This month, May 2021, Planning & Design Practice Ltd secured planning permission for the change of use (and the building operations required to facilitate the conversion) of an agricultural storage building to be used as a home, for our client, under Class Q permitted development legislation.
The landowner had approached the council regarding a potential conversion roughly 15 years ago but was given a definitive “no” in response. However, we were able to engage with the Class Q permitted development legislation to put forward a strong case for the conversion of the building.
Our colleague Fernando Collado-Lopez lead the design work which received notable praise from the Planning Office as “one of the best he had ever seen”.
Having worked previously in the private sector in a variety of practices and locations including United States of America, Spain and London, on high rise residential, education, religious, and retail projects, Fernando is an ARB registered architect who joined us in February 2019. He qualified in 2010 at the higher School of Architecture in Seville and also studied at the Fakultät für Architektur und Landschaft in Hannover, Germany.
The Class Q permitted development legislation is very prescriptive about what can and cannot be done to achieve the conversion. The design was informed at every stage by the planning team, who have an acute knowledge of the legislation and the associated case-law. Our dynamic, hybrid approach to spatial development meant we were able to secure a valuable permission and were able to bypass the Authority’s previous objections to development on the site.
Obtaining planning permission can provide you with that dream home in the countryside or maybe the way of life you have always dreamt of.
It can also bring about significant gains and help to maximise the value of your rural property. However, development in the countryside is subject to strict planning controls which can make obtaining planning permission very difficult. We have vast experience of working on rural projects for homeowners, landowners and farmers including equestrian development, agricultural dwellings & barn conversions. Contact us for a free 30 minute consultation to discuss your building, project or land.
We have just secured planning permission for a replacement agricultural workers dwelling for a farm in Buckland Hollow in Ambergate, Derbyshire.
Our client had specific design features they needed incorporated in order for the new dwelling to practically integrate with the farming operation, including a large boot-room with the capability to wash the sheep-dogs before entering the house. We were able to secure a larger house than had previously been on the site by using Permitted Development Rights to strengthen our argument to the Local Authority, Amber Valley Borough Council.
The difficulty for the project came following the Coal Authority’s concern about the possibility of shallow mine workings that had been flagged by the coal mining assessment. We entered into a difficult period of negotiation with the Coal Authority, who wanted us to conduct some invasive drilling through the centre of the footprint of the proposed dwelling. The issue from our perspective was that we could not demolish the current structure until we had secured permission to build the replacement. Demolition of the building without the confirmation of the replacement was an unacceptable risk to the applicant. We were able to successfully negotiate with both the Coal and Planning Authorities to secure permission that allowed for the demolition of the building but contained conditions that required the invasive drilling to be carried out before the property could be built. This was a positive outcome for both the Coal Authority and for our client.
Obtaining planning permission can provide you with that dream home in the countryside or maybe the way of life you have always dreamt of.
It can also bring about significant gains and help to maximise the value of your rural property. However, development in the countryside is subject to strict planning controls which can make obtaining planning permission very difficult. We have vast experience of working on rural projects for homeowners, landowners and farmers in rural areas including agricultural dwellings and occupancy conditions, farm diversification schemes and Class Q barn conversions. Please don’t hesitate to contact us for a no obligation consultation to discuss your particular building or project.
Rory Bradford, Planner, Planning & Design Practice Ltd
The conversion of steel framed agricultural buildings to dwellings has been contentious ever since it was introduced in 2014. It is unique within Part 3 of the General Permitted Development Order in that it allows building works to be undertaken which affect the external appearance of a building. It specifically allows new walls, new roofing, new windows and doors. It also allows for mains services and the provision of drainage.
Direction on how to deal with these types of prior notification is provided within National Planning Guidance (NPG). In preparing planning applications we have found problems with the structure of some steel framed barns which were not built to be converted into dwellings. The NPG states: It is not the intention of the permitted development right to include the construction of new structural elements for the building. Therefore it is only where the existing building is structurally strong enough to take the loading which comes with the external works to provide for residential use that the building would be considered to have the permitted development right.
Under Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 building works for alteration, maintenance or improvement which are internal or do not materially affect the external appearance of a building are not development and cannot be controlled through planning. This allows for an enclosed agricultural building the possibility of strengthening the internal steel frame so that it is strong enough to take the loading which comes from the external works. These works to a weak structure would have to be undertaken first before a planning application is made.
The problems around structure have led to LPAs to require structural surveys to accompany applications. For some council’s this requirement is triggered by the proposed insertion of a first floor. For others a structural report has to be submitted on each application.
The Hibbitt case was referred to the High Court by the appellant. The building consisted of an open structure with a mono-pitch roof with flimsy steel sheet cladding on one and a half sides. The structure was held to be structurally sound and capable of taking the loading which would come from the external works to provide for residential use. The case went to the high court after the appellant was unhappy with his appeal decision. The inspector found that the extensive works required to make the building habitable were tantamount to a re-build or fresh build. The inspector’s decision was supported by the Secretary of State.
The high court judge held that there is a conceptual difference between a “rebuild” and a “conversion” and that the concept of “conversion” introduces a discrete threshold. His reasons include the fact that the concept of conversion is found in the overarching provisions of Class Q (i.e. not in Q.1). Further, he states that it is inappropriate to look to the dictionary when seeking to define the distinction as the Order was drafted for a professional audience and the distinction should be understood in a planning context.
This judgement will provide some encouragement to local planning authorities seeking to restrict the development of agricultural barns into dwelling-houses. Nevertheless, the distinction between a conversion and a rebuild is indefinite. The judge makes clear that the extent of the works is not decisive. In §34, he states, “In many permitted developments the work might be extensive yet that does not thereby disqualify a development from automatic permission.”
In discussions with local Planning Managers councils are grappling with the amount of ‘new build’ which acceptable under Class Q. The implications of the Decision are that open sided barns, hay barns and the like cannot now be converted under Class Q. More enclosed barns (those with 3 or 4 sides enclosed) should be acceptable but conversion also means leaving more of the original building intact. This could mean retaining external steel sheeting and incorporating existing walling and roofing materials into the converted building. A traditional barn conversion has always meant using the building you have in broadly the un converted form – use of existing opening etc. Class Q will continue to give greater flexibility but the options have been reduced and early pre-application discussions will probably be needed unless further guidance is issued by the government or a council has determined exactly what can or cannot be converted.
This Barn would FAIL the Hibbitt threshold.
This agricultural building should PASS the Hibbitt threshold
This building MIGHT be acceptable to some LPAs.
For an update on more recent changes in Permitted Development including changes of use to Class Q, which allows Change of Use and conversion of agricultural buildings to dwellings and Class R, which allows Change of Use from agriculture to a flexible business use, please click HERE
Please contact Michael Bamford if you require assistance with planning applications, appeals or local plan representations or require advice on lawful development certificates or development appraisals – michael.bamford@planningdesign.co.uk or telephone 0114 221 0618.
