Jump to content

PD Planning Permission and Pitch


LSB

1887 views

Another week of not really achieving anything.

Due to our class Q PD planning we have to keep the dimensions exactly as they are, well I guess we could be smaller, but definitely not bigger.

This is up, down and side to side.

I have been looking at the roof, the main one as we have 2, which is huge at 24m x 10m and a single roof, i.e. not a pitch.

This is how the barn looks now, we want a zinc or at least metal roof, but the minimum pitch is 8 degrees and I hadn't realised, and obviously neither did the architect, that the current roof is only 2-3 degrees.  If I slope it more for the roof then the pitch is 34cm higher than the max we are allowed of 3.015m.

 

My brain has had a real stretch this week working on tangents, sines and co-sines to try and get a solution.

As the back wall is already rather low at 2.075m it's not feasible to reduce that to increase the pitch as we will lose too much liveable space.  

 

So, I guess I'm going to have to go back to planning and ask for either a higher max ridge of say 3.5m or change to a pitch roof which isn't converting as it is.

 

The other option is to have part of the roof flat, I quite fancy sedum, but hubby won't hear of that, he is worried that a roof 24m x 5m runs the risk of too much weight with sedum and if we every get snow.

 

Last weekend we also have a groundworker out as we need the floors levelling which means digging out some raised bits which are just floating on the main floor, I'm not sure why the farmer put them there originally.  This is also causing concerns around foundations.

Anyway, he took one look and then came the sharp intake of breath and "That's a huge job".

Of course when I said we would look for someone else then he decided it wasn't too bad, but to get a quote I need to measure and photograph what needs doing and send to him, which I haven't done yet.  He did come recommended, so it will probably be even worse getting someone blind.   We have been let down before with shoddy workmanship, rising costs and unreliable timing so I'm planning on being more careful this time.

 

It is so much easier to build from scratch, but the LPA have said that despite having conversion planning meaning there will be a house on site they would never agree to a new build.

Hubby is threatening to take it down wall by wall dig deeper foundations and build it back up with a lower floor to give more roof height.  I pointed out to him though that this would involve BC inspections and they would realise that it's not part of the plans.  We do have one 18m wall that needs building from scratch.

 

This really is one of those times when it is tempting to get in the estate agent and sell the plot, but as it is in my field I don't think I could bare to see someone else doing it.

 

I'm sat in my 'site office' AKA' the caravan with the dog, who keeping passing very very smelly wind ?

This doesn't help my brain either.

 

Maybe this week will be the one where I make some progress on getting plans ready for structural drawings.

 

 

12 Comments


Recommended Comments

Following with interest as this looks like an interesting project. 

No doubt you have already, but have you explored getting planning permission now that you have the PD rights for conversion confirmed? You'd be able to change roof pitches - and lots of other things!

Link to comment

Use a third party BC inspector...they are only interested in what the Building control plans are and if they are to standard. Its you responsibility to build to approved plans not the inspectors.

Link to comment



Hubby is threatening to take it down wall by wall dig deeper foundations and build it back up with a lower floor to give more roof height.  I pointed out to him though that this would involve BC inspections and they would realise that it's not part of the plans.

 

 Not just BC. The planners would also start rubbing their hands together.

Link to comment

How about dual pitch roof each 2.5m... some rough calculations..

 

2.5 * tan(8) = 0.35cm

 

3m max height at ridge works out at 2.65 at the walls. Less thickness of roof say 300mm gives 2.2m high walls?

 

With such a short span of each pitch perhaps no need to overlap metal sheets so less pitch might be allowed?

 

Just thinking aloud.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Temp said:

How about dual pitch roof each 2.5m... some rough calculations..

 

2.5 * tan(8) = 0.35cm

 

3m max height at ridge works out at 2.65 at the walls. Less thickness of roof say 300mm gives 2.2m high walls?

 

With such a short span of each pitch perhaps no need to overlap metal sheets so less pitch might be allowed?

 

Just thinking aloud.

any thoughts more than welcome, but as planning is for a pitched flat roof this would be a change to a gable roof, albeit with the same pitch.

I've been drawing such plans this evening to see how it looks.

I would definitely have to go back to planning for the change, by that might just get through.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Tom said:

Following with interest as this looks like an interesting project. 

No doubt you have already, but have you explored getting planning permission now that you have the PD rights for conversion confirmed? You'd be able to change roof pitches - and lots of other things!

I have looked into getting full planning, but have been told that this means it is a new dwelling in the countryside and therefore totally impossible.

There was someone local that then went to appeal and won with the argument that there was going to be a house anyway, but I'm not sure I want to risk it.

 

Link to comment
10 hours ago, LSB said:

I have looked into getting full planning, but have been told that this means it is a new dwelling in the countryside and therefore totally impossible.

There was someone local that then went to appeal and won with the argument that there was going to be a house anyway, but I'm not sure I want to risk it.

 

It wouldn't be a totally new dwelling in the country though, it's a replacement. We did exactly this, part Q PD, then full planning. It was very straightforward in the end. There was a case that went to the high court in 2017 I believe which basically allowed for the part Q to be used as a fall back, therefore any full pp application would therefore be a replacement, even if the conversion had not actually been started.

I think you've been advised wrongly. Honestly look in to this, might save a lot if hassle further down the line as you try and shoehorn your house in to the existing structure - not to mention the 20% VAT saving on a new build.

Link to comment

As per Tom's post above. I would look into it but, Very recently 100mt from me. 5 barns with Part Q. Guy went back in for planning for 5 new instead of converting the 5 barns. Total, flat refusal, stating that the barns were only able to be converted due to part Q, and that was not a fall back position ! Frankly the whole planning system is written very badly, and needs to be thrown away, and written in plain english. Councils are able to interpret as they please.  My own place is in the green belt. Managed to get permission to extend to 6 times the current size. I went back in for Two new houses, that would fit inside the One (permission obtained) Large house. Refused for overdevelopement in the green belt. Went to appeal, and refused with the comment "No need to look at it because the Green belt policy should not be over-ridden. However different planning officer, same council, passed exactly the same about a mile away from me. Planning is a minefield. You do have your Part Q which you will retain. If i was to look to go back in for permission, i would want somebody great to design something fab. I would try and then get the local councillor to call it in, and get it in front of the committee, rather than leaving it to the council planning officers.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Tom said:

It wouldn't be a totally new dwelling in the country though, it's a replacement. We did exactly this, part Q PD, then full planning. It was very straightforward in the end. There was a case that went to the high court in 2017 I believe which basically allowed for the part Q to be used as a fall back, therefore any full pp application would therefore be a replacement, even if the conversion had not actually been started.

I think you've been advised wrongly. Honestly look in to this, might save a lot if hassle further down the line as you try and shoehorn your house in to the existing structure - not to mention the 20% VAT saving on a new build.

we are seriously considering this path, the VAT is not so bad as we only have to pay 5%

The first think I'm going to do is check for precedence and see if others have done this locally.

Also, investigate the new planning changes, which to my understanding will make building in the countryside more difficult whereas building in infill areas easier.

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Big Jimbo said:

As per Tom's post above. I would look into it but, Very recently 100mt from me. 5 barns with Part Q. Guy went back in for planning for 5 new instead of converting the 5 barns. Total, flat refusal, stating that the barns were only able to be converted due to part Q, and that was not a fall back position ! Frankly the whole planning system is written very badly, and needs to be thrown away, and written in plain english. Councils are able to interpret as they please.  My own place is in the green belt. Managed to get permission to extend to 6 times the current size. I went back in for Two new houses, that would fit inside the One (permission obtained) Large house. Refused for overdevelopement in the green belt. Went to appeal, and refused with the comment "No need to look at it because the Green belt policy should not be over-ridden. However different planning officer, same council, passed exactly the same about a mile away from me. Planning is a minefield. You do have your Part Q which you will retain. If i was to look to go back in for permission, i would want somebody great to design something fab. I would try and then get the local councillor to call it in, and get it in front of the committee, rather than leaving it to the council planning officers.

I had very similar re planning officers, our first 3 apps were with one who, on digging, seems to hate class Q, then a couple of apps slipped through because the LPA didn't respond within 8 weeks, one in particular that I was really surprised about, so I think some of the class Q were passed over to another officer.

Then on our 4th app with the  different officer, she contacted me after 1 week saying that she would like a phase 1 contamination survey which I was able to get within 2 weeks, thanks to Covid and the company being quiet, then she approved 1 week after, so only 5 weeks in total rather than the usual 8 weeks.

Also, surprisingly with only 1 condition which was the phase 2 survey, which at 5k is quite a kick in the teeth, but we were happy not to have anything else.

A barn 1/2 mile from me was approved last year with 16 conditions.

I was particularly glad that PD rights were removed as we would really like an orangery on the side with the views.

 

Ironically, I really like our layout and we want single story due to health issues after a major accident, the only thing I would change is the max ridge height as it might be a bit oppressive at only 3m over a large open room.

 

I might ring the officer who approved and try and talk to her directly and ask what she thinks.

They were really quiet during Covid, but now are getting all the planning app backlog.

 

As a parish councillor and 'friend' of our local councillor I can easily get any app we make processed at committee so that might be a good idea.

 

I thought all the decisions would be about the build, not at this stage.

 

Link to comment

I was reading on the Savills site that you class q rights can act as a fall back position which may help if you want a new build

 

https://www.savills.com/blog/article/273146/residential-property/class-q-permitted-development-rights---where-are-we-now.aspx

 

CLASS Q AS A FALLBACK POSITION

It is established in case law that permitted development rights can legitimately represent a fallback position when considering alternative proposals for development at the same site. This was the case in one of our recent projects where, after having secured Prior Approval to convert a Dutch barn to a dwelling, planning permission was subsequently achieved for an alternative development involving the replacement of the Dutch barn with a larger and more valuable new build dwelling, creating an unencumbered ‘self-build’ plot in the countryside to present to the market.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, LSB said:

we are seriously considering this path, the VAT is not so bad as we only have to pay 5%

 

Which you can reclaim at the end as its a conversion.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...