Barn conversion under paragraph 80

[Somersetcider]

hi all 

 

just wondered if anyone had any experiences of planning under section 80 "the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and enhance its immediate setting"  we have barns 1&2 with a lean to that joins them together (pics and drawings attached). we would like to convert to a 2 bedroom house unfortunately we cant use class q as there isn't an existing agricultural access anymore as the neighboring site has been developed. so a new access needs to be formed and this will be over residential land (part of my parents garden goes over the front). Originally we wanted to demolish and put a new build there during pre planning even though the design was well received and the access isn't an issue the officer has said this wouldn't be supported by local and national planning policy as its classed as open countryside and we haven't got a fall back position. i think now i potentially wouldnt be able to get enough funds together to go the new build route so im looking to do a smaller single story build.

 

ive come up with 2 designs 1 which uses the buildings in entirety ideally i dont want to do this as the leanto and workshop are poorly built and would need significant works to bring up to required standard. 

 

the second is my preferred option and puts an new build element in place of the leanto that wouldnt be seen from the roadside and would be a more compact site with a smaller footprint but is a paragraph 80 application allowed to have a new build element? i would still be reusing the main barn which is a significant portion of the site.

elevations and floor plan.pdf floorplan and elevations with new build element.pdf

survey of existing site plan.pdf

survey of existing building.pdf

Edited January 9, 2023 by Somersetcider

[Somersetcider]

these are the plans for the new build that was being planned shows the access as well

 

2139-06B Prelim .pdf 2139-07A Prelim.pdf

Edited January 9, 2023 by Somersetcider

[Bozza]

Welcome.  Thank you for posting in a manner that can be understood.  I’m not going be able to help more than this, my own experience.  I’m convinced someone else will give you far better / relevant help than I but here goes.

 

My rural plot had a traditional 120 year old cottage on it.  Local council planning policy preferred that original building was retained and refurbished but I easily secured PP to demo and rebuild brand new house.  
 

I evidenced that the cottage was in poor state of repair and my new build eco friendly heat pump etc etc and what I was proposing to build was high quality, natural materials, same roof pitch,  retained the trees blardy blah.  One of my elevation left side timber clad (per profile pic) was directly on top existing building line this referencing the old cottage.   Is an option for you build something new that references the demolished building in some way whether that would help or not?  Not necessary rebuilding something entirely faux but more a nod to what was there ?   Sensitive to local vernacular and all that ?  Nice house design BTW.
 

As I make clear my circs are different but just highlighting there can be routes to success.  Has the planning officer made any suggestions to you.

Edited January 9, 2023 by Bozza

[IanR]

1 hour ago, Somersetcider said:

just wondered if anyone had any experiences of planning under section 80 "the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and enhance its immediate setting"  

 

Hi and Welcome,

 

I understood Para 80 to be an exception that allows for a new home in an isolated setting. I don't believe it can be used for a Change of Use. (Happy to be corrected if someone knows better)

 

My feeling is that your option is a standard planning app for Change of Use from Agricultural to C3 Residential.

 

1 hour ago, Somersetcider said:

unfortunately we cant use class q as there isn't an existing agricultural access anymore as the neighboring site has been developed. so a new access needs to be formed and this will be over residential land

 

That's not necessarily a restriction to Class Q, you'd only need to get an access up to the Residential Land, access across it could be handled separately, and wouldn't stop a Class Q Approval. What's more important is if the now redundant buildings were last used in Agriculture.

 

 

[Somersetcider]

thanks everyone for their replies this is the reply i got back following a pre app site visit for the new build, i have since gone back to him with the above designs just awaiting their reply.

 

Firstly apologies for the delay in responding to your enquiry. I have been looking back over the previous applications and subsequently discussed with senior officers given the complexity of the landownership etc.

 

It is noted that there is no ‘fall-back’ position following the refusal of the previous Class Q application, the approved Class Q has also now expired. I also note that the neighbouring property currently under construction which was permitted under the approved Class Q application has ‘landlocked’ the application site.  Therefore, without access over agricultural land the proposal represents a new dwelling in the open countryside which unfortunately would not be supported by local planning policies. However, you may wish to explore a full planning application under Para 80 of the NPPF, although this would only allow the ‘conversion of redundant and disused buildings’ in the countryside. This would also be subject to the Phospahte issue and would need to be resolved prior to having a legible fall-back which would allow the demolition and erection of a new dwelling as proposed here.

 

A new class Q application could be submitted utilising the neighbours access, as this would still be recognised as an agricultural access given that it was used this way in 2013. If you could secure access over the site and therefore a subsequent Class Q approval, you would have a solid ‘fall-back’ position and therefore the LPA would have no objection then to the demolition of the building and erection of a new dwelling and associated access through residential land. You may wish to revisit your ownership documents following the purchase of the land as this might show a right of access through the site?

 

As we discussed on site, the design of the proposed property in terms of design is attractive and considered acceptable, it would have little bearing on the enjoyment of neighbouring properties and the proposed access through the residential curtilage would raise no concerns on highways safety grounds; however, in terms of local and national planning policy if the application was to be submitted in its current form due to the rural nature of the site without an established fall-back I do not believe that this is something we would be able to support. You may wish to explore the possibility of converting the existing structure in to additional ancillary accommodation rather than a separate residential unit.

 

Alternatively, you may wish to proceed with an application regardless of this advice. Planning is a democratic process and any eventual application could be overturned by a planning committee should there be local support for the proposal, including from the local elected councillor.

 

I appreciate this is disappointing news. Should you have any further queries or wish to discuss other means of access to the site, such as via the neighbouring site please do contact me and I will endeavour to help.

 

RE class Q

 

Thats quite interesting with access originally we were thinking to be able to do something similar. potentially splitting up the application so my parents would put in for permission to put an access across their land as a householder application then maybe use that in conjunction with a class q. the buildings were last used in 2018 for agriculture and have stood empty since then theyve been in agricultural use from at least the 60s 

 

within the local plan (south somerset) they have this about rural housing 

 

POLICY SS2: DEVELOPMENT IN RURAL SETTLEMENTS Development in Rural Settlements (not Market Towns or Rural Centres) will be strictly controlled and limited to that which:  Provides employment opportunities appropriate to the scale of the settlement; and/or  Creates or enhances community facilities and services to serve the settlement; and/or  Meets identified housing need, particularly for affordable housing. Development will be permitted where it is commensurate with the scale and character of the settlement, provides for one or more of the types of development above, and increases the sustainability of a settlement in general. Proposals should be consistent with relevant community led plans, and should generally have the support of the local community following robust engagement and consultation. Proposals for housing development should only be permitted in Rural Settlements that have access to two or more key services listed at Paragraph 5.41.

[IanR]

2 hours ago, Somersetcider said:

It is noted that there is no ‘fall-back’ position following the refusal of the previous Class Q application, the approved Class Q has also now expired. I also note that the neighbouring property currently under construction which was permitted under the approved Class Q application has ‘landlocked’ the application site.  Therefore, without access over agricultural land the proposal represents a new dwelling in the open countryside which unfortunately would not be supported by local planning policies.

 

Without the planning history, it's difficult to decipher which application the planning officer is referring to. They state "refusal of the previous Class Q", but follow that with "the approved Class Q has also now expired"...

 

Could you post the reason for Refusal, and what was different to the Approved Class Q Application. 

 

"Land-locked" is not a reason for refusing a Class Q. My own Class Q was land-locked. You'd obviously need to resolve the access prior to actioning the conversion, and that may require further planning for a cross-over to the road, but you do not need to own the land between the Class Q property and the cross-over, you "just" require a right of access over the land, which is nothing to do with planning.

 

2 hours ago, Somersetcider said:

However, you may wish to explore a full planning application under Para 80 of the NPPF, although this would only allow the ‘conversion of redundant and disused buildings’ in the countryside.

 

While I know my "Class Q's", I have to admit I only have a passing interest in Para 80's, but, this line above makes no sense. The NPPF already calls out an exception to the restraint of development in the open countryside for the re-use of existing, redundant buildings, so Para 80 is not required for Change of Use.

 

There are no exceptions, Other than Para 80, for new builds in isolated positions, in open countryside and it is for these that Para 80 exists. But, the requirements to achieve a Para 80 are quite onerous. As well as it being an isolated site, the proposed design "must be of exceptional quality, in that it:
- is truly outstanding, reflecting the highest standards in architecture, and would help to raise standards of design more generally in rural areas; and
- would significantly enhance its immediate setting, and be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area"

 

While there are still hurdles to jump for a standard Change of Use application (in the open Countryside), it is less onerous than a Para 80.

 

You've posted:

2 hours ago, Somersetcider said:

POLICY SS2: DEVELOPMENT IN RURAL SETTLEMENTS Development in Rural Settlements (not Market Towns or Rural Centres) will be strictly controlled and limited to that which:  Provides employment opportunities appropriate to the scale of the settlement; and/or  Creates or enhances community facilities and services to serve the settlement; and/or  Meets identified housing need, particularly for affordable housing. Development will be permitted where it is commensurate with the scale and character of the settlement, provides for one or more of the types of development above, and increases the sustainability of a settlement in general. Proposals should be consistent with relevant community led plans, and should generally have the support of the local community following robust engagement and consultation. Proposals for housing development should only be permitted in Rural Settlements that have access to two or more key services listed at Paragraph 5.41.

 

"SETTLEMENTS" are different to "open countryside", and have different planning rules. Do you feel the site is within a defined settlement, or is it in open countryside. I'd assumed the latter as Para 80 was being mentioned.

Edited January 9, 2023 by IanR

[Somersetcider]

Thank you for the reply hadn’t considered that we could resolve access and then do a class q application we can’t use the neighbouring access we’ve tried to negotiate and they won’t budge at all. 

 

so the first class q application was this 

 

https://publicaccess.southsomerset.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?previousCaseType=Property&keyVal=PKR2Y9OW07W00&previousCaseNumber=HHG1NEOW9A000&previousCaseUprn=000030084211&activeTab=summary&previousKeyVal=QW6LVSOW0NP03

 

submitted prior to us buying the buildings we own barns 1&2 our neighbour owns the access and barns 3&4 and has now developed this (although this isn’t completed in planning even though it’s finished as they’ve built entirely different to their planning!) 

 

this was the refused class q a very much diy submission and we made a number of silly errors on this 

 

https://publicaccess.southsomerset.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?previousCaseType=Property&keyVal=QBGEJMOW0JY00&previousCaseNumber=HHG1NEOW9A000&previousCaseUprn=000030084211&activeTab=summary&previousKeyVal=QW6LVSOW0NP03

 

I missed that really we are classed as open countryside not within any settlement. 

from what I understood of para 80 it was one or more of the 4 mentioned the last is too much for us so is definitely not an option. 
 

thanks again for your help I’ve been in contact with a local planning consultant to see what they have to say as well and what the fees involved are 

 

 

 

[IanR]

On 11/01/2023 at 20:40, Somersetcider said:

I’ve been in contact with a local planning consultant to see what they have to say as well and what the fees involved are 

 

I feel you definitely need a Planning Consultant, with Local Class Q experience, to help you with a strategy.

 

The Refused Class Q, for Barn 1 only (and retaining the shed for use as a garage), I believe was only refused as you included the new entrance AND exceeded the permitted curtilage area on the application. Separating the permission for the entrance, and defining a curtilage not larger than the area of the barn being converted, should achieve an Approved Class Q.

 

With regards to the new entrance, I had a quick look on Street View, and it doesn't appear that the lane is a "classified" road, ie. it's not been assigned a number such as B1234. In that case Planning is not required for a new cross-over, although Highways Agency approval is.

From your OP, you are now hoping to achieve a larger conversion, than what was covered by the Refused Class Q, by incorporating the area of the lean-too and the shed. I'm not clear on whether the lean-to was part of the previous, Approved Class Q.

 

You may be able to include the lean-to and Shed in a new Class Q, but I'm concerned by your statement:

 

On 09/01/2023 at 19:28, Somersetcider said:

ideally i dont want to do this as the leanto and workshop are poorly built and would need significant works to bring up to required standard. 

 

This may stop them being part of a Class Q, as they would need to be structurally capable of conversion with reasonable works. Subjective, but an avenue for refusal if the LPA wishes. However, if they were part of the original Approved Class Q, then the LPA have already accepted they are structurally capable of conversion.

 

The other potential issue for including them in a Class Q, is whether the limit of two "large" conversions has already been met. Combing the 3 buildings into a single residential unit, pushes the conversion over the 100m² threshold, so the new residential unit would be a classed as a "large" home, of which only 2 large homes can be created within an Agricultural Unit and their cumulative area cannot exceed 450m². So, have 2 "large" homes been created under Class Q applications already, or is there room for another.

 

If it's agreed that the lean-too and shed are structurally capable of conversion and there's room on the PD for an additional large home, then that's probably the route to go, which then provides the fall back for all the buildings to be converted to residential. If this was to get Approved I'd then start talking to the LPA about a knock-down and rebuild for the scheme you want, or failing that a Full Planning for the Change of Use that should give you more freedom for a better quality conversion, while retaining the majority of the original primary structure.

Edited January 14, 2023 by IanR

[Somersetcider]

Thanks a lot for your reply. The original class q had the barn and workshop as a separate dwelling! Believe it or not the planners accepted a 1 bedroom conversion of the workshop! Within that it was agreed that the lean to element was to be demolished 

 

interesting about the driveway I can confirm it’s an unclassified road we had thought about doing it separately before but was told it’ll need full planning and so another ecology report etc. 

 

the big benefit of going class q route  I can see is that we won’t be subject to the phosphate issues as from my understanding permitted development is excluded from this? 
 

the lpa seemed perfectly happy with the proposed works to the main barn falling inside the scope of a conversion so that could be a route to explore to give a legitimate fall back position and then we can develop further

 

it seems to me that establishing the fall back position is the stumbling block in this case and once established as long as the design and scale is in keeping the lpa are perfectly accepting of a new build. 

[Somersetcider]

To add as well I believe there still is scope for another large home as the other 2 my neighbours owns were smaller sized the cumulative floor space has been merged and this has been developed into a large new build. Much larger than the agreed planning so I think they are trying to get it through retrospectively! 
 

I’ve added a photo gives a bit of a better overview of the site some of the garden in the picture is parents and is yet to be separated properly.