Class Q roof works and parking arguments have succeeded in a Hampshire appeal, but the proposed barn conversion was still refused. The decisive problem was the risk to future residents from an adjoining golf course, including ball strikes, noise and inadequate privacy.
Inspector O Marigold dismissed appeal 6012951 on 26th October 2026 for a two-bedroom home at a barn south of former poultry houses on Monxton Road, Grateley. Test Valley Borough Council had refused prior approval under Class Q of the General Permitted Development Order.
The result contains useful favourable findings for conversion proposals despite the overall dismissal. I would treat them as limited points, not a result in themselves: roof structure replacement was not automatically outside the right, and the absence of identified parking spaces within the curtilage did not itself defeat the scheme. Neither finding resolved the separate living-conditions objections.
Why the Class Q roof works passed
The existing building comprised blockwork walls and a metal roof. Its structural survey proposed upgrading and reconfiguring the roof, potentially replacing or strengthening selected elements, while retaining the building’s primary structural frame.
The council referred to an earlier survey which had anticipated complete removal and replacement of the roof structure. That earlier survey was not before the Inspector. He nevertheless addressed the council’s interpretation that the word roofs in paragraph Q.1(j) was limited to the roof covering.
Mr Marigold found nothing in that provision necessarily restricting it to the covering alone. Replacement of structural elements, such as timber rafters and purlins, would not necessarily conflict with the wording. On the evidence before him, he saw little reason to consider the intended works more extensive than reasonably necessary for conversion.
The Class Q roof finding is therefore about the statutory wording and this particular proposal. It is not permission to demolish a building and recreate it. Planning Geek’s Class Q conversion guide explains why qualifying building operations still have to form part of a genuine conversion.
The current Class Q provisions allow specified installation or replacement works to the extent reasonably necessary for a building to function as a dwellinghouse. The nature of the structure retained and the cumulative extent of the works remain important.
The neighbouring golf course was the decisive obstacle
The barn stood immediately beside Monxton and Grateley Golf Centre. Although it was some distance from the driving-range teeing area and away from the broad direction of play from the range, it was close to the golf course itself, including a teeing area and sand bunker.
There was no physical division between the course edge and the appeal site at the time of the visit. Proposed habitable-room windows would face towards the course, and a garden would adjoin it. The Inspector considered that golfers could overlook the windows and garden and that balls could land on or around the home.
Daytime and early-evening play did not remove the concern. Those hours could coincide with residents using their accommodation and outdoor space. Future occupants would reasonably expect adequate safety and privacy, even though the agricultural building was already there.
The favourable Class Q roof assessment could not compensate for this separate problem. Eligibility for the right and the specified prior approval matters are different stages of the assessment, and a proposal needs to succeed on every applicable requirement.
Double glazing and thin planting were not enough
Noise from play could include voices and the striking of golf balls. The Inspector accepted that it might be sporadic but noted that its frequency, pattern and tonal characteristics could make it intrusive.
Insulation and double glazing were proposed. Those measures would not prevent every impact, including when windows were open or residents used the garden. There was little substantive acoustic evidence demonstrating acceptable levels or explaining the relationship with background noise.
The drawings also showed planting, but not a convincing solution. A thin strip at the curtilage edge was not considered sufficient to provide privacy or protect against noise and balls. A deeper planting belt shown on another plan was outside the defined curtilage and outside the scope of the Inspector’s assessment.
Mr Marigold therefore found the location and siting impractical and undesirable for the residential use and declined prior approval under the noise and siting provisions. This was a site-specific assessment of the evidence, not a rule prohibiting every home near a golf course.
Parking did not have to be shown within the curtilage
A second useful finding concerned Class Q’s particular definition of curtilage. Supporting documents referred to on-site parking, but the submitted plans did not identify parking spaces within the curtilage.
The Inspector found no requirement in the GPDO definition that the proposal had to include parking there. The proposed area complied with the relevant curtilage limitation, and the highway authority had not objected. No specific transport or highway harm was identified from the lack of the spaces sought by local policy.
His conclusion was that the curtilage is not required to include parking spaces
. That passage must be read alongside his separate finding that the proposal’s transport and highway impacts were not demonstrably harmful.
Like the Class Q roof reasoning, the parking conclusion should not be stretched beyond what it decides. It does not authorise parking on other land, expand the residential curtilage or make access safety irrelevant. A comparison with an earlier appeal involving parking outside the curtilage was not persuasive because the drawings and circumstances differed.
What applicants can use from an unsuccessful appeal
The Class Q roof decision illustrates why the formal outcome alone is an unreliable guide to useful appeal reasoning. The applicant lost overall but overcame two parts of the council’s case. A future scheme could draw on those points while still needing its own convincing structural and site evidence.
The Class Q roof issue should be addressed through drawings and a structural explanation which distinguish retained elements from replacements. Neighbouring activities require their own assessment: a sound conversion case does not answer an unresolved noise, safety or privacy problem.
Here the golf-course evidence was decisive. The Inspector dismissed the appeal, and no prior approval was granted. Owners should not treat the positive roof or parking findings as an approval to start the refused conversion.
Decision and sources
The primary source is Planning Inspectorate appeal 6012951, concerning Test Valley application 26/00968/PDQN. The quoted words are Planning Inspectorate material reproduced under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase.
0 Comments