elevations
Chaldon Farm lies in open countryside about 3.5 kilometres south-east of Cullompton. The building is a substantial agricultural portal-frame barn, with two elements, one markedly narrower than the other.
Its roof combines profiled metal and corrugated cement sheeting. Existing walls comprise timber boarding and concrete blocks. The south elevation is open apart from stockproof rails, much of the east elevation is open behind large gates, and part of the west elevation is also open.
The scheme would create two dwellings in each element. The larger homes would have three bedrooms; the smaller homes would have two. Both types would include bathrooms and open-plan kitchen, dining and living areas.
The smaller dwellings would sit behind a new front wall set back within the barn. The retained roof would form a covered terrace in front of them.
Those details mattered because the appeal required an assessment of the actual building and proposed works, rather than a general assumption that an open agricultural structure cannot qualify.
Conversion or rebuilding was the decisive question
Mid Devon argued that the works exceeded what was reasonably necessary to convert the barn. Its position was that the proposal would rebuild the structure rather than convert it.
The Inspector considered the structural survey alongside the submitted drawings. Together, they provided sufficient information about the existing elements to be retained and their condition.
The survey demonstrated that the building had the structural integrity needed for conversion. Repairs to the bases of some timber supports, work to purlins and attention to metal columns damaged by impacts were relatively minor.
R Curnow also saw the relevant defects during the site visit on 14th July 2026. That inspection informed the assessment of repairs and roof-covering works.
Enclosing the open elevations was compatible with the conversion. New external walls would largely use timber boarding matching the existing building, alongside new windows and doors.
On openings in the retained structure, the Inspector said windows and rooflights were “only to be expected in this form of conversion”. They were assessed as part of the overall works, rather than treated as evidence of rebuilding simply because they were new.
Internal walls and Hibbitt
The appeal considered Hibbitt & Anor v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Ors [2016] EWHC 2853 (Admin) and the distinction between conversion and rebuilding. Both parties accepted that internal works were permissible under Class Q.
The new south wall serving the smaller homes would stand several metres inside the existing footprint. As a matter of fact and degree, the Inspector treated it as internal work.
Other new walls would sit behind retained timber and block walls. They would add some stability and strength, but would also provide weatherproofing and insulation.
The setback wall finding did not decide the appeal on its own. The Inspector explained that the overall works would still have fallen within Class Q even if that wall had been assessed differently.
The conclusion was that the quantum and nature of the works were reasonably necessary for conversion, rather than a rebuild. R Curnow stressed that “each case has to be assessed on its individual merits”.
What the Class Q deemed consent decision means
The Class Q deemed consent appeal succeeded because the owner established both the expired prior approval timetable and the proposal’s compliance with Class Q. The Inspector issued a certificate for the proposed conversion to four dwellings and associated operations.
We should not read this as a guarantee that every late Class Q refusal produces lawful development. A missed deadline cannot bring an ineligible building or rebuilding scheme within the permitted development right.
Equally, the decision does not mean that new walls, repairs or rooflights automatically disqualify a conversion. Their extent and purpose need to be assessed against the existing structure and the scheme as a whole.
This was a 2023 application. Class Q has since been amended, so its historic proposal should not be used as a substitute for checking the rules applying to a fresh scheme. Our Class Q guide covers the current route.
For owners and advisers, the practical lesson is to retain clear receipt and extension records, supported by drawings and a structural assessment that explain what is staying and what is changing. A Class Q deemed consent argument still needs a sound conversion case.
0 Comments