Barn conversion -Class Q explained

PDP_Class Q Explained

In the world of planning there are two ways to obtain permission to convert a barn to a house. One is through the submission of a full planning application to your Local Planning Authority. The second is through exercising permitted development rights which involves submitting a Prior Approval application to your Local Planning Authority. In both instances an application is required but they are assessed against different criteria depending upon which route you take. Chartered Town Planner, Michael Bamford guides you through both options.

Class Q – the permitted development right to covert your barn to a dwelling

The Permitted development rights (which is commonly referred to as Class Q) is the right to convert agricultural buildings into homes as a matter of principle has been with us since 2014.

Permitted development (PD) is the right of an owner to develop his or her land within limits prescribed by a piece of legislation known as a General Permitted Development Order. The point of the order was originally to allow minor developments to go ahead without having to go through the planning application process. For example, small extensions to houses and simple changes of use for example changing a pub to a restaurant or a bank to a shop.

In the interest of simplifying the planning system and boosting the supply of houses, the government extended PD rights to include the right to change agricultural buildings to homes. Originally proposed as a temporary measure, this has since been made permanent.

To use these rights an application has to be made to the Local Planning authority to confirm that the development proposed fits within the limits set out in the General Permitted Development Order. This requires an application, a set of drawings and either a supporting letter or report.

Converting an enclosed modern shed in the middle of the countryside to up to 5 dwellings generally does not accord with Local Plan policies and as such is met with opposition by many councils. As such, in most cases an application is carefully scrutinised to make sure it fits the criteria.

Since the permitted development right was introduced, there have been several notable appeal decisions which have altered and clarified how Class Q applications should be dealt with by an Authority. The two key one’s address ‘what amounts to conversion’ and ‘establishing a fallback position’.

The question of whether a development is conversion or not was considered at length. 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. In this case the judge considered it inappropriate to look to the dictionary when seeking to define the distinction as the permitted development rights were drafted for a professional audience and the distinction should be understood in a planning context.

The result of the appeal is a test of whether or not the building operations amount to conversion or ‘fresh build’. Unfortunately, this is considered on a case-by-case basis and there is no set rule on how to define ‘fresh build’. Whilst this has introduced an additional consideration for many authorities (who weren’t previously giving the question too much attention) it does in some ways clear up where the line is.

The other notable appeal decision has underlined the ability of Class Q to represent a ‘fallback position’. This simply means that where a site can be developed through the exercise of Class Q permitted development rights then the planning authority must take this into consideration when dealing with an application for full planning permission. Whilst this seems logical it has not always been the case and in reality, means that applicants are no longer entirely bound by the stringent rules that surround Class Q development (such as works that extend the external envelope not being permitted).

If a Class Q prior notification application is approved the applicant has three years to complete the conversion. With a planning permission the applicant has 3 years in which to start the conversion and once started can take as long as it takes to complete it. A full planning application would assist overcoming this strict and very tight build schedule.

Converting your barn through a Full Planning Application

The other option is to submit a full planning application. When your building is located within a Conservations Areas, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) or National Park Class Q cannot be used, as it is not allowed in these locations.

The majority of Local Planning Authorities have polices in place which support the conversion of former agricultural buildings to houses but are generally caveated to only allow traditional buildings such as stone or brick as they are considered to have a valued architectural style and be worthy of protection within the landscape.

Many of these buildings have the potential to provide habitat for protected species such as bats and as such, it is advisable to seek the advice of an ecology consultant early in the design process and certainly before applying for planning permission. There is a limited time of year where surveys can be carried out for bats (May – September) and as such in the worst case scenario you can be left waiting over 6 months before you can get a survey.

These types of building can provide stunning homes and in many instances, people want to work with the existing character and simply provide some glazing (usually in the former barn door area) and a few new windows. Other than that, the style of the building remains largely intact. This is something that many local plan policies are supportive of, and it is best to bear this in mind when considering the design. It is possible to extend an existing, traditional barn but this can be difficult and, in my opinion, the best place to start is with the existing building and work with the spaces that this allows for rather than attempting to remould your barn into a different layout.

In both cases (Full planning and Class Q) the structure of the building is key. If the building is largely derelict then you will have a very difficult time in obtaining any kind of consent to convert it into a home.

Barn Conversion have been with us for many years and have gained in popularity since the 1990’s. There are now many examples of these unique, homes up and down the country. Each with its own character. Working with either a ‘modern’ or traditional barn can both yield spectacular results when approached in the right way. The key is to work with the building and its context to produce something that is unique to that particular site.

We have vast experience of working on barn conversions both via full planning and/or prior approval (Class Q) application routes. For a free, no obligation consultation to discuss your project, please don’t hesitate to get in touch on 01332 347371.

Michael Bamford, BA (Hons) MPlan MRTPI, Director – Chartered Town Planner, Planning & Design Practice Ltd

The new Planning Act – Will it see the light of day?

PDP_New Planning Act

The Planning White Paper, published in August 2020, promised the biggest shake-up of the planning system since the Second World War. However, there has been a re-think following the Tories’ Amersham and Chesham by-election defeat where planning dominated the campaign, with the electorate concerned that the proposed changes would make the planning system less democratic with less opportunities for communities to participate. Jonathan Jenkin, Consultant at Planning & Design Practice takes a look at what might be in store for the Act in 2022.

There is a section within the Conservative party who loathe the planning system on ideological grounds. It is seen as one of the last bastions of socialism one that should be scrapped to allow the market in land and property to be unfettered with development rights returned to landowners.

There is another section within the Conservative party who use the planning system to protect their often-privileged way of life. Those who have paid to live in the Green belt, in conservation areas, the coast, AONBs, National Parks etc and whose property prices reflect the constraints on development in those areas. There are also those who value tradition, the way areas look, protecting old buildings and the quality of the man made townscape and landscape of town and countryside. Whether it is protecting privilege or a way of life, anti-development protest has become a middle-class activity.

The planning system has been starved of resources in the last 10 years. The system has lost expertise, few councils have conservation officers, Development Control is often poorly paid and many of the best planners now work for the private sector. Enforcement is also laxer, undermining the faith people have in the system and its fairness. This lack of resources both at local level and nationally through the appeal process has slowed the system down. In wealthy areas councillors have become more anti-development to reflect the wishes of their constituents. This leads to planning officer’s recommendations being turned down and pressure on the appeal system. This has led to calls to simplify and speed up the system. Changes to the General Permitted Development Order have become labyrinthine and have reduced the scope of the planning system to control change particularly in urban areas. This has conversely increased the anxiety of those seeking to prevent development from allowing schemes fearing future changes that cannot be controlled.

The whole system is a mess, and the first thing is that it needs proper resourcing using public money. Michael Gove is now the minister responsible; few would mourn the loss of Robert Jenrick. Michael has said that public money for public goods , but can he do this for planning?

The second is a review of the GPDO, to make it sensible.

The third is a new white paper that seeks to create a proper system of local, regional, and national plans which provide direction and purpose helping to ensure that national infrastructure and climate change goals can be delivered with levelling up through a proper appraisal of the needs of the country.

The Planning White paper of 2020 (Planning for the Future) sought to further reduce the role of planning in public life. It sought to divide and rule with areas for growth, development, and protection. It tried to give protection to the wealthy and privileged while removing controls in poorer areas as a way of meeting the ideological divide at the heart of the party. The white paper was not about what is good for the country, or the well-being of its people and it should have been.

The white paper bit the dust following the Amersham and Chesham by election. A safe conservative seat to the liberal democrats who used the fear of the loss of a functioning planning system to win the seat. In the conservative heartlands, planning matters and I hope that the new white paper will look at the national picture in England to deliver for all the people in the country a national system that is equitable to all.

The new white paper is promised sometime this year. Let’s see….

Jonathan Jenkin, Consultant, Planning & Design Practice Ltd

Conversion of workshop units into residential use

PDP_Workshop Conversion

Planning & Design Practice have recently secured planning consent for the conversion of a workshop into a new residential unit on the hills above Matlock. 

The client approached Planning & Design wishing to provide a dwelling on his land and asked for advice on how to proceed. The site has three outbuildings in different uses, the largest of the building was a modern, portal framed workshop building that could easily be converted into a spectacular home (with a little imagination).

To prove that the change of use of the workshops to residential use was lawful under Class PA of the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO), we were required to submit a statement to the North East Derbyshire District Council planning department setting out the evidence to demonstrate that the building was used solely for a light industrial use (Use Class B1(c)) and had been for many years.

Working closely with the applicant, we uncovered the relevant evidence to prove that the workshop was in use by a business. As such, the Authority concluded that the conversion was lawful and therefore full planning permission was not required.

Unlike a full planning application, a prior approval application for B1(c) to C3 can only be considered on the following four issues: flooding, contamination, highways and transport issues and impact on the sustainability of an existing industrial service. The decision-making process is generally much quicker than a full planning application as the Local Planning Authority must make a decision on these prior approval applications within 56 days of the date of validation.

This permitted development right is temporary and will run out at the end of September this year (2020). If you have a workshop building that you are considering converting now is the time to act. The application has to be approved before the 1st October 2020 in order to be allowed. There is no sign at this stage whether this will be extended by the Government.

If you have workshop space and would like to consider your options for converting it into residential use why not give us a call on 01332 347 371 for a no obligation.

New lease of life for two retail units in Macclesfield

PDP_Retail Units Macclesfield

Planning & Design Practice have successfully secured consent for the change of use of a building in a mixed A1/C3 use to four dwellings at a site on the edge of Macclesfield Town Centre. The property, 1 Pinfold Street and 9 Chester Road, is part two storey and part three storey, consisting of two A1 retail units on the ground floor and three separate flats on the first and second floors. It is unusual in that, whilst originally two separate buildings (probably two dwellings), the site is now one interconnected building as the first-floor bedsit above 1 Pinfold Street (the hairdressers) and the second floor flat above the bed shop (9 Chester Road) share the same staircase.

The General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) sets out the forms of development that benefit from the general grant of permission without requiring express permission. Class M of Part 3 of Schedule 2 is titled ‘Retail, takeaways and specified sui generis uses to dwellinghouses’. This allows a change of use of a building to use as a dwellinghouse together with building operations reasonably necessary to convert the building to this use.

Given its unusual layout, we had to carefully assess the proposal against the various criteria under Class M of the GPDO to ensure it met all those criteria. We then had to prepare the internal and external designs to ensure the renovated building could function as 4 separate dwellings and make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area. Cheshire East Council agreed with our assessment and prior approval was duly granted. We look forward to seeing the building converted and thriving in this up and coming part of Macclesfield.

If you are looking to secure planning permission for a change of use on a property or business please call us. We provide a no obligation initial consultation and can help you make the right decision.

Rural Barn Conversions – Class Q 2020 update

PDP_Class Q Update

Class Q, the right to convert agricultural buildings into dwellings as a matter of principle has been with us since 2014.

Permitted development is the right of an owner to develop his or her land within limits prescribed by the General Permitted Development Order. The point of the order was originally to allow minor development to go ahead without having to go through the planning application process. For example small extensions to houses and simple changes of use i.e. changing a pub to a restaurant or a bank to a shop.

In the interest of simplifying the planning system and boosting the supply of houses, the government extended permitted development rights to include the right to change agricultural buildings to dwellings. This was originally proposed as a temporary measure but has since been made permanent.

To use these rights an application has to be made to the Local Planning authority to confirm that the development proposed fits within the limits set out in the General Permitted Development Order. This requires an application, a set of drawings and either a supporting letter or report.

Converting an enclosed modern shed in the middle of the countryside to up to 5 dwellings generally does not accord with Local Plan policies and as such is met with opposition in many councils. As such, in most cases an application is carefully scrutinised to make sure it fits the criteria.

Since the permitted development right was introduced there have been several notable appeal decisions which have altered and clarified how Class Q applications should be dealt with by an Authority. The two key ones address ‘what amounts to conversion’ and ‘establishing a fallback position’.

The question of whether a development is conversion or not was considered at length. 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. In this case the judge considered it inappropriate to look to the dictionary when seeking to define the distinction as the permitted development rights were drafted for a professional audience and the distinction should be understood in a planning context.

The result of the appeal is a test of whether or not the building operations amount to conversion or ‘fresh build’. Unfortunately, this is considered on a case by case basis and there is no set rule on how to define ‘fresh build’. Whilst this has introduced an additional consideration for many authorities (who weren’t previously giving the question too much attention) it does in some ways clear up where the line is.

The other notable appeal decision has underlined the ability of Class Q to represent a ‘fallback position’. This simply means that the where a site can be developed through the exercise of Class Q permitted development rights then the planning authority must take this into consideration when dealing with an application for full planning permission. Whilst this seems logical it has not always been the case and in reality means that applicant are no longer entirely bound by the stringent rules that surround Class Q development (such as works that extend the external envelope not being permitted).

If a Class Q prior notification application is approved the applicant has three years to complete the conversion. With a planning permission the applicant has 3 years in which to start the conversion and once started can take as long as it takes to complete it. A full planning application would assist overcoming this strict and very tight build schedule.

Class Q continues to be a complicated and thorny issue with many Planning Authorities. If you are looking to convert a rural building please call us. We provide a free half hour consultation and can help you make the right decision.

Government funding secured for enforcement handbook

PDP_Enforcement Handbook

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) has announced that it will work in partnership with the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) to update the England Enforcement Handbook.

Funding for the new handbook is part of a £1.5m government package for the 2019/20 financial year with the aim of helping local authorities deal with unauthorised development.

The RTPI say that the handbook, which will be reviewed and updated by RTPI network the National Association of Planning Enforcement (NAPE), will help ensure local authorities have access to the latest best practice advice on how to deal effectively with a range of enforcement challenges.

NAPE Chair Neill Whittaker said:

“We’re really pleased to be working in partnership with MHCLG to refresh the National Association of Planning Enforcement handbook for England.

“The updated handbook will support enforcement officers in carrying out their roles covering a range of topics including the Proceeds of Crime Act, lone working, the General Permitted Development Order and advances in technology.

“The NAPE project team are currently working on the details for the updated handbook and three launch events are due to be held across England in Spring 2020.”

In addition the RTPI and Connected Places Catapult (CPC) have launched a shared vision for the digital future of planning. They have been working over the last few years to understand how better data, tools and systems can support the creation of sustainable, resilient and inclusive places.

The new shared vision reflects key messages that have emerged from this work, drawing on contributions made by planners, academics, civil servants, community groups and technology experts. It outlines a shared ambition for a planning system built upon clear structures for the collection, use and sharing of data, and sets out principles which can guide the ongoing development, use and governance of PlanTech.

‘We want to harness the power of technology and direct innovative thinking towards improving the planning system so that our members can work more efficiently, effectively and collaboratively under conditions of complexity and rapid change,’ said RTPI policy manager James Harris

‘We hope that this vision can provide those involved in PlanTech with a common agenda for empowering planners and delivering great places,’ he told the CPC’s PlanTech conference in London.

Planners have always been at the heart of the digital transformation of the planning system that the Catapult is trying to bring about, according to Stefan Webb, CPC director of digitising planning.

‘This new vision and the principles that underpin it should act as a signpost for those in government and industry who are designing, procuring and building the digital planning system of the future,’ Webb added.

Government considering key changes to the General Permitted Development Order

PDPGeneral Permitted Development Order

The Government published a consultation which ran from 29th October 2018 until 14th January 2019 titled “Planning Reform – Supporting the high street and increasing the delivery of new homes.”

The most significant proposal is to introduce new Permitted Development (PD) rights “to provide additional self-contained homes by extending certain premises upwards”. It is proposed that the new rights would apply to premises in a range of uses that are compatible with C3 residential use. These are defined as potentially including:

“C3 residential premises, those A class and sui generis high street uses that can already change use to housing under a permitted development right ((shops (A1), financial and professional services (A2), restaurants and cafes (A3), betting shops, pay day loan shops and launderettes), offices (B1 (a)), and buildings in mixed use within these uses.”

It is proposed that the PD rights would not apply to: Article 2(3) land (including conservation areas, areas of outstanding natural beauty, the Broads, National Parks and World Heritage Sites), Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), the standard 4 exclusions (i.e. listed building, scheduled monument, safety hazard area, or military explosives storage area) or safeguarded land within 3km of the perimeter of an aerodrome.

The Government is proposing two different ways to deal with the height restrictions. Either, a PD right could allow premises in a terrace (of two or more properties) to extend upwards to be no higher than the main roofline of the highest building in the existing terrace, or, upward extensions could be permitted more widely to a height no higher than the prevailing roof height in the locality.

There is additionally a proposed maximum limit of no more than 5 storeys above grand level once extended (based on an additional storey not exceeding 3m in height). However it is proposed that this height limit would not apply in the case of purpose built, free standing blocks of flats over 5 storeys, which would be allowed to extend upwards (i.e. to a height greater than 5 storeys above ground level).

The applicant would still be required to apply to the Local Planning Authority for approval on a number of issues, such as flood risk and impact on neighbouring amenity.

The document also asks the question of whether these PD rights should additionally allow the upward extension of a dwelling for the enlargement of an existing home.

The second significant proposed change is to allow the demolition of commercial buildings and redevelopment as residential. At present, PD rights allow new homes to be delivered through change of use of existing buildings. The Government suggest that allowing demolition of commercial buildings and replacement build as residential, would allow high quality development to be secured which is consistent with national planning policy.

Feasibility really needs to be explored before this becomes a PD right and factors such as the height and density of new buildings would also need to be considered. It is also being considered whether the right should just apply to smaller sites, as this would be more practical. However it would still have the benefit of setting a precedent for larger sites.

Other matters being considered are:

-To allow shops (A1), financial and professional services (A2), hot food takeaways (A5), betting shops, pay day loan shop and launderettes to change to office use (B1). It is also proposed to allow hot food takeaways (A5) to change to residential use (C3);

-The removal of the existing right that allows the installation of, and advertising on, new public call boxes;

-Increasing size limits for off-street electric vehicle charging points;

-Greater flexibility for temporary changes of use;

-Making permanent two currently time-limited PD rights (B8 to C3 & larger extensions to dwellinghouses)/

There have been some fierce critics of the proposed changes. The Town and Country Planning Association has warned that the proposed changes will deprive local authorities of essential funding and risks creating poor living conditions for vulnerable people.

Dr Hugh Ellis, interim chief executive of the TCPA, said:

“Converting commercial and disused high-street properties into homes is fine, so long as it doesn’t condemn desperate people — often young people or poor families — to live in badly designed boxes without consideration for their health and wellbeing.

“Under the existing system of permitted development, 1,000 new flats can be built in an old 1970s office building or industrial estate, and the local council can’t require a single sq. ft. of play space for the children who live there — and the communities have effectively no say. This cannot become the norm.

“The rebirth of town centres requires vision and masterplanning, with real investment in culture and the built environment. How can we pay for this investment when permitted development removes the power of local authorities to get one penny in section 106 contributions from developers?”

The responses to the consultation will now be considered before any proposed amendments are published. We will provide an update on this in due course.

Conversion of Rural Buildings under Class Q

PDP_Conversion of Rural Buildings under Class Q

Implications of Hibbitt v. SSCLG

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.

GET IN TOUCH