A moment of wonder

An appeal against a refusal under the prior application procedure for the conversion of a barn in north Yorkshire to two dwellings was dismissed because the building had not been solely in agricultural use (DCS Number 400-010-257).

The inspector found that the suggestion that the holding had been used solely for agricultural purposes did not stand up to scrutiny. Both the council’s photographic evidence and his own site visit suggested that there had been, at the very least, a mixed agricultural and equestrian use. Accordingly, he could not conclude that the use had been solely agricultural. Therefore, the development was not permitted development pursuant to Class Q of the GPDO.

Without in any way calling into question the inspector’s decision, just wondering what difference it makes. Why might the residential conversion of an agricultural barn be acceptable under GPDO rights whereas the residential conversion of a stable is not?

The following DCP chapter is relevant: 4.3423

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.