Paragraph 80 Planning Explained: Development in the Countryside

Paragraph 80 Planning

Paragraph 80 of the National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework) allows development in the countryside in certain circumstances. It is route for obtaining planning permission in isolated locations and is popular with self-builders.

The framework as its name suggests provides a national framework for planning policies. Planning applications should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material circumstances indicate otherwise.

The Development Plan in most cases ins the Local Plan or Local Development Framework. There will be other plans including Neighbourhood Plans, Action Area Statements and Supplementary Planning Documents and thy all make up the development plan. However, the Development plan must be in conformity with the Framework and that is why the framework is important.

Along side Paragraph 80 is permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 3 Class Q or Class MA which allow the conversion of rural or commercial buildings into dwellings and there are Local Plan policies that allow for the conversion and extension of traditional farm buildings.

Replacement dwellings are a useful source of new builds in the open countryside but most Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) limit the size of the replacement to the size of the existing building or buildings. Some LPAs do not, so it is worth checking.

Paragraph 80 states:

Planning policies and decisions should avoid the development of isolated homes in the countryside unless one or more of the following circumstances apply:

a) there is an essential need for a rural worker, including those taking majority control of a farm business, to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside;
b) the development would represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset or would be appropriate enabling development to secure the future of heritage assets;
c) the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and enhance its immediate setting;
d) the development would involve the subdivision of an existing residential building; or
e) the design is of exceptional quality, in that it: – is truly outstanding, reflecting the highest standards in architecture, and would help to raise standards of design more generally in rural areas; and – would significantly enhance its immediate setting, and be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area.

Firstly, it should be noted that paragraph 80 applies only to ISOLATED dwellings in the countryside. If you are looking to build a new house on farmland next to a village or town or even a hamlet the Council may consider the development not to be isolated so that paragraph 80 would not apply.

With regards to rural workers, the availability of buildings that can be converted normally means that agricultural workers dwellings will only be built if there are no existing buildings available for conversion.

Under (b) traditional buildings not necessarily farm buildings in the countryside may be classed as heritage assets, either non-designated or designated. The protection of that asset may be best achieved through residential use, or it may be a means to build new houses to enable the renovation and repair of the heritage asset. Please be aware that enabling development requires an open book approach to finance and the profits made through the enabling development must go towards the renovation.

Under (c) this allows non-agricultural buildings in the countryside that are redundant or disused to be re-used as housing, but the setting must be enhanced. Buildings that have no use through the passage of time can be re-used but it should be noted that any building can be used for agricultural purposes without planning permission, and this can leave the way open for disused buildings to be converted through Class Q.

Under (d) sub-division can be especially useful. Most planning policies allow existing dwellings in the countryside to be extended. Once the extensions have been completed an application can be made to sub-divide into two or more dwellings. This can be useful for family or friends or as an income stream through a holiday or permanent let.

Paragraph 80 (e) -the design is of exceptional quality; this is the part of Paragraph 80 that those who want a new house in the open countryside look at. It is not an easy route, and it is not cheap. The conversion, replacement and re-use approach offers greater certainty and is easier to obtain.

The paragraph 80(e) house is attractive to those who want a bespoke property. The starting point must be the site, if the site is for example an old quarry, enhancing the immediate setting will be straightforward. If it is in an open prominent location in an Area of Outstanding Beauty, the challenge will be that much greater.

The new building or buildings must reflect the highest standards in architecture, it must help to raise standards of design in rural areas and be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area. The defining characteristics will be local materials, and the local vernacular. A beautiful building should raise standards of design but to reflect the highest standards of architecture the design has to go through peer review.

A client will need an exceptionally good architect with a good or developing reputation. Apart from setting a budget and giving the architect a brief, they must be willing to let their architect design the house as the architect sees it. To get a property approved though Paragraph 80(e) the draft design has to go in front of the Regional Design Panel who will review he proposal against the requirements of Paragraph 80(e). The architect will need to justify the design and his/her approach to it. Clearly if the client employs a star architect the job is easier, but the cost can be extremely high indeed. A client has to pay for the Regional Design panel to meet to discuss the proposal and there may be a series of meetings as the design panel collaborates with the architect firm up the proposals. Because the design must be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area a large house is often more difficult to get approved than a smaller property.

A design with the endorsement of the Regional Design Panel has a good chance of being approved at planning committee or at appeal. The next challenge will be the build both the build cost and delivering the project. If a client decides to ditch the architect in favour of a cheaper technician and a builder real problem, can arise in delivering the build. In any bespoke project there can be significant cost over runs and it will never be a fixed price option unless the build involves a large element of off-site prefabrication.

Planning & Design Practice offer a comprehensive range of services, specialising in planning, architecture, heritage, urban design, and rural development.

We provide our clients with expert advice on a range of architectural and planning issues encompassing small scale developments through to large schemes. For more information on our services, or a no obligation consultation to discuss your project please get in touch on 01332 347371 or email enquiries@planningdesign.co.uk

Planning permission for new Sheffield apartments

PDP_Student Development Sheffield

Planning & Design Practice is delighted to have secured planning permission for 8 apartments on land at Cross Street, Sheffield. The proposed development includes the erection of a two-storey building and the extension and change of use of an existing two-storey building, as well a bin/bike store, parking area, landscaping, and outdoor space.

The application site is located on the eastern side of the Market Square in Woodhouse shopping centre, which is defined in the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan as a ‘District Centre’. A mixed-use area comprising of a range of commercial uses on the ground floor, and residential uses on the upper floors. The existing buildings on the site are 2 and 3 storey stone faced domestic style, dating from the 18th and 19th centuries. The site is set back approximately 15m off Cross Street and elements of the site are within the ‘District Centre’ designation.

The development seeks to make effective use of brownfield land in a sustainable location close to a range of services and facilities. The design of the site establishes a strong sense of place along Church Lane whilst optimising the potential of the site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount / mix of development to support local facilities and transport networks; creating a development that is safe, inclusive, and accessible by design.

The Planning Officer concluded that residential development would “not prejudice the dominance of preferred retail uses” in the District Shopping Centre and would “assist the aims of the Core Strategy in providing new homes in a sustainable, brownfield location, within an existing centre, at an appropriate density”. Given that Sheffield City Council is currently unable to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply, the “tilted balance” set out in the National Planning Policy Framework was applied and the officer attributed significant weight to the contribution the proposal would make to the supply of homes in Sheffield.

With an office at the Workstation, and with numerous clients and projects in the area we are proud to have a close connection with Sheffield. Please get in touch for advice on local planning & development.

Paragraph 79

PDP_Paragraph 79

Planning & Design Practice Ltd recently submitted a planning application for the demolition of steel frame buildings and the construction of a new dwelling at Sheephills, Blackwall, Kirk Ireton. The application was submitted under Paragraph 79 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which allows for new houses in the countryside which are considered to be of exceptional quality.

In our 20 plus years of preparing and submitting proposals in the Dales, we have never before as a practice prepared a Paragraph 79 proposal, despite being asked to do so by numerous potential clients. In each of these previous cases we have advised that the site in question is not sufficiently special, and refrained from pursuing a proposal.

We proposed a Paragraph 79 house at Sheephills because we genuinely believed that this particular site, and the opportunity it offers for enhancement, are truly exceptional.

Sheephills occupies a wonderful position on the wooded valley slopes above Biggin by Hulland which is quintessential of the southern Derbyshire Dales. Historically, Sheephills was a farmstead including farmhouse and outbuildings, owned by the Blackwall estate. Today it comprises of a group of ugly rusting sheds, ripe for enhancement. Uniquely, the land has been owned and farmed by the same family -our clients the Blackwall family- since at least 1415.

We prepared our proposals thoughtfully and methodically over a 3-year period. Our first step was to carry out a thorough context analysis. This is included in the application documents and should be read for the proposal to be fully understood. As well as assessing the site and its immediate surroundings the analysis also sought to understand the prevailing characteristics of a traditional Derbyshire Dales vernacular house, in order that lessons could be learned and then interpreted in the new design.

We prepared an initial draft design and held a site visit and workshop meeting with independent design review panel OPUN and Derbyshire Dales officers, in February 2018. Feedback was received and the design developed further. After preparing a second revision of the design we submitted the proposals again to OPUN. The design review panel provided further feedback in March 2020 in the form of a series of questions. Our answers to these questions are submitted as part of this application and should be read for context. After making further improvements to the design, we submitted this application.

The overriding theme of the proposal is a reinterpretation of a rural Derbyshire Dales vernacular house in the 21st century -not blindly following the aesthetics of traditional architecture but learning the lessons of the past and seeking to reapply them to meet the challenges of today. In this respect we hope that the design will act as an exemplar, hopefully serving to raise the standards of design more generally across the Derbyshire Dales.

Building on my own initial context analysis work, the design was prepared primarily by Lindsay Cruddas, a RIBA registered specialist conservation architect with considerable experience working in the Dales, and developed further by Fernando Collado Lopez, a registered architect with experience of working in the UK, Spain and North America.

Looking for your dream home? Our team of experienced professionals work with home owners on a daily basis to provide the technical knowledge, design ideals & relevant expertise to help guide you through what can be a daunting process. For more information, and a free half an hour consultation to discuss your project, please contact us.

Jon Millhouse, Director, Planning & Design Practice Ltd

The Sheffield Plan

PDP_Sheffield Local Development Scheme

The Sheffield Plan will replace both the Sheffield Core Strategy (2009) and the saved policies in the Sheffield Unitary Development Plan (1998). The plan will cover the period 2023-2038.

The Council have recently released the Local Development Scheme (LDS) which sets out the timetable for the preparation of the Sheffield district Local Plan.

A previous version of the LDS, published in July 2016, envisaged adoption by September 2018. The delay was caused by changes in government policy such as the revised National Planning Policy Framework and Housing White Paper which provides a standardised methodology for housing calculations. The preparation of Local Plans must be underpinned by relevant and up-to-date evidence; therefore, the previous LDS was considered to be out of date.

The updated LDS took effect from 20th November 2019, and outlines a number of key milestones:

A new Issues and Options consultation is the first part of the Plan Stage. A previous Issues and Options consultation was undertaken in November 2015- January 2016. This will inform the content of the Publication Draft Sheffield Plan and is now proposed to take place in July–September 2020.

The second stage of the consultation process is envisaged to take place between July and September 2021, where the Council will produce the Publication Draft Local Plan.

An independent Planning Inspector will be appointed to undertake a ‘public examination’ of the draft Local Plan and is likely to make recommendations to further improve it. LPAs may ask the Inspector to recommend main modifications to the plan where necessary to make the plan sound and legally compliant. Submission of the Draft Plan to Government and Examination will take place in January 2022.

The final report is envisaged to be sent to the LPA around June 2023.

Cabinet approval and adoption by full Council is proposed to take place in September 2023.

The LDS outlined four Neighbourhood Plan Areas that are currently adopting Neighbourhood Plans in Sheffield. Broomhill, Broomhall, Endcliffe, Somerfield, Tapton (BBEST) and Dore are the two areas closest to adoption as they have submitted their Neighbourhood Plans and are expecting adoption by September 2020.

Once they have been adopted, the neighbourhood plans will form part of the emerging Local Plan.

If you have a site (or interest in a site) within the Sheffield City Council region please do get in touch as now is the time to put development sites forward for adoption within the local plan.

NEDDC ordered to foot £300k appeal costs for ‘unreasonable behaviour’

PDP_North East Derbyshire District Council

North East Derbyshire District Council has had a very bad fortnight, losing 2 appeals on major housing developments in quick succession.

The first scheme, submitted by Rippon Homes Ltd, was for 180 dwellings on Land at Deerlands Road, Wingerworth. The Inspector concluded that there is a five year housing land supply in the District but this is not a ceiling and that the provision of general needs housing together with 40% affordable housing were very significant material considerations weighing in favour of the appeal scheme.

He found that whilst the housing land supply position does not trigger the so called ‘tilted balance’ in paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework, this is triggered by the fact that the spatial strategy and settlement boundaries are out of date. Permission should therefore be granted unless the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. In this case the inspector considered that the adverse impacts would not come close to outweighing the benefits. To make matters worse for the council, the Inspector ordered the council to pay the all of Rippon’s costs of around £300,000.

In the second appeal, submitted by Persimmon Homes, a scheme for 160 dwellings at Land off Mansfield Road, Winsick, Chesterfield was allowed. The Inspector found that although the proposal would conflict with Local Plan policies GS1, GS6 and H3, the weight which should be attributed to them is greatly reduced given the age of the Local Plan (adopted in 2005). The proposals would be in accordance with the most important policies to the determination of the appeal, namely policies BE1 and H12. He concluded that the appeal would accord with the development plan and the Framework as a whole and would constitute sustainable development.

For more information on the above appeals or if you have your own potential housing sites that you are looking to pursue, please get in touch.

Viability – does the new NPPF represent a seismic shift?

PDP_NPPF Viability

The level of public goods to be provided alongside development in the form of affordable housing and payments towards schools, health, highways Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and open space (tariff payments) is often challenged by developers in the name of ‘viability’. Providing public goods is expensive; a scheme for 150 houses can generate education payments of £1.2m upwards, with another half a million on payments towards health, CIL and open space. This is before the direct costs of roads, main services and ground conditions are taken into account. A standard 30% affordable housing requirement will reduce the market housing element of a 150 house scheme to 105 homes. This means that all the infrastructure and tariff costs are shouldered by a smaller number of houses than the planning permission indicates.

Viability appraisals have been used as a way for developers to reduce these costs by arguing that the costs of developing a site are too great to allow the full range of public goods to be provided. Often it is the ‘abnormal costs’ – the de-contamination of land, or dealing with difficult topography which can make a site less viable. However issues of land/site value can come into play.

The approach to dealing with viability appraisals has varied across the country and this has fuelled public concern that developers are making money without providing the public goods that a community can rightfully expect. The government has reacted to these concerns in its updated National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) by attempting to standardise the method of calculating viability.

The starting point is that councils should set out their requirements for public goods in their local plans but in a way that does not undermine deliverability. Planning applications that comply with the plan should be considered as viable. This means that at the local plan examination stage, sites that get through examination as allocations are considered to be viable.

The value of land should have regard to development plan policies. This means that viability appraisals should be undertaken at the plan making stage using a new standard approach. The price paid for a site is not a relevant justification for failing to comply with the development plan and hope value should also be dis-regarded.

For existing allocated sites in plans where viability was not fully considered at the plan making stage the starting point for considering land value is ‘existing use value plus’. An agricultural greenfield site could have an existing use value of perhaps £12,000 per acre. For a brownfield former mining site this could be zero as the site contains liabilities. The ‘plus’ is a premium for the landowner, a profit to the developer of perhaps 15 -20%, abnormal costs and market evidence based on policy compliant schemes in the locality. The premium for the landowner ‘should reflect the minimum return which it is considered a reasonable landowner would be willing to sell their land’. This is further clarified in the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) which states “The premium should provide a reasonable incentive for a landowner to being forward land for development while allowing a sufficient contribution to comply with policy requirements”.

It also requires developers to take an ‘open book’ approach, meaning that all future viability appraisals will be made public other than in exceptional circumstances.

It also means that it is the abnormal costs which become the focus for an appraisal and whether these are in fact reasonable. The public exposure will increase testing and will require LPAs to be seen to consider all aspects raised by the local community.

These measures should improve public confidence in the system and leave less room for manoeuvre for developers. It also means that the value of land is explicit and what the landowner receives is in the public domain. It will be interesting to see how this affects values and the potential political fallout that will follow on from such exposure.

Jonathan Jenkin is Managing Director at Planning & Design Practice

GET IN TOUCH