Tom Posted June 14, 2020 Share Posted June 14, 2020 Got the very welcome news this week that we have been granted full planning permission on our Part Q barn - so we'll be able to demolish/rebuild rather than "convert" and have to deal with all the faff that that entails. Had a zoom meeting with the architect a few days ago so it seems like the wheels are very (very) slightly beginning to turn on this jugganaut. Looking forward to putting some of the last 2+ years of reading on this site in to actual practice! First decision to make: what level of involvement am I planning? This will dictate to what degree of detail the architect produced the drawings. I'm thinking main contractor to water-tight stage, and then I'll sub-contract myself the rest of it. Planning an ICF build with insulated slab/raft. Any pitfalls with this approach? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterW Posted June 14, 2020 Share Posted June 14, 2020 Congratulations ...!! Your wind and watertight approach is similar to a lot of people - just make sure any mortgage drawdowns cover getting the main contracted stuff done so you are not slowing down your own cash flow later on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oz07 Posted June 14, 2020 Share Posted June 14, 2020 How did you manage the planning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Posted June 14, 2020 Author Share Posted June 14, 2020 2 hours ago, Oz07 said: How did you manage the planning What do you mean? More than happy to go through specifics if that is what you're after Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Temp Posted June 14, 2020 Share Posted June 14, 2020 If its a timber barn it might it have value to someone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oz07 Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 Just getting it changed from class q to full. Any tips? Might be interesting for future reference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Posted June 15, 2020 Author Share Posted June 15, 2020 It was pretty straight forward actually. The hard bit was getting the Part Q change of use to start with, but once you have changed the use to residential you are essentially applying for a replacement dwelling, which seems to be looked on relatively favourably. There is a Court of Appeal precedent (Mansell v Tonbridge and Malling BC [2017] EWCA Civ 1314) which essentially allows for the Part Q permission to be used as a fallback i.e you don't have actually had to have done the building work to convert to a house before wanting to replace, just having the option is enough. With this clear precedent, it seems the planners are concerned with whether the replacement dwelling is an "improvement" over the original Part Q conversion - and this is relatively easy to argue: fabric-first approach, improved air-tightness and insulation, sustainability etc etc We were not asking for anything radically different (in appearance) to what we could have done under the Part Q, but it will allow us to use ICF etc and will (hopefully) solve a lot of headaches. There are examples near us of quite radically different schemes that were given full planning though, so anything is theoretically possible, within limits. If any one is planning to go down the same route as us more than happy to help further if I can! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oz07 Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 Were you in a conservation area? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Posted June 15, 2020 Author Share Posted June 15, 2020 No, open countryside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamSmith Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 Hi Tom, where about in the UK are you? We're just about to start a similar planning process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Posted June 15, 2020 Author Share Posted June 15, 2020 Hi Sam - we're in south Devon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamSmith Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 Ok, we're in the Midlands and just off to meet our architect for the first time to have a chat about applying for full PP on a class q approved barn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Posted June 15, 2020 Author Share Posted June 15, 2020 Good luck! Have a look on the planning portal and find similar successful applications near you, then follow their lead. I wrote the D+A statement myself and did all the paperwork - took a few hours total and was very simple TBH. We'd employed a planning consultant for the part Q originally and was amazed at how little work they actually did, so was keen to go it alone. Cheaper too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randomiser Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 1 hour ago, Tom said: It was pretty straight forward actually. The hard bit was getting the Part Q change of use to start with, but once you have changed the use to residential you are essentially applying for a replacement dwelling, which seems to be looked on relatively favourably. There is a Court of Appeal precedent (Mansell v Tonbridge and Malling BC [2017] EWCA Civ 1314) which essentially allows for the Part Q permission to be used as a fallback i.e you don't have actually had to have done the building work to convert to a house before wanting to replace, just having the option is enough. With this clear precedent, it seems the planners are concerned with whether the replacement dwelling is an "improvement" over the original Part Q conversion - and this is relatively easy to argue: fabric-first approach, improved air-tightness and insulation, sustainability etc etc We were not asking for anything radically different (in appearance) to what we could have done under the Part Q, but it will allow us to use ICF etc and will (hopefully) solve a lot of headaches. There are examples near us of quite radically different schemes that were given full planning though, so anything is theoretically possible, within limits. If any one is planning to go down the same route as us more than happy to help further if I can! Worth noting that Mansell looks to be a really useful case more generally than just Part Q. The concept of a fall-back it references is applicable to any PD if my understanding is correct. I have a friend who is referencing it in his efforts to extend a cottage in the countryside, he is referencing the option of an 8m rear extension as the fall-back. Having spoken to him at length about it recently it seems Mansell is really helpful as it says something like ‘its doesn’t have to be certain the fall-back will be built if consent is denied, just possible’. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kxi Posted June 15, 2020 Share Posted June 15, 2020 (edited) Congratulations, sounds like you have an enlightened planning department. Hopefully more decisions like this in future. Our experience (Berkshire, Green Belt) was quite different. Class Q PD was reletively easy to obtain - did we tick the boxes? Yes. Ok you have Class Q. After that, we applied for full planning permission to modify the building shape, mainly to make it easier to build, better use of space, more attractive, etc. In the full planning proposal, the overall volume of the development was reduced compared to the class Q version, though the building was higher on one side than previously (and another side was lower). Parish council supported the proposal saying the full planning version was 'better' than the class Q PD version. However, after an agonising full planning process it was rejected. In essence because they could i.e. they did not want a dwelling there at all, and did not have to give it to us (unlike class Q PD) and so didn't. The rationale given was basically 'we don't want a house here because someone there might use a car' (true story). We decided not to appeal and instead made non-material amendments to the original class Q. Mainly didn't appeal because of the theoretical risk it might end up revoking the original class Q. Our rejection report did not consider the granted Class Q PD as a material consideration in the full planning, and so was deficient in that regard, and could have been grounds for appeal (as per the Mansell precendent). However, even with the PD as a material consideration, the subjective judgement whether the full planning design is 'better' than the Class Q design still rests with the planning department - who clearly were not going to go that way in our case. In the Mansell judgement, the planners DID think the full planning scheme was better than the Class Q PD version, and the appeal did not seek to question the planning officer's judgement on this aspect, it was just to see whether the planners were correct in considering the Class Q as a material consideration. In case anyone is interested, more detail on the Mansell judgement: http://planninglawblog.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/can-pd-rights-represent-fall-back.html http://www.buckles-law.co.uk/site/library/planning-news/when-is-a-fallback-position-a-material-planning-consideration https://andrewlainton.files.wordpress.com/2017/09/ac0155825cacivdiv5107.pdf https://www.tozers.co.uk/court-appeal-clarifies-extent-permitted-development-rights-agricultural-buildings/ http://www.acorus.co.uk/news/detail/national-advert-class-q In our experience, the local planning department did not care at all about sustainability, other than in the reduction in car usage. E.g. the energy efficiency of the construction method was totally irrelevant. I remember Sensus - architect & planning consultant late of this parish also had similar experieince. Edited June 15, 2020 by kxi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamSmith Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 19 hours ago, Tom said: Good luck! Have a look on the planning portal and find similar successful applications near you, then follow their lead. I wrote the D+A statement myself and did all the paperwork - took a few hours total and was very simple TBH. We'd employed a planning consultant for the part Q originally and was amazed at how little work they actually did, so was keen to go it alone. Cheaper too! Thanks. I've opted to commission the architect to do all the work, not the cheapest option but I definitely don't trust myself to get it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oz07 Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 Is it not that the definition of sustainability is different for planners and builders. Builders think construction terms, planners think of village/schools/employment? What happened to @Sensus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Posted June 16, 2020 Author Share Posted June 16, 2020 15 minutes ago, Oz07 said: What happened to @Sensus I was wondering the same. I was looking at a thread the other day and looked like a load of his posts had been removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oz07 Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 He had some good knowledge, shame Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferdinand Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 On 16/06/2020 at 10:01, Tom said: I was wondering the same. I was looking at a thread the other day and looked like a load of his posts had been removed. He moved on some time ago - I don't know any ins and outs - and deleted his posts first I think. Regrettable as you say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now