A Class Q fallback argument has failed in Devon after a Planning Inspector dismissed a proposal for four houses at a former farm complex. The decision, issued on 5 November 2026, highlights the risk of relying on an agricultural conversion approval that has expired.
The appeal concerned Rosamondford Farm at Perkins Village near Exeter, where East Devon District Council had refused application 25/0368/MFUL. The applicant sought permission for four new dwellings on land containing a former piggery, other outbuildings and undeveloped countryside. Inspector J Hills agreed that the proposed layout would spread development too far beyond the existing buildings.
The Class Q fallback was central to the appellant’s case. An earlier approval had permitted conversion of an agricultural barn into five homes, but that approval had lapsed. The Inspector considered whether the possibility of obtaining fresh conversion approval could still weigh in favour of the four-house scheme, and found the evidence insufficient.
Why the Class Q fallback failed
The previous prior approval had authorised five residential units through Class Q of Part 3 of the General Permitted Development Order. It was still extant when the council considered the later full application, but was no longer capable of being implemented when the appeal was determined. That distinction mattered: a historic consent is not automatically a realistic alternative to the development actually proposed.
The Inspector referred to the fallback approach discussed in Mansell v Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council. A prospective alternative need not be probable or even highly likely to proceed, but it must have more than a theoretical prospect of happening. The applicant’s Class Q fallback therefore needed evidence that an equivalent scheme could still lawfully be delivered.
In the decision, Inspector Hills found that there remains no lawful or implementable fallback
. That conclusion followed the expiry of the earlier approval. The council also cast doubt on whether any new Class Q application would succeed.
The condition of the buildings was a significant problem. The Inspector had observed missing sections of roof and was not given any up-to-date survey or inspection showing that the relevant building remained suitable for conversion. The full requirements of Class Q permitted development still applied; the presence of an old prior approval did not settle their present suitability.
There was a further difficulty with nationally described space standards. Legislative changes meant that a fresh Class Q proposal would need to satisfy the applicable minimum space requirements. Two of the five homes shown on the previous scheme fell short, according to the appeal evidence. For these reasons, the Inspector gave the Class Q fallback very little weight.
Four houses would spread into open countryside
Even assuming a new Class Q scheme for four homes might be achievable, the Inspector drew a clear distinction between converting existing buildings and constructing new dwellings across a much larger plot. The proposed development would extend onto land that was not occupied by the existing farm structures. Two of the houses would stand in a sizeable undeveloped field.
The former piggery and neighbouring buildings were relatively low and recessive within the agricultural landscape. The planned houses would introduce a cul-de-sac arrangement with an eminently residential appearance, with large glazed gable ends on three of the plots. The Inspector accepted that sympathetic materials and landscaping were proposed, but concluded that those measures did not overcome the harmful expansion into open countryside.
The applicant contended that the new scheme would be a better alternative to the earlier Class Q fallback. The Inspector disagreed. The four proposed houses would occupy a significantly greater area and could not reasonably be treated as a simple improvement over the approved conversion scheme, even on the favourable assumption that a comparable conversion might still be available.
Housing shortage did not overturn countryside objections
The appeal also tested how the district’s housing supply position interacts with the settlement strategy. The decision recorded East Devon’s deliverable housing supply at approximately 3.5 years. Under the August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework, the benefit of providing additional homes attracted substantial weight, with some economic benefits during construction and through residents’ later spending.
That was not enough. The site lies outside a defined settlement, and the nearest settlements with everyday services were said to be three to four miles away. A bus route towards Exeter was approximately one kilometre away, but reaching it involved a route without footways or street lighting. The appellant accepted that the proposal would generate reliance on private vehicles, and the Inspector found no reason to disagree.
The Inspector found conflict with relevant East Devon countryside, design and transport policies. The decision also applied the revised national policies on development outside settlements. The benefits of four extra homes, even against a housing shortage, did not substantially outweigh the adverse effects on countryside character and sustainable travel. The appeal was therefore dismissed.
What this means for rural development proposals
The important point is not that every expired Class Q fallback is irrelevant. Rather, a fallback argument depends upon the evidence that the alternative development remains genuinely possible. For agricultural buildings, that means considering present physical condition, the exact conversion works, current permitted development rules and whether the proposed units satisfy applicable standards.
A full planning proposal also needs to be compared with what a realistic Class Q fallback would actually deliver, not simply how many homes it might theoretically provide. A new housing estate layout extending across an undeveloped field is materially different from reusing existing buildings, even if the dwelling totals are broadly similar.
This Class Q fallback decision is especially pertinent where an applicant delays between obtaining prior approval and seeking permission for a replacement scheme. The passage of time can change the weight to be given to the original consent, particularly if it expires or if the building deteriorates. It remains a fact-specific assessment rather than a general rule preventing rural housing.
The appeal was decided by Inspector J Hills on 5 November 2026, reference 6012083. The Planning Inspectorate appeal record provides the official case reference. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase.
0 Comments