Is Class Q criteria VAR too rigid?

I like VAR. Yep – I’ve said it. However, this is predicated on it intervening when a ‘clear and obvious error’ has occurred. I can bore you with many incidences this season where VAR has intervened and chalked off goals (two separate handball decisions that cost Wolves against Leicester, a Wolves midfielder’s big toe deemed offside versus Liverpool – did I tell you I was a Wolves fan?) which has made my blood boil in recent times. Similarly, some Class Q prior approval refusals have also made me see red and I’d be brandishing the GDPO a yellow card if I was the man in the middle.

VAR has proven to be a controversial topic in its debut season in the Premier League and fans are sceptical at its rigid definition of handball and offside. More discretion is needed, bringing me nicely on to Class Q, which is also much maligned.

Planning Potential’s Northern HQ is located in picturesque Harrogate with beautiful countryside and spectacular scenery on our doorstep. In recent years we have noticed a spike in speculative enquiries from landowners keen to optimise their old farm buildings. Avid readers of Planning Potential’s newsfeeds will note I covered an extension to permitted development rights in March 2018, which created further opportunities to bring unused redundant buildings into viable use.

Unbelievarble!

Class Q prior approval uses a reduced set of planning considerations to streamline the process, with Local Planning Authorities (LPA) having 56 days to determine an application, all for a much cheaper upfront application fee.

However, it continues to make the headlines in the planning rags. For instance, in a ruling issued in July 2019, the High Court upheld a legal challenge against Wokingham Borough Council’s refusal of a prior approval planning application, which was issued despite the authority missing the statutory 56-day deadline for determination.

Given the deemed grant of planning permission at end of the specified period, does the 56-day period undermine the review process of applications? This may explain the growing number of appeals concerning Class Q. Applicants, like most Wolves fans, feel hard done by. Referees can view VAR incidents at their discretion, but planners have no discretion if a qualifying condition or parameter is not fully met.

We typically recommend front-loading the production of third party reports to help LPAs reach an informed initial judgement, but this can be counter intuitive with Class Q as it can take some time to sift through the relevant documents. It also requires LPAs to conduct an early review, which is unlikely given the current backlog LPAs are up against.

I recently worked on a Class Q application where the evidence provided was not deemed sufficient to establish that the last use of the barn was as part of an agricultural enterprise – despite hurdles for gathering sheep in situ and no animals were being kept on site for recreational purposes. With a horse grazing in the adjoining field, the Council took the stance that there had been an intervening use and it took weeks to assemble the additional evidence and an alternative timescale had to be agreed, with the case officer standing behind the rigid wording of the policy.

Few and Var between

On average, 60 per cent of Class Q applications have been refused nationally. The Premier League reckons that with VAR, accuracy has risen to 91 per cent this season. This isn’t a plea for prior approval Class Q applications to be waved through so application success can hit these dizzy heights. However, some due diligence points me to a number of approvals and appeals where the interpretation of Class Q differs across LPAs.

Like VAR, prior approval applications are very much against the clock, and the system shouldn’t be too forensic. I am happy for the opinion of the match official to prevail in ‘grey’ situations, akin to a case officer looking beyond the specific wording of Class Q and instead, reaching a decision having assessed the overall planning balance. However, this discretion is lacking.

Unlike VAR’s impact on football, Class Q hasn’t made the job less enjoyable, but its inflexible wording has triggered scepticism.

Class Q remains an excellent way to enhance the value of agricultural buildings and create high-quality homes. Remember, if you’re unsure whether your building would qualify for Class Q permitted development, we can help and our experience in this field can help you navigate the current steadfast policy position.

Will Rogers, Planner