Agricultural to Residential barn conversion Planning issues

[jon smith]

Hello, We recently applied for permitted development change of use of agricultural building to residential and this was granted under class Q (a).

We thought great!

Had detailed plans / elevations drawn up for the second part, class Q (b) however this was refused due to the proximity of a livestock building.

My question is surely this should have been considered under class Q (a) and whether I can appeal (with costs) due to this. If the conversion was refused under class Q (a) I would not have spent £1000s on a detailed design for the scheme!

If anyone has any advice for us this would be gratefully received.

 

[^woody^]

Did you spend £000's on proper advice from an agent regarding the conversion and process?

PD is for the change of use, it does not include for necessary or desired works that would themselves require planning permission to make the conversion work as a residence.

 

[jon smith]

Hi Woody thanks for the reply, are you familiar with Class Q agricultural to residential regulations? The reason for refusal should have been identified at Class Q (a) stage.

 

[^woody^]

Part a tests the principle of change of use, nothing else. You may have an argument that the test for the principle should have included the position of the livestock building if it was ever a material factor. But without the detail and facts, is difficult to comment on whether it was material from your part a submission, or only became material after your part b submission.

A part a only submission, would normally only be made of there was no other building work required for the change of use.

As for proceeding with part b, you did not need a full detailed design - only basic elevations and or photos.

I'd say it will all depend on when that livestock building became material - on the detail you presented in part a or b.

Then there is the issue of whether the decision is correct. Perhaps the effects of proximity of the livestock building could have been mitigated, or other changes made - but you did not show this. Or the planner's opinion (which is purely subjective, as there are no specified criteria as to what is unacceptable), could be challenged on appeal. Costs are not guaranteed unless the planner has been unreasonable.

 

[Nakajo]

Under the circumstances, I'd consider taking legal advice from someone well-versed in the operation of Part Q

 

[^woody^]

Under the circumstances, I'd consider taking legal advice from someone well-versed in the operation of Part Q

Legal advice would be the last thing. He wants planning advice from someone who knows about planning. Solicitors don't tend to be that knowledgeable on the implementation of planning regulations.

 

[Nakajo]

I disagree. The implementation of Part Q in particular is something that some solicitors seem to be really hot on. Planning consultants cost a fortune too, remember.

 

[jon smith]

Hi Woody and Nakajo, thank you for your responses.

The livestock barn was identified on the location plan and clearly marked. The Planning statement went into detail about the livestock building and how many cattle it contained within the part a submission (which was granted) so based on your comments this was a clear material factor within the part a submission.

The refusal was based on environmental health's comments, who were not consulted on part a. I would argue that their comments should have been voiced on part a as this is when the principal for change of use is considered, not b.

If anyone knows of someone who could help me with this further it would be much appreciated.

 

[Nakajo]

I'd just google for terms like 'barn conversion' and 'class q' along with the professional avenue you decide you want to explore, and see what that throws up.

 

[Ian R]

Did your Class Q(a) Approval include the following considerations under Q.2:

(a) transport and highways impacts of the development,
(b) noise impacts of the development,
(c) contamination risks on the site,
(d) flooding risks on the site,
(e) whether the location or siting of the building makes it otherwise impractical or undesirable for the building to change from agricultural use to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses) of the Schedule to the Use Classes Order,​

And specifically (e)

It should have done. And if so what's the wording for the refusal due to proximity of a livestock building.

The Class Q (b) should only be for the building operations, (a) should have already dealt with whether or not the building is suitable for Change of Use.

 

[jon smith]

Part (a) included all the above, including (e) which specifically stated that there is nothing which makes the location of siting of the building unpractical of undesirable.

On part (b) they revisited this and back tracked stating that the livestock building is an issue.

 

[Ian R]

The devil's in the detail, but from what you have said the LPA have stepped beyond their remit with your part (b) submission.

They can't take away the Approval you have for part (a), and should only have considered the building operations for part (b). You may have a good case for an Appeal, with costs. However an award of costs would be the costs of the Appeal, not the costs for making the original Prior Notice Application.

You need to get some sound advice, based on your Part (a) and (b) Prior Notice applications and the wording of the initial Approval and subsequent Refusal. It maybe that a discussion with the LPA and a re-submission of the Part (b) will achieve an Approval, assuming that the only reason given for refusal was the proximity of the livestock building.

I've never engaged him personally, but follow his blog due to his knowledge and experience with Permitted Development so can suggest Martin Goodall, http://planninglawblog.blogspot.co.uk/ as a recommendation for discussing the best way to proceed.

 

[^woody^]

The first stage is to actually talk to the planner involved, or better still their manager, and put the question to them about why the determination in part a has been dismissed in part b.