"Executing" the planning achieved...what window?

[harry_angel]

Hi all, we have an outbuilding that was approved to be rebuilt as a "Home Office and Gym".

 

We are genuinely going to be using it as such for a while, but the reality is that we will then in due course apply for a change of use Cert of Lawfulness under PD for it to be classed as a Granny Annexe.

 

I spoke to one planning consultant who said: "be careful that you actually execute the purpose the building was approved to be, before going for different planning opportunities". He said don't just try and swap it immediately for a granny annexe as they could argue you never used it as it was intended.

 

His recommendation was to gather tons of evidence of it in use as an office, lots of photos etc and then "in due course" put in the app for the Cert of Lawfulness.

 

I pressed him on how long "in due course" meant in reality and he slightly shrugged and said "6 months". But was very convincing.

 

But has anybody gone through this process? How tough - if at all - were the council on requesting evidence of the building's use as originally intended? How long is long enough? How much evidence is enough?

 

Thanks for any thoughts

[Jason L]

Is there a condition on the approval stating that is must only be used for a home office and gym,  if so it may mean that it does not have PD to change its use.

[harry_angel]

4 minutes ago, Jason L said:

Is there a condition on the approval stating that is must only be used for a home office and gym,  if so it may mean that it does not have PD to change its use.

 

I just checked and there isn't a specific (numbered) condition in there expressly specifying it be used ONLY in that manner, however the title of the whole application includes the phrase "to be used as a home gym and office..."

 

What do you think @Jason L?

[Jason L]

2 hours ago, harry_angel said:

 

I just checked and there isn't a specific (numbered) condition in there expressly specifying it be used ONLY in that manner, however the title of the whole application includes the phrase "to be used as a home gym and office..."

 

What do you think @Jason L?

So i would say its whatever you are allowed under PD then, you right that you first have to implement the approval,  but i don't know about timeline etc.

[harry_angel]

Ok thanks @Jason L, very helpful.

Edited December 18, 2020 by harry_angel
tagged user

[DevilDamo]

The provision of a self-contained unit is not allowed under PD even if it’s a change of use. The only way I see it working would be to claim lawful use (as a self contained unit) for a min. period of 4 years. This would need to be supported by substantial evidence and usually in the way of tenants’ agreements.

 

Assume you’re not within 400m of a SPA?

[harry_angel]

3 hours ago, DevilDamo said:

The provision of a self-contained unit is not allowed under PD even if it’s a change of use. The only way I see it working would be to claim lawful use (as a self contained unit) for a min. period of 4 years. This would need to be supported by substantial evidence and usually in the way of tenants’ agreements.

 

Assume you’re not within 400m of a SPA?

 

@DevilDamo cheers. Unless I've misconstrued your post however, this company seems to disagree with you:

 

"See there’s a quirk in planning law where building an annex requires planning permission, but the conversion of an existing outbuilding into an annex does not..."

 

https://resi.co.uk/advice/planning-permission/build-annex-no-planning-permission

 

As ever, everything in planning hinges on the robustness of both the attack and the defence.

 

If this company is right, I'm struggling slightly to see what "robust" defence the council could muster, particularly if the building isn't being enlarged in any way...

 

Can you clarify what you mean by a SPA?

[DevilDamo]

I always take information written by and uploaded to unofficial websites with a pinch of salt. Information provided across the internet is usually their own views as opposed to the actual regulations, unless of course the information can be backed up. Take another example where only this week, I came across two loft conversion ‘specialists’ websites that stated converting a loft to form a 3-storey property requires escape windows, which is incorrect. It used to be a rule but was taken out of the BR’s a long time ago.

 

Unless I’m interpreting it incorrectly, It appears the link you provided does have some conflicting information...

 

“See there’s a quirk in planning law where building an annex requires planning permission, but the conversion of an existing outbuilding into an annex does not.”

 

and then...

 

“You might find your property doesn’t qualify for permitted development rights, and there’s even a chance that your change of use might not be given the go ahead.”

As they state the conversion to an annexe does not require PP, then why would the change of use not go ahead, i.e. be refused? It’s either one or the other.

 

I still do not see how the creation of or a conversion to an annexe would be considered PD as the use class is not one as being accepted. When we’re talking about an annexe, I assume you are referring to a self contained unit as opposed to an open plan living/bedroom area with a W.C. and worktop area for a sink and microwave? Also note bathing facilities are not actually considered to be allowed via PD, which is why I mentioned a W.C. and not a shower room or bathroom.

 

Post Planning, be sure to check the BR’s as outbuildings are generally seen to be exempt. But if you’re going down the route of adding in drainage and providing sleeping accommodation, this would normally trigger requirements under the BR’s.

[DevilDamo]

And sorry, a SPA is a Special Protection Area. This would only become a ‘thing’ should you be going down the formal Planning route. I’m pretty sure it applies to any self-contained unit although there may be arguments that would exempt annexes from this and Planning would condition it as such.

[harry_angel]

Thanks @DevilDamo - I guess when the article says this:

 

“You might find your property doesn’t qualify for permitted development rights, and there’s even a chance that your change of use might not be given the go ahead.”

 

The former obviously refers to a property where the PD rights have been removed (not the case for us, we have them), which only leaves their second point about "a chance".

 

Which I guess is part of the nub of my Q - what lawful grounds could they give for objection? I suppose if an enlargement of the existing building were being proposed, that would be grounds for lawful objection, particularly in the green belt. But what else? 

 

Re your Q - a shower room on the ground floor was approved under the plans as it went through as a gym/office. And yes it is a self-contained unit separate from the dwelling house. 

 

Re BRs it's all being built and signed off at the levels of habitable accom (the BR inspector is aware of our long term hopes for the building).

 

Here's a perhaps stronger article on the subject > https://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1209098/conversion-garages-outbuildings-ancillary-residential-use-q---dcp-section-104

 

Although have to confess that having read that I'm none the wiser...all very very grey...

 

ps. and cheers, got it re SPA...

 

[DevilDamo]

LPA’s would consider whether or not proposals are considered to be inappropriate development within the Green Belt. The proposals would of course have to be reviewed against Planning policy and LPA’s do have different rules and regulations relating to the GB.

 

The shower room is interesting as some LPA’s take a different and stricter view. I’m also quite sure they’re not actually allowed via PD but would need to check that.

 

From a BR point of view, they would not be that concerned about the provision of an annexe as they’re just there to make sure the habitable space is BR compliant. There could be issues should Building Control speak to Planning, especially if you were going down the PD route.

 

I’ve had experience with one LPA that said absolutely no to an annexe, which was in that case an extension to the main dwelling. Their argument was that it ‘could’ be turned into and used as a self contained unit and they couldn’t control it as such. I begged to differ but they wouldn’t budge so we ended up withdrawing the application.

 

Another situation I came across with a different LPA granted approval for an annexe but asked the applicant to agree and enter into a legal agreement. This specifically stated the annexe can never be used, let or sold as an independent self contained unit.

 

I think it does boil down to the actual LPA.

Edited December 24, 2020 by DevilDamo

[Temp]

Google found..

 

https://kingwest.co.uk/guide-to-converting-outbuildings-into-living-spaces/

 

Quote

 

In 2008, the Government relaxed some aspects of local planning regulations, which means it is now possible to convert outbuildings into residential annexes without planning permission, so long as that building doesn’t become an independent residence in its own right.

This means you’re able to build a guest room, home office, greenhouse or children’s play area. However, if you intend to convert the building into a habitable space, it must be upgraded to meet building regulation requirements for ‘a material change of use’.

This will mean insulating the building structure and double-glazing windows and doors. If you’re looking to install plumbing, heating or electrics, these will all need to be fitted by qualified professionals to also comply with building regulations.

Bear in mind though, that this law can only apply to outbuildings that have been on the premises for at least four years, and have not previously been used as a residence.

 

Snip

 

If you’re looking to convert an outbuilding into an independent residence, i.e. a building with a functioning bathroom and kitchen, you will need to apply for planning permission. Once the conversion has been turned around, you will then be required to pay council tax, which must still be paid even if the building is unoccupied, although this will drop 50% once the property has been empty for over six months

 

 

 

 

Edited December 24, 2020 by Temp

[Temp]

.

On 18/12/2020 at 11:22, harry_angel said:

I spoke to one planning consultant who said: "be careful that you actually execute the purpose the building was approved to be, before going for different planning opportunities". He said don't just try and swap it immediately for a granny annexe as they could argue you never used it as it was intended.

 

His recommendation was to gather tons of evidence of it in use as an office, lots of photos etc and then "in due course" put in the app for the Cert of Lawfulness.

 

I pressed him on how long "in due course" meant in reality and he slightly shrugged and said "6 months".

 

 

http://planninglawblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/permitted-development-for-outbuildings.html

 

Provided the original purpose of the extra building was purely incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse, its later use as primary (but not separate) residential accommodation is not prevented. In order to demonstrate that the outbuilding had originally been erected for a strictly incidental purpose, I suggest that it would be necessary to show that it was actually used for that purpose when first built, and for some time thereafter. How long this period would have to be has never been settled, but I suggest that it would need to be for several months at the very least, if not a year or more.

 

You should also read the follow-ups in bold at the bottom of this page.

 

 

 

[harry_angel]

Cheers guys @DevilDamo and @Temp

 

I think of these 2 scenarios....

 

On 24/12/2020 at 17:40, DevilDamo said:

I’ve had experience with one LPA that said absolutely no to an annexe, which was in that case an extension to the main dwelling. Their argument was that it ‘could’ be turned into and used as a self contained unit and they couldn’t control it as such. I begged to differ but they wouldn’t budge so we ended up withdrawing the application.

 

Another situation I came across with a different LPA granted approval for an annexe but asked the applicant to agree and enter into a legal agreement. This specifically stated the annexe can never be used, let or sold as an independent self contained unit.

 

...the latter is much more likely in our case.

 

A number of neighbouring properties have outbuildings, our dwelling house is over 100m from any of them, and even this home office build is c. 20m from the sole detached residence nearby (and, like the dwelling house, 100m from any of the others). There are also no parking restrictions or limitations, so I'm struggling to see what argument bar "you might theoretically at some point in the future look to convert this to a dwelling and we want absolute control over that", an LPA could give.

 

And, on that note, how lawful even is that? "Theories of the future" sounds pretty loose to me, what actual law did the LPA cite in blocking that?

 

I think it's far more likely that they'd grant it in our case, but insist on an S106 (?) and try and future-block any conversion to a dwelling.

 

I guess ultimately so much loops back to the "openness of the green belt" argument, too. Will its openness be negatively affected were this a dwelling and not a home office or gym or granny annexe? Will the structures be the same size? What about parking and the impact on highways?

 

I'm not willing to sign said S106 so I suppose we'd then be in to a case of the 4-year rule...and building up enough evidence via a private rental.

 

 

[DevilDamo]

The creation of new dwellings have a far more rigorous Planning process than extensions or additions to provide certain uses, especially within the Green Belt. Only in situations where Very Special Circumstances can be provided will help get you there.