Randomiser

Being at a bit of a loose end this afternoon I have been bouncing around on the internet broadly looking at para 79 related items. It does seem a fascinating topic and I wonder if there will be an increase in the number of applications trying to utilise it. To answer one of my own earlier questions, it certainly seems that some local authorities and / or inspectors consider it sufficient to overcome issues of isolation, lack of public transport, etc.

Does Para 55/79 give provide a solution to all the problems of building in the countryside? The applications I have seen near us that are rejected (no mention of Para 55/79) usually upset the planners for a number of reasons including out of keeping, outside settlement boundaries. But they also usually come with objections from highways on grounds of there being no pavements for people to walk on, roads being unlit so not good for cycling and no access to bus services, etc. They then say this means there needs to be reliance on private cars and that is unsustainable. From the quote of Para 55/79 it seems to be about design rather than other practical reasons for rejection, or am I reading it wrong?

Thanks for this. If I can get the council to confirm there is no permitted development right to expand the use of the site I will definitely keep a record of what is on the site in case it changes. I have never heard of Google Streetview timetravel before, I will see if I can find it.

Thanks for this, extremely helpful. Can I just check I am understanding what you have said correctly? By granting the certificate of lawfulness the council has agreed that the land and very run down buildings are OK for B8 (storage and distribution) basically because there was no enforcement to stop that use in the required time period. However, the granting of the lawfulness certificate is not the same as having granted planning consent for the land and buildings for B8 use. Therefore, even though under B8 there are permitted development rights that allow an additional building (warehouse) as long as it abides by rules on size, height, location, etc. (https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200130/common_projects/55/warehouses_and_industrial_buildings), in this case they could not use those to expand the use of the site as they never received planning consent for it? Is that right? If it is I think it would be useful to get the local planners to confirm this, ideally in writing. If I go to speak to them, do you know what law I need to refer to that says a certificate of lawfulness doesn't give them permitted development rights? Again, many thanks for your help.

The lawfullness certificate is recent. It is exactly as you say, based on the site being used for that purpose for the last 10 years and no enforcement activity being taken. The officer specifically said in their report that storage can be long term and the fact that the site became overgrown does not change the fact that material and equipment were being stored there. I don't think there is much scope to fight the right to use the land for storage of building material and equipment, my concern is that the granting of this certificate confirms B8 status and therefore allows storage and distribution more generally. Any further thoughts much appreciated.

Not sure if anyone can help, but thought it worth a try. We continue to try and have the power company deal with the power line over our site, but now a new concern has arisen. Almost opposite is a piece of land that has always looked very overgrown and unused. I have now found out that the owners have received a certificate of lawfulness for the land and some old very decrepit buildings for use as storage for building materials and equipment, as apparently under all the brambles etc. there have been lurking various bits of building equipment. I have tried to look in to what this means but can't find out exactly from online enquiries so far. The certificate simply refers to storage of building materials and equipment and does not reference a use class. As far as I can make out storage of building materials falls under class B8, but the description for that class in the legislation is very succinct, it says: "Class B8. Storage or distribution Use for storage or as a distribution centre." Does anyone know if storage of building materials and equipment is designated as being B8 usage? If it is, even though the certificate does not refer to classification as B8 does this mean the land can now be lawfully used under class B8? The concern is that if the land is now classified as B8 the owner can use it for storage of pretty much anything and use the site as a "distribution centre". This could suddenly mean there is a huge increase in the amount of traffic and the size of vehicles using the road. Any insight much appreciated.

I found it, but you have to just use the 00926 number on the council website to find it. I agree that positive comments from hundreds of miles away are likely to have little impact. Even so, I had a quick look and it seems the planners have taken against your plans as they think you are trying to game the system. You have clearly put a lot of work in to the design and access statement and it looks very comprehensive, but I am not sure calling the planner unprofessional for making the point about gaming the system is going to help. Nonetheless I wish you luck and hope you will keep us updated on progress. Randomiser.

On clay don't you need to allow for expansion and contraction of the ground under the slab? So pile down to something solid, ring beam with something like Cellcore under it, the beam and block with space below for expansion. You could put a slab on Cellcore, but then it isn't really ground bearing. I am only a beginner on all this, but that is what my internet research has suggested to me about our site with clay and trees in close proximity.

Result! A benefit of local authority cuts I guess, nobody at the council has time to check anything ?

Did you ever get any trouble from the council about the lack of method statement? Randomiser.

Well, it has taken some time to get anyone from the DNO to speak to me and I have been given a jolly good run around, but finally today I managed to speak to somebody who sounds like they are going to engage. After two calls, with a break in the middle while the guy I was speaking to went off to speak to his senior I think the first round of the dance was done. The DNO guy said that the wayleave with the old owner would have terminated when the property was sold to me anyway and that they now have a "bare wayleave". I have searched on google for the term "bare wayleave" but as yet I have not found any reference to it, that may be down to my IT skills but I am also not sure it matters anyway*. The DNO guy has said that I have two choices, I can pay the cost of moving the equipment and it will be done "quickly" or I can serve notice on them to remove their equipment which has a twelve month lead time. I wonder if this is a standard part of their playbook as it was accompanied with a bit of "well I am sure you want to get on as soon as you can" patter. I pointed out that there has never been a Wayleave in place according to their own Wayleave Registry team. I also said that I have plenty of things that need to be organised and so a twelve month wait may not be any particular issue, especially as the planning consent is valid for a lot more than twelve more months. He came back with his second gambit, saying how much easier it will be for me to get a connection for the replacement house if the cable is accessible on my land. We then took a bit of time looking at the drawing for the rerouting at each end of the phone, I pointed out that the cable seems to serve a lot of their customers and that the engineer that carried out the design work said that if I would not have a relocated pole on my land the rerouting would become a lot more expensive as they would have to dig up a road to lay it under it. Of course at the time he told me that he did so to get me to agree to have the pole on my land, but it was rather useful to play this back to the guy I was talking to now. Having looked at the diagram he did not deny that other than having a pole on my land the only option was to put it under the road. So after I had demonstrated I was not going to cave in at the threat of a twelve month wait and shown I also had a bit of leverage myself, as it would be a lot cheaper for him to relocate it on my land than to have to dig up the road he reached for the next page in his negotiation manual - he would have to speak to "higher authority" to discuss this. I'm not sure if it was genuine or a play for time but apparently "higher authority" is on maternity leave and will not be back for a couple of weeks. But he did say he would copy me on the email he is going to send explaining the situation and asking for guidance. So I have at least managed to get an initial engagement and have broadly given him a couple of weeks to discuss it internally. My gut feel at this stage is having started off trying to be helpful I should not it drift too long now and if in a couple of weeks they do not come back minded to cover the cost I will probably serve notice for them to remove the equipment. But when I do that I will explain I am doing it just so that I have a 'backstop' in case we can't reach a sensible commercial agreement. Any thoughts much appreciated. Randomiser. * From what I have read it is right that a Wayleave terminates when a property is sold. This seems a little odd to me as it means that every time a property changes hands the DNO runs the risk of the new owner serving notice for them to remove their equipment. I would have thought they would want a bit more certainty than that.

Glad you got through, but surprised. I thought there had to be a surface suitable for a wheel chair from the parking to the door. Not sure how easy it would be to take a wheelchair over that unfinished drive jn front of the ramp. Did they raise that at all? Randomiser.

I agree with the above an outbuilding in area B is highly unlikely to be Permitted Development. But as you have an existing planning permission as long as what you are building is not too controversial in design terms it should be an easy application to get approved. If it is less than 15m2 or is less than 30m2 and 1m from the boundary you will not need to worry about building regs. You can go up to 30m2 within 1m but then get in to it having to be "constructed substantially of non-combustible materials". You say it will be 3.5m x 4.5m, ie over 15m2, but you also say it will be block and cladding so you may be OK within a meter anyway, depending on whether they get interested in the cladding aand what view the BC officer takes of "substantially". It is explained here https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200130/common_projects/43/outbuildings/2 Hope that helps.

I was thinking of going, but to be honest having looked at the list of exhibitors I am not sure it is worth the two hours each way in the car. There seem to be a lot of timber frame companies and I am probably going brick and block. Has anyone been, did they find it worthwhile? What did they see that made it worthwhile?

Russell I am sorry if my mentioning has resulted in your understandable frustration. Randomiser.

Andrew I am also looking at piling quotes at the moment. My best quote for 150mm steel case driven piles works out at about £400 per 6m deep pile, including set up cost and pre-augering the first 3m. That is close to twice your cost, so I wondered if you would mind sharing the size and depth of the piles that applies to. Thanks in advance, Randomiser.

Russell Was that £12,000 quote including formwork or just poured in trenches? I have just had a quote at £110 per lm, but that is just pouring into trenches with no formwork. Thanks in advance, Randomiser.

I think once the consent has expired the PD returns. B.1 Development is not permitted by Class B if... ... (c)the building is a specified building and the development is undertaken during the specified period, regardless of whether, in relation to the development, a prior approval event has occurred. I think that is what the reference to "specified period covers. Randomiser.

I'm not sure that is right in my case as the methods statement specifically requires hand digging of areas in the RPA. But I'd like to look in to it in case it helps. If you used a mole (which I never have) what happens when if hits a root, does it jut chop straight through it? Thanks in advance, Randomiser.

I think you are right, but in this case the demolition is not specifically conditioned as part of the consent, given the new house overlaps the footprint it is just seen by the planners as an integral part of the application. The legislation says: B.1 Development is not permitted by Class B if... ... (c)the building is a specified building and the development is undertaken during the specified period, regardless of whether, in relation to the development, a prior approval event has occurred. I read that to mean that as the building is included in an approved application it is "specified" and that the discharge of pre-commencement conditions are an "approval event". So the PD is taken away at the point of approval of the application, not once the pre commencement conditions are discharged. Randomiser.

The DNO has now come back to me and said that if they have to dig and backfill the trenches it will add £1400 to the quote. This is much, much less than I was expecting. This means the total quote for moving the pole and putting the cable underground is about £8,800 which I think is pretty good. I am hoping that this lower than anticipated estimate means the discussion with the DNO over them picking up the cost because there is no wayleave will be easier. The design engineer did say that if I do not agree to have the repositioned pole on my land the cost would be much higher as thet would have to dig across a road. Hopefully that will put pressure in them to agree to take the cost.

I have taken some advice on this from a planning consultant and I thought it may be worth sharing in case it helps others in future. Under the General Order 2015 on permitted development, Part 11 B1 (c) demolition which was permitted development but is included in a planning consent ceases to be permitted development. So once a consent including demolition is approved the right demolish withput consent is lost. I do not know why the law has been constructed this way, but that doesn't really matter as that is what it says. Randomiser.

I think in example A it is likely that water would be drawn in under the bottom of the cladding. I guess you can't seal it as you need to get airflow behind the cladding. Does the manufacturer not specify how it should be detailed? Randomiser.

OK, fair enough. But to be honest I think it is a bit of a risk putting pen to paper without knowing what the planning policies are that will determine what you can do with the site. Best of luck. Randomiser.

Danny68 Are you happy to share which local authority area it is in? If so it would be much easier for people to find the policies that apply and comment on them. Randomiser.