Hibbitt & Anor v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Ors [2016] EWHC 2853 (Admin)
The point in plain English: Class Q is a right to convert an agricultural building, not a right to replace it with what is effectively a new building. The fact that some structural elements can be retained does not, by itself, turn extensive rebuilding into a conversion.
What happened
The case concerned an agricultural building proposed for residential conversion under the version of Class Q then in force. The works would have retained the steel frame, but required substantial new structural and building work around it.
The Inspector concluded that the proposal went beyond conversion and amounted in substance to rebuilding. That meant it did not fall within the permitted development right.
What the High Court decided
Green J upheld the Inspector. Whether proposed works genuinely amount to a conversion is a matter of fact and degree for the decision-maker. Class Q did not authorise the construction of a new building simply because an existing frame could be incorporated into the finished dwelling.
The challenge was dismissed.
Why Hibbitt still matters
Hibbitt became an important authority on the dividing line between conversion and rebuilding under Class Q. The detailed wording of Class Q has changed considerably since 2016, so the judgment should not be read as reproducing today’s limits word-for-word. The underlying warning remains useful: start with the development actually permitted by the current GPDO and ask whether the proposed works stay within it.
Planning Geek explains the current rules on Class Q barn conversions. For the wording relevant to this judgment, see our separate page on Class Q before 21st May 2024.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.