Somerset Class Q barn appeal succeeds despite extensive works

A Class Q barn conversion in Somerset has succeeded on appeal despite proposals for a new concrete floor slab, an upper floor and substantial infilling of existing openings.

Somerset Council argued that the works, viewed together, amounted to construction of a new building rather than conversion. Inspector J Hills disagreed, finding that the retained walls, columns and roof structure made an important difference.

The decision, 6012154, concerns Broom Farm, Dene Road, Norton Fitzwarren, Somerset TA4 3LX. It was issued on 10th September 2026.

Updated 18th September 2026: A later decision at Washdyke Farm in Leicestershire provides a useful comparison. There, seven proposed detached homes would have retained only parts of the concrete floor and steel frame, with 28 new external walls and seven roofs. The appeal failed. Read together, the decisions explain why a substantial programme of work can be a Class Q conversion in one case and rebuilding in another.

Conversion or rebuilding?

Class Q permits qualifying agricultural buildings and former agricultural buildings to change to dwellings, subject to detailed limitations and prior-approval requirements.

It also permits specified building operations reasonably necessary for conversion. That does not make it an unrestricted right to demolish an agricultural building and put a new house in its place.

The Inspector addressed the current building-operations restriction in Q.1(j), noting that the council had cited a different paragraph even though its objection clearly concerned the building operations. The relevant question was the character of the works as a whole, not simply whether the list of works was long.

The Inspector considered Hibbitt & Anor v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Ors [2016] EWHC 2853 (Admin) and the distinction between converting an existing building and creating a substantially new one. The decision explains why these particular works fell on the conversion side of that distinction.

What would remain of the barn?

This was a substantial stone-and-brick building, not merely a lightweight frame awaiting an entirely new structure.

Important elements would remain: the principal stone walls, much of the rear elevation and its buttresses, brick columns and a roof structure capable of retention following repairs.

The structural report indicated that the primary roof structure was in reasonable condition and, after repair, could support slight additional loading.

The retained masonry and roof mattered when the Inspector assessed the totality of the works. The decision was not based on treating each new component as though it existed independently of the building around it.

A new floor does not automatically turn conversion into rebuilding

The scheme included a new concrete slab and an upper floor. The decision records that the upper floor could connect to the existing walls at mid-height to provide restraint.

The Inspector referred to national planning guidance, which expressly contemplates internal structural works such as floors, mezzanine or upper floors and internal walls. There was no basis for importing a separate rule that all such internal work must be merely minor.

That does not mean any amount of rebuilding becomes acceptable by describing it as internal work. The remaining structure, the function of the proposed works and the finished building still have to be assessed together.

At Broom Farm, the internal work was consistent with adapting the retained building for residential use. It did not demonstrate that the scheme was actually construction of a new house.

Why the open gable and infilled bays were acceptable

One gable was partly open beneath flimsy, rusted metal sheeting. The proposed enclosure would follow the existing building’s form, with walls, windows and doors fitted within that opening.

At another elevation, three brick columns would be repaired and retained. Proposed patio doors and timber infilling would sit between them.

The current Class Q wording allows specified installation or replacement of windows, doors, roofs, exterior walls and services to the extent reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwelling. It also allows reasonably necessary partial demolition for those operations.

Nevertheless, the whole proposal must remain within the permitted-development right. Here, the Inspector considered the extensive retained fabric decisive in concluding that the works would not amount to substantial rebuilding.

The lesson from Hibbitt is not that extensive work is always acceptable or always fatal. It is to examine whether the proposal genuinely converts the existing building, applying the statutory limits to the actual structure and works.

Why the Washdyke Farm Class Q appeal failed

On 17th September 2026, Inspector R Snow dismissed appeal 6012411 at Washdyke Farm, Long Lane, Stathern, Leicestershire LE14 4HJ. Howard Coy, on behalf of H Coy and Son, had appealed Melton Borough Council’s refusal of application 25/00803/GDOCOU for seven detached dwellings.

The existing building was a substantial, previously extended agricultural building within a working farmstead. It had a steel portal frame, a concrete floor slab and a profiled-sheet roof. Its sides were mainly open, with timber cladding, concrete blockwork and profiled sheeting partly enclosing the gable ends.

The scheme would significantly reduce its footprint. Sections of the steel frame would be removed to separate the proposed homes. The new walls were specified as vertical larch cladding and the roofs as profiled metal sheeting.

Reading the drawings alongside what he saw on site, the Inspector understood that the existing walling and roof coverings would go. Only parts of the slab and steel frame would remain. Each home would receive a new external shell, including replacement bracing and structural restraint around the retained frame sections.

The structural engineer’s report, based on a visual survey, described the building as generally sound, without widespread instability or significant structural defects likely to compromise conversion. That did not settle the planning question. Structural condition and whether the proposed scheme amounts to a conversion are separate questions.

The Inspector expressly identified 28 new external walls and seven roofs. His conclusion rested on the cumulative demolition and construction, the limited retained fabric and how far the result departed from the existing building’s design and form. Reusing parts of the steel frame did not prevent the scheme from amounting to rebuilding.

Broom Farm and Washdyke Farm compared

Planning Geek analysis: The distinction is what the whole scheme does to the actual building. It is not a rule that masonry barns qualify and steel barns fail. Nor do these decisions create a numerical limit on replacement walls or roofs.

In Hibbitt, the High Court treated conversion as a separate threshold requirement, while recognising that extensive work can still qualify. The extent of the works is relevant, but does not decide the question on its own. Retaining a load-bearing frame is likewise not enough by itself. The assessment remains one of fact and degree.

Both September decisions applied the current building-operations restriction in Q.1(j). Their different outcomes reflect their different structures and proposals. They do not establish competing versions of Class Q.

Washdyke’s separate issue about living conditions beside agricultural operations was not decided. Once the scheme failed the conversion test, the Inspector did not need to assess the remaining prior-approval matters. Broom Farm’s access and habitats findings below concern that site alone.

Did a suitable access track already exist?

The council also disputed whether the track reached the building, suggesting that an established route stopped around 50 metres short. Suitable existing access to a public highway is a requirement under the current Class Q rules.

The Inspector considered photographs and the competing accounts. Some photographs were disputed or not clearly dated, so the decision does not treat them as conclusive proof of a precise construction date.

The council’s own photographs nevertheless indicated access closer to the building than its argument suggested. Having assessed that evidence and the site, the Inspector concluded that the track probably existed by the time of the application.

During the visit, the Inspector found a coarse, rubble-surfaced track. Its suitability for agricultural vehicles was not disputed. It was not unduly challenging to walk, and its condition did not demonstrate that ordinary residential access was unsuitable.

The visit informed the assessment of current condition. The conclusion about earlier existence came from the evidence taken together, not from assuming that seeing a track now proves when it was laid.

Prior approval did not remove the habitats requirement

The site raised a separate issue concerning phosphate loading affecting the Somerset Levels and Moors Ramsar Site.

The Inspector explained that the grant of permitted-development rights under Article 3 of the GPDO is subject to regulations 75 to 78 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.

The decision concluded that the Class Q appeal did not need to be dismissed on this ground. The necessary separate application under regulation 77 could follow prior approval, but the required habitats approval had to be obtained before development began.

Regulation 77 provides for consultation with the appropriate nature conservation body and, where required, an appropriate assessment. Approval depends on the authority ascertaining that the development will not adversely affect the integrity of the protected site.

The current wording expressly refers to Ramsar sites as well as European sites and European offshore marine sites. The 2026 amendments should not be overlooked by relying on an older summary of the Regulations.

For this appeal, the important distinction is straightforward: Class Q prior approval was not itself habitats approval. The phosphate issue remained a real pre-commencement requirement, not something the developer could ignore once the appeal had succeeded.

Planning Geek analysis: identify what is being retained

A useful structural case does more than state that a barn is capable of conversion. It identifies what exists, what can remain, what needs repair and how each proposed operation relates to the retained building.

Broom Farm illustrates why substantial retained walls and a repairable roof can matter more than the headline number of new components. Another building with extensive demolition or a largely new supporting structure may lead to a different conclusion.

The access and habitats findings are separate. Success on the conversion question does not remove the need to establish suitable existing access or secure the ecological approval required before starting.

Developers should also plan the timing carefully. Class Q’s completion period runs from the prior-approval date; obtaining a later habitats approval does not itself restart that clock.

Read the full decisions

Download the Broom Farm appeal decision: 6012154. The application reference is 06/25/0030/CQ. The appeal allowed one dwelling, with completion within three years of the decision and the applicable paragraph W requirements.

Read the Washdyke Farm appeal decision: 6012411. The appeal was dismissed on 17th September 2026. The comparison above is Planning Geek’s analysis of the two decisions; the decisions do not refer to each other.

For the wider eligibility tests and current limits, see our Class Q guide. This is a report of the Inspector’s findings and Planning Geek’s analysis, not confirmation that another barn qualifies.

Report prepared: 11th September 2026. Updated with the Washdyke Farm comparison: 18th September 2026