• //
  • //
  • //
  • “Converting” or “Rebuilding” – which one applies and when?

“Converting” or “Rebuilding” – which one applies and when?

The High Court have recently revealed a dividing line between the distinction of “converting” and “rebuilding” in terms of planning law.


  • Owners argue that building work on barn did not requyire planning permission
  • High Court upholds planning inspector's view that such substantial building works cannot be described as "conversion"

“Converting” or “Rebuilding” – which one applies and when?The High Court analysed the issue in a case concerning a steel-framed cow barn that the owners wished to turn into a dwelling pursuant to permitted development rights.

The substantial barn was largely open on three sides. Whilst its steel frame, roof and floor slab would be retained, turning it into a dwelling would require construction of walls on all four sides and numerous other major works.

The owners argued that the project did not require planning permission in that it was a permitted development under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015. Class Q of that order permits building operations that are ‘reasonably necessary’ to convert an agricultural building into a dwelling house.

It was not disputed that the barn was an agricultural building that was structurally capable of withstanding the load of the development. Or that the proposed works were reasonably necessary to turn it into a home.

However, the local authority refused to grant prior consent for the development. Its decision was subsequently upheld by a planning inspector, who found that the barn would not be capable of functioning as a dwelling house without substantial building works that went well beyond what could be reasonably described as a conversion.

In rejecting the landowners’ appeal against the inspector’s decision, the Court found that her analysis was correct and that she did not misdirect herself in concluding that the works proposed would be so extensive as to comprise rebuilding the barn. They were thus not covered by permitted development rights and the project required full planning permission.

 

Case law: Hibbitt & Anr v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anr. Case Number: CO/3360/2016

 

 
Do you have a planning or property dispute?
If you require independent legal advice, please contact Justin Sadler. Justin, our litigation partner, offers an initial one-hour £95 fixed fee meeting which provides an excellent opportunity for Justin to learn more about your matter and advise you of the best course of action to take. Please contact Justin on justin@barrettandco.co.uk or 0118 958 9711 to book in your fixed fee meeting.

-

This website uses cookies. For further information, please click "Learn More" or click "I agree" to stop this message from appearing again. | Learn More | I Agree |