You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Just had our permitted development application refused which has thrown a spanner in the works.
Application was to turn a stone agricultural barn into a dwelling for our smallholding.
This is the bit the council are using to for refusal:
[i]"(4) Nothing in this Order permits development contrary to any condition imposed by any planning permission granted or deemed to be granted under Part 3 of the Act otherwise than by this Order." [/i]
"the Act" means the Town and Country Planning act of 1990
"this Order" means the general permitted development order 2015
In 2008 the previous owners rebuilt the barn and got in trouble for doing so without permission. They got retrospective permission but the council put a condition that the barn could only be used for agriculture and it has been ever since, including in 2013 which is the important date. Surely the whole point in permitted development for change of use from agriculture to a dwelling is exactly this.
They are claiming that as the condition states it must only ever be used for agriculture then the permitted development order of 2015 cannot change it. But this little bit at the end "otherwise than by this Order" has me wondering if what the sentence actually means is the PD order cannot override any previous conditions other than the very thing being changed.
eg if the condition states that the land could never be used a fairground then when allowing the change of use to a dwelling (or whatever PD was being applied for) the condition about the fairground still stands.
What they are saying is that the previous site specific planning condition takes precidence over the more recent general permitted development order.
I'm guessing that you will need to apply to vary the previous planning approval rather than putting in a new planning application.
^^
That's how I interpret it too.
PDs are allowed as long as 'nothing else' trumps them...
Where I live is a 'local view plan' that could scupper some general PD allowances.
DrP
The condition on the retrospective permission removes your permitted development rights. So no matter what the GPDO says, the condition comes first and you'd need full planning permission to convert the barn to a dwelling.
Not surprised. Wouldn't have thought you'd get away with agri to dwelling under PD anywhere n UK???
Yes you can, under class MB as long as its "readily convertible".
http://planninglawblog.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/barn-conversions-new-rules.html
We've done it a few times recently.
I agree with others, that the LPA is saying the planning condition comes first, and overrides any permitted development.
BUT . . . the condition restricting "change of use" to a dwelling house is a fairly standard condition, applied to almost all agri developments in recent decades. Previously it was a well-known loophole, to by-pass restrictions on building new houses in the countryside.
So was the intention of parliament to create a fairly meaningless new law? (I'm talking about just the section on agricultural buildings to dwelling houses, not the whole of the 2015 legislation).
Or should planning law be interpreted in a different way?
I'll be interested to see how The Planning Inspectorate interpret this issue, as appeals go through the system.
(IANAplanner, but was a member of a Planning Committee)
People do get barns through PD, this one has just been sold at auction and is a modern steel barn with planning to convert to a house.
It is a good example of abuse of what the government intended as it was supposed to be for old agricultural buildings that are no longer suitable with modern farming methods. Ours is a stone barn with access too small for a decent sized tractor and only 100sqm.
Looks like the only option is to apply to have the condition removed and then if time appeal or resubmit so another £1000 down the drain by the time we get more professional fees.
What you applied for was prior approval to exercise a right that exists to convert a barn to a dwelling. The only place this right doesn't apply is national parks and aonbs. Prior approval concerns things like general design, windows, access etc. It seems as above that they're saying the previous issues mean the right is removed for that building so you need to submit a full planning application instead.
We won't get it by going full planning as it's not classed as a sustainable location being in a little village. Also if we have to go full planning we will have to give about £50k in cash to the people who owned it 11 years ago due to a legal clause regarding any "full planning" being granted but not PD.
You need legal advice on that clause, planning permission and pdr are just different means to the same ends, and Should you eventually get to exercise your pdr I reckon the previous owner could argue you owe them under the spirit of what was intended.
Already have. PD is not the same as full planning.
Same way you can put a small extension on the back of your house under PD but if you want to put something major then you need full planning. As with this plot if we went full planning we could build a much bigger house. but as it stands we are restricted. As for "what was intended" that doesnt stand. Any ambiguity in a contract is at the loss of the person who wrote it. They should have put "any change of use to C3" but the wording they used is very specific and we have had lawyers and planning consultants agree.
It still stands that we would not get planning the normal route anyway so the people who stand to benefit from the uplift would not get anything at all if we dont do it this way. Our plan is to get the PD and convert and then eventually try and put a small extension on to make it a bit more special and a new boot room to make it more practical on a small holding. This action will trigger the uplift and we will stick to our side of the contract and that way they actually do stand to get something which is better than nothing as per the way it has been going for the last 11 years. Will probably still be in the region of £10-20k we have to give them so not a small amount.