Class Q permitted development post May 24 changes.

[Leroy]

Hi all just after some advice/guidance on the class q permitted development. 

 

I’ll start with giving a back story to our situation. We have an 8.5 acre piece of land, this was kept by us after the sale of the house that was on this land around 20 years ago 3 acres were sold with the house. We have since rented our 8.5 acres out to a local farmer just for hay making and the odd grazing for sheep weather dependent after the summer cut. It has a very old cattle shed that was built around the 1940’s the original structure would have measured around 4m by 11m and been open fronted, this was reduced and turned it to a storage barn probably around the 80’s and now measures 4m by 8m and is fully enclosed with one 1.5 meter access door to the front. It has been used to store a compact tractor that is used to maintain the land. It is of timber construction internally with rusty black steel cladding on the outside. It doesn’t have a solid floor as such but has like an old cobbled stone floor which measures the full length of the original structure and an extra 6m to front. We have 2 accesses off of the highway at either end of the front of the field one is shared with the original house that was sold off and the other is a bridleway/footpath running down the side of the land. 

 

So I’m trying to establish whether this would qualify for class q. I had almost discounted the class q due to the size of the shed but since the rules have changed and can now extend I’m thinking this now maybe an option to us. 

 

The main questions would be the cobbled stone yard would this count as hard standing to be able to extend or would it have to have been solid concrete? This has been buried under a few inches of soil/grass for a very long time but has always been there. 

 

The timber construction internally is very old and can’t imagine this would be structurally sound or suitable for a dwelling so would we be able to renew existing timber frame internally like for like under class q to make this suitable for a dwelling?

 

I know since the rules have changed this year you can extend out up to 4 meters. I can’t really find anything on extending up so the shed is single storey probably 2 meters to the roof trusses. So even with the 4 meter extension it’s still going to be a very small property unless we could create a second storey. 

 

Probably the last thing is that we are around 2 miles away from a AONB. The village is split in half, half seems to be included in the AONB and the other half isn’t highlighted on the council website. If half the village is AONB does this mean the other half is automatically included even though it’s not highlighted on the map.

 

Any help/advice/guidance would be very much appreciated.

 

I think ultimately I will go down the planning advisor route and get some pre application advice and after looking at a few similar applications in the area they all seem to use the same company and have been successful on the applications. Just wanted to get a feel for the likelihood of this before I do.

 

Many Thanks.

[Susie]

We had a similar shed, an old bullock shed, mostly wooden one side tin clad and half height old concrete blocks, only dated from the 70’s though. 
we are also in a village and like you it’s split with us in the half not AONB, this was just noted in the application.

we got independent pre planning advice and discovered it could be argued we were within the village by drawing a straight line between existing nearby properties. We decided to go full plans, not part q, as the planners get to see the intended build rather than outline P. We kept the original size plus 1 metre, and single story so not too dissimilar to existing.  CIL only counts on the 1 metre extra so that’s only a few hundred pounds I think but could depend on county rules.
Is the bridleway a public right of way that could be problematic. 
can you get the services to the shed?

good luck, somebody we add to this there are a few on here who have more knowledge on part Q.
 

[Leroy]

Thanks for the response. What size was your shed? The bridleway is public right of way but around 80 meters from the existing shed the main entrance would be the one shared with the neighbouring property. I can’t see services being a problem. We have a water connection to an old trough right next to the shed. I think everything else should be fairly straight forward. It’s strange how there isn’t a dwelling there already to be honest as it’s on the main road going through the village with houses dotted along both sides of the road. Do you mind me asking why you didn’t go for the class q as a backup then apply for full planning as from what I’ve been reading that seems like the way to go. 

Edited May 23 by Leroy
Additional information

[Temp]

Different councils have different attitudes to class Q. Some seem very opposed, others seem to have no issue. 

 

If its just been used for agricultural use for 10 years it should be OK. But it must be "capable of being converted". Some councils want a structural survey that confirms that the amount of work doesn't take I into the realms of a knock down and rebuild.

 

I think I would get a locally based planning consultant to quote to do a site visit and comment on your chances and what he would recommend you do next. That might be a survey to convince the planners it's capable of being converted. If the survey isn't favourable you don't have to submit it, figure out what you need/can do to it while it's still a barn and if necessary get a new survey done to accompany the application.

 

I've heard some councils draw the line at underpinning. Eg if underpinning is necessary they won't grant it as a class Q. However I don't think there is anything to stop you underpinning while it's still an agricultural building.

 

Others are probably more knowledgeable about this than me. 

[Leroy]

Yeah I think you’re right I’m almost sure it wouldn’t do well with a structural survey but to be fair I could add additional timbers internally prior to a survey to make it structurally sound.

[IanR]

Hi Leroy, and welcome.

 

At some point in the building's history it needs to have been part of an established Agricultural Unit. It sounds like it was as you describe it as an old cattle shed. It's the Agri Unit that has the PD, rather than the building itself. Is the Agri Unit still running (minus the 8 acres and old cattle shed)? If it is you'll need to know if any other buildings within the Unit have already been converted under Class Q, and that the Unit hasn't benefitted from Class A(a) or Class B(a) of Part 6 permitted development within the last 10 years.

 

It sounds like any Agricultural Use of the building ceased some time ago. To qualify for Class Q a redundant building needs to have been last used for Agriculture (by an Agricultural business). I'd make sure it is cleared out and swept before sharing any info with the LPA, since if there is evidence of its last Use being non-Agricultural, your Class Q Application will go no further. Grass cutting is not an agricultural use, unless its bailed up and sold on or fed to your own stock animals as part of a wider business.

 

With regards the building itself, it has to be structurally capable of conversion. Contradicting that are the allowable building works that permit replacement external walls and roof. It's a case of providing a minimum amount of information in the Prior Notice application.

 

With regards to the new rules on the extension, there is no option to extend upwards, except the new 200mm you are permitted to add to the existing building envelope. The cobbled stones area you will have to test. These PD Classes are a straight legal interpretation of the legislation, there's no subjective nature to them as there is with a planning application. The legislation uses the term "hard surface", I don't believe there is a planning definition of "hard surface", so it's natural meaning would be used. If they wanted a concrete surface it would have been specified as such. I believe a cobble stone floor would meet the requirement of a "hard surface". It will be interesting to see how the LPA treat the Cobble Stone floor, the permitted building works do not include replacing floors (although some LPA's allow it), so would they expect you to build off the existing "hard surface", or as it's part of the extension, do they allow it to be all new. I suspect the latter.

Regarding the AONB, sounds like you are outside. It is an "area", rather than a village, so it's quite possible for a village to be half in and half out.

 

Edited to add:

 

An area you should check is the  Q1.  Development is not permitted by Class Q if—     ... clause (o)
 

Quote

The existing building, excluding any proposed extension under Class Q(b) but including any proposed building operations under Class Q(c), would not be capable of complying with the nationally described space standard issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government on 27th March 2015(3) as read with the notes dated 19th May 2016 which apply to it, or

The extension is excluded from the assessment that the converted property would meet the space standard. I've not personally looked into that one previously.

 

Legislation:

 

Edited May 23 by IanR

[Susie]

3 hours ago, Leroy said:

Thanks for the response. What size was your shed? The bridleway is public right of way but around 80 meters from the existing shed the main entrance would be the one shared with the neighbouring property. I can’t see services being a problem. We have a water connection to an old trough right next to the shed. I think everything else should be fairly straight forward. It’s strange how there isn’t a dwelling there already to be honest as it’s on the main road going through the village with houses dotted along both sides of the road. Do you mind me asking why you didn’t go for the class q as a backup then apply for full planning as from what I’ve been reading that seems like the way to go. 

Following the private pre planning we thought we had a good chance of the knock down as there wasn’t that much worth saving but we’re also in the fields of a listed building but outside it’s curtilage.  By going full plans the council would see all the detail of what we were wanting to do whilst it not effecting the listed property in any way if felt better to be clear with our intention and from a distance it won’t look much different in size and wood clad to how it was as a barn. 
As for your water we also had troughs in the field connected back to the main barn but you will still need a completely new connection from the mains. 
I can pm the planner details tomorrow he was based in St Austell I think, he also writes in one of the monthly magazines on home building. 

The barn was 7m x 18m we changed the 7m to 8m. 

can you extend onto any hard standing area rather than field that’s what we did so the field around can still be cut for haylage. 
 

 

[Leroy]

8 hours ago, IanR said:

Hi Leroy, and welcome.

 

At some point in the building's history it needs to have been part of an established Agricultural Unit. It sounds like it was as you describe it as an old cattle shed. It's the Agri Unit that has the PD, rather than the building itself. Is the Agri Unit still running (minus the 8 acres and old cattle shed)? If it is you'll need to know if any other buildings within the Unit have already been converted under Class Q, and that the Unit hasn't benefitted from Class A(a) or Class B(a) of Part 6 permitted development within the last 10 years.

So does this always belong to the original Agri unit even if half of it was sold? Or does this then turn into 2 agri units?

8 hours ago, IanR said:

 

It sounds like any Agricultural Use of the building ceased some time ago. To qualify for Class Q a redundant building needs to have been last used for Agriculture (by an Agricultural business). I'd make sure it is cleared out and swept before sharing any info with the LPA, since if there is evidence of its last Use being non-Agricultural, your Class Q Application will go no further. Grass cutting is not an agricultural use, unless its bailed up and sold on or fed to your own stock animals as part of a wider business.

Yeah I suppose the only thing it’s been used for since the 80’s is to store a tractor just to cut the bridleway and hedges etc. I’m assuming this wouldn’t be classed as agricultural use?

The way I understood this is that anyone can be using the land for agriculture as in we rent this out so the tenant who cuts the grass and bails it for his stock and then he uses it as grazing land for his stock as well but you’re suggesting we would personally have to be using it for our own agricultural business? (Which doesn’t exist)

8 hours ago, IanR said:

 

With regards the building itself, it has to be structurally capable of conversion. Contradicting that are the allowable building works that permit replacement external walls and roof. It's a case of providing a minimum amount of information in the Prior Notice application.

 

With regards to the new rules on the extension, there is no option to extend upwards, except the new 200mm you are permitted to add to the existing building envelope. The cobbled stones area you will have to test. These PD Classes are a straight legal interpretation of the legislation, there's no subjective nature to them as there is with a planning application. The legislation uses the term "hard surface", I don't believe there is a planning definition of "hard surface", so it's natural meaning would be used. If they wanted a concrete surface it would have been specified as such. I believe a cobble stone floor would meet the requirement of a "hard surface". It will be interesting to see how the LPA treat the Cobble Stone floor, the permitted building works do not include replacing floors (although some LPA's allow it), so would they expect you to build off the existing "hard surface", or as it's part of the extension, do they allow it to be all new. I suspect the latter.

Regarding the AONB, sounds like you are outside. It is an "area", rather than a village, so it's quite possible for a village to be half in and half out.

 

Edited to add:

 

An area you should check is the  Q1.  Development is not permitted by Class Q if—     ... clause (o)
 

The extension is excluded from the assessment that the converted property would meet the space standard. I've not personally looked into that one previously.

This is madness! So they don’t count the extension for national space standards like it doesn’t exist. So the existing structure how it is now would fail based on this alone.

8 hours ago, IanR said:

 

Legislation:

 

Many thanks for your time on this. This forum is great!

[Leroy]

7 hours ago, Susie said:

Following the private pre planning we thought we had a good chance of the knock down as there wasn’t that much worth saving but we’re also in the fields of a listed building but outside it’s curtilage.  By going full plans the council would see all the detail of what we were wanting to do whilst it not effecting the listed property in any way if felt better to be clear with our intention and from a distance it won’t look much different in size and wood clad to how it was as a barn. 
As for your water we also had troughs in the field connected back to the main barn but you will still need a completely new connection from the mains. 
I can pm the planner details tomorrow he was based in St Austell I think, he also writes in one of the monthly magazines on home building. 

The barn was 7m x 18m we changed the 7m to 8m. 

can you extend onto any hard standing area rather than field that’s what we did so the field around can still be cut for haylage. 
 

 

Yeah that makes sense. I do wonder whether we should just bite the bullet and go for full planning permission taking into account the original structure it would be quite a lot bigger but we could keep the appearance pretty similar. If we were to go down this route and it be refused would this scupper our chances of ever getting planning in the future? Was this something you were concerned about or did the private planning advice give you confidence?

 

Ah we love St. Austell! We’re around 150 miles from there though so thinking we would be better off speaking to someone local. Thanks though

[Dave Jones]

nothing stopping you making the usual repairs to the structure that coincidentally make it fully structurally sound at the same time adding some lean-to's increasing its footprint. 

 

All prior to planning, who's to say when any of that has been done 1 month or 10 years ago ? 

[Leroy]

45 minutes ago, Dave Jones said:

nothing stopping you making the usual repairs to the structure that coincidentally make it fully structurally sound at the same time adding some lean-to's increasing its footprint. 

 

All prior to planning, who's to say when any of that has been done 1 month or 10 years ago ? 

I was thinking this as the timber structure internally could quite easily be replaced and no one would know any different would still look the same from the outside. It does have a lean to on the rear of the shed that we did maybe 3-4 years ago this is about 2.5m by 4.5m . Although I have seen on some applications round here they use historical aerial footage of the externals of the building. Anyone know how you get hold of these? Assuming it’s not just google earth or something. Since about 2009 its always been fairly overgrown around the shed we have left it as the brambles and overgrowth seem to be keeping it up and shelter it from the wind a bit so I wonder if you can even see much of it from an aerial view. 

[IanR]

2 hours ago, Leroy said:

So does this always belong to the original Agri unit even if half of it was sold? Or does this then turn into 2 agri units?

"Agricultural Unit" has a specific planning definition:

 

Quote

“agricultural unit” means agricultural land which is occupied as a unit for the purposes of agriculture, including—
(a) any dwelling or other building on that land occupied for the purpose of farming the land by the person who occupies the unit, or

(b) any dwelling on that land occupied by a farmworker;

 

and, "agriculture" or "farming the land" terms when used in planning mean the commercial business of farming. Since Agricultural Use bestows certain development rights it's been much tested in the courts and case law now defines it as being a commercial business able to support a farm worker. It's not just farming-type activities.

 

So, if the 8 acres and cattle shed were split from the ownership of the original Agricultural Unit and continued with an Agricultural Use as part of a separate Agricultural business then yes, it would have turned into 2 Agricultural Units. But, if the 8 acres and cattle shed are no longer owned as part of an agricultural business then they are no longer part of an Agricultural Unit. If it didn't work in this way the 1000m² conversion limit would have a massive loop hole, ie. if a farmer wanted to convert more than 1000m² of farm building they'd just need to sell it off to someone else.

 

The building however doesn't need to still be part of an Agricultural Unit, but it must have been at some point in its history and must have been in Agricultural Use prior to 20th March 2013, otherwise there is a 10 year wait.

 

2 hours ago, Leroy said:

Yeah I suppose the only thing it’s been used for since the 80’s is to store a tractor just to cut the bridleway and hedges etc. I’m assuming this wouldn’t be classed as agricultural use?

 

This would come down to the LPA's interpretation of the building's Use. Since you are keeping items in there it's Use is continuing, but is it Agricultural Use or is it residential storage or industrial storage, the latter two no longer being an Agricultural Use. As an example, a building used by a farm contractor to store their farming equipment that they use to contract on other's Agricultural Units is not classed as being in agricultural use, but in an industrial use.

 

Difficult to judge how an LPA would interpret the use of your cattle shed, it would be better to clear it and have it considered to be now redundant with its last Use being Agricultural. If the only item stored in there is a tractor (not a ride on mower) that's been used to maintain the connected track and hedges then the LPA may accept that the shed still has an agricultural use.

 

2 hours ago, Leroy said:

The way I understood this is that anyone can be using the land for agriculture as in we rent this out so the tenant who cuts the grass and bails it for his stock and then he uses it as grazing land for his stock as well but you’re suggesting we would personally have to be using it for our own agricultural business? (Which doesn’t exist)

 

Yes, the land has continued with an Agricultural Use while leased to a farmer. At that point the land was being used as part of the farmer's Agricultural Unit. But, you've not mentioned the building being used by the tenant farmer, and it's the building's use that is considered here. 

 

26 minutes ago, Leroy said:

I was thinking this as the timber structure internally could quite easily be replaced and no one would know any different would still look the same from the outside. It does have a lean to on the rear of the shed that we did maybe 3-4 years ago this is about 2.5m by 4.5m .

 

Unfortunately this 2.5m x 4.5m lean too couldn't be considered as part of the Class Q. You'd first need to establish its "legality", ie. under what permission was it developed, then you'd have to wait 10 years after it began an agricultural use within an established agricultural unit.

Edited May 24 by IanR

[Leroy]

5 minutes ago, IanR said:

"Agricultural Unit" has a specific planning definition:

 

 

and, "agriculture" or "farming the land" terms when used in planning mean the commercial business of farming. Since Agricultural Use bestows certain development rights it's been much tested in the courts and case law now defines it as being a commercial business able to support a farm worker. It's not just farming-type activities.

 

So, if the 8 acres and cattle shed were split from the ownership of the original Agricultural Unit and continued with an Agricultural Use as part of a separate Agricultural business then yes, it would have turned into 2 Agricultural Units. But, if the 8 acres and cattle shed are no longer owned as part of an agricultural business then they are no longer part of an Agricultural Unit. If it didn't work in this way the 1000m² conversion limit would have a massive loop hole, ie. if a farmer wanted to convert more than 1000m² of farm building they'd just need to sell it off to someone else.

Ahh yes that makes total sense 

5 minutes ago, IanR said:

 

The building however doesn't need to still be part of an Agricultural Unit, but it must have been at some point in its history and must have been in Agricultural Use prior to 20th March 2013, otherwise there is a 10 year wait.

Well it was used as a cattle shed from the 40’s to about the 80’s as it was originally built for this purpose but I’m not sure how I would go about proving this?

5 minutes ago, IanR said:

 

 

This would come down to the LPA's interpretation of the building's Use. Since you are keeping items in there it's Use is continuing, but is it Agricultural Use or is it residential storage or industrial storage, the latter two no longer being an Agricultural Use. As an example, a building used by a farm contractor to store their farming equipment that they use to contract on other's Agricultural Units is not classed as being is agricultural use but in an industrial use.

 

Difficult to judge how an LPA would interpret the use of your cattle shed, it would be better to clear it and have it considered to be now redundant with its last Use being Agricultural. If the only item stored in there is a tractor (not a ride on mower) that's been used to maintain the connected track and hedges then the LPA may accept that the shed still has an agricultural use.

I see yeah that also makes sense so even if it’s used to store agricultural equipment it’s for storage and not agricultural use as such. So I’m definitely thinking I would need to clear it out and claim an abandoned shed that was used for agriculture 80 odd years ago.

5 minutes ago, IanR said:

 

 

Yes, the land has continued with an Agricultural Use while leased to a farmer. At that point the land was being used as part of the farmer's Agricultural Unit. But, you've not mentioned the building being used by the tenant farmer, and it's the building's use that is considered here.

This is a slight head scratcher so the PD applies to the agri unit but for conversion purposes they are only interested in the particular use of the building?

5 minutes ago, IanR said:

 

 

Unfortunately this 2.5m x 4.5m lean too couldn't be considered as part of the Class Q. You'd first need to establish its "legality", ie. under what permission was it developed, then you'd had to wait 10 years after it began an agricultural use within an established agricultural unit.

Yeah I thought this couldn’t be included which is why I didn’t mention it in the first place. 
 

What’s your thoughts on the current size of the shed I’m thinking it wouldn’t even meet national space standards for a one bed dwelling so the class q would be squashed straight away. If I could find some sort of proof that it used to be bigger would there be anyway of restoring it to its original size and put in for class Q then. I would assume then though this wouldn’t be classed as a abandoned shed due to recent works carried out. The only other issue with doing this all the hard standing at the rear would be gone as the floor of shed and the only hard standing left would be to front by the entrance door which is about 12m by 12m like a cobbled stone yard. 
 

Also how is it decided as to what the front and rear is, seems a silly question but if there was an access door both sides or even on all 4 sides what makes the front the front? 
 

Thanks again for all your advice! Super helpful and much quicker than going down any official channels.

[Leroy]

I’m even confusing my self as to what is the front and back. If you’re looking at it from the road it’s 4m wide and 8m long. The access door is on the left hand side along where the access gate off the road is and 12x12 cobbled stone yard. The lean to is on the right hand side and the other hardstanding goes about 4 meters from the 8m length of the building so possibly the back? Or if the front is defined as where the access is then it would be the side? 

Edited May 24 by Leroy

[IanR]

5 hours ago, Leroy said:

Well it was used as a cattle shed from the 40’s to about the 80’s as it was originally built for this purpose but I’m not sure how I would go about proving this?

 

You'll just need to state that's what it was as part of Such'n'such Farm, and as long as there's no evidence that contradicts your statement, it won't be challenged.

 

5 hours ago, Leroy said:

This is a slight head scratcher so the PD applies to the agri unit but for conversion purposes they are only interested in the particular use of the building?

That's the effect of how the legislation is written. The building must have been occupied for the purpose of agriculture, within an established Agricultural Unit, and it's the Agricultural Unit that has the 1000m² and 10 property limit.

 

5 hours ago, Leroy said:

What’s your thoughts on the current size of the shed I’m thinking it wouldn’t even meet national space standards for a one bed dwelling so the class q would be squashed straight away. 

 

Sorry, that's not an area I've looked at in any detail so can't help with how the rules are applied, but a google search brings this table

 

 

Ref. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/technical-housing-standards-nationally-described-space-standard/technical-housing-standards-nationally-described-space-standard

 

Which suggests the minimum area for a 1 bed single occupancy is 37m², if there is a shower rather than a bath.

 

5 hours ago, Leroy said:

If I could find some sort of proof that it used to be bigger would there be anyway of restoring it to its original size and put in for class Q then. 

 

To increase the size of the existing building would be development and from the info you've set out I'm not aware of any permitted rights that would allow you to increase the size without planning permission.

 

Class Q will only consider the building now present on the site and whether or not it meets the requirement. What was there previously has no bearing. With a full planning app it may help, a little.

 

5 hours ago, Leroy said:

Also how is it decided as to what the front and rear is, seems a silly question but if there was an access door both sides or even on all 4 sides what makes the front the front? 

 

Good question, and one I'm considering myself on my own site. It's obvious when a building is adjacent to a public road and the main entrance is on the side fronting the road, but less obvious if the building is in a field, approached by a farm track that is perpendicular to the public road, and the building entrance is neither on the track side or the public road side...

 

I believe the legislation is attempting to allow an extension that is the least harmful to the openness of the country side, so they've added some words that hopefully places the extension on the least visible (to general public) side of teh building. My guess is that this one will cause some Appeals, and when it finally goes to the High Court to appeal an appeal decision, then there will be some case law that gives a better definition.

 

For me personally, I'll be presenting my next Class Q in a way that maximises the extension option in the best manner for the development, and I will label the rear view of the barn as the one where I want the extension even though it has the main entrance. Typically farm yards are a square of concrete with buildings on 2 or 3 sides, with the buildings' main entrances off the square of concrete. The least visually impactful extension would be into the farm yard, but most would call that the front of the building. Hopefully there will be some other Class Q applications raising this same question before I submit my own so that I can be guided by how the LPA's interpret the new rules.

[Leroy]

1 hour ago, IanR said:

 

You'll just need to state that's what it was as part of Such'n'such Farm, and as long as there's no evidence that contradicts your statement, it won't be challenged.

Ok perfect so this is a box ticked.

1 hour ago, IanR said:

 

That's the effect of how the legislation is written. The building must have been occupied for the purpose of agriculture, within an established Agricultural Unit, and it's the Agricultural Unit that has the 1000m² and 10 property limit.

This is literally why solicitors exist! To translate legislations/deeds/covenants to plain English for normal people like me. Found this out when we bought our first house. The amount of times I heard “ohh that just means…”

1 hour ago, IanR said:

 

 

Sorry, that's not an area I've looked at in any detail so can't help with how the rules are applied, but a google search brings this table

 

 

Ref. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/technical-housing-standards-nationally-described-space-standard/technical-housing-standards-nationally-described-space-standard

 

Which suggests the minimum area for a 1 bed single occupancy is 37m², if there is a shower rather than a bath.

Yeah that’s what I had seen close but no cigar!

1 hour ago, IanR said:

 

 

To increase the size of the existing building would be development and from the info you've set out I'm not aware of any permitted rights that would allow you to increase the size without planning permission.

 

Class Q will only consider the building now present on the site and whether or not it meets the requirement. What was there previously has no bearing. With a full planning app it may help, a little.

 

 

Good question, and one I'm considering myself on my own site. It's obvious when a building is adjacent to a public road and the main entrance is on the side fronting the road, but less obvious if the building is in a field, approached by a farm track that is perpendicular to the public road, and the building entrance is neither on the track side or the public road side...

 

I believe the legislation is attempting to allow an extension that is the least harmful to the openness of the country side, so they've added some words that hopefully places the extension on the least visible (to general public) side of teh building. My guess is that this one will cause some Appeals, and when it finally goes to the High Court to appeal an appeal decision, then there will be some case law that gives a better definition.

 

For me personally, I'll be presenting my next Class Q in a way that maximises the extension option in the best manner for the development, and I will label the rear view of the barn as the one where I want the extension even though it has the main entrance. Typically farm yards are a square of concrete with buildings on 2 or 3 sides, with the buildings' main entrances off the square of concrete. The least visually impactful extension would be into the farm yard, but most would call that the front of the building. Hopefully there will be some other Class Q applications raising this same question before I submit my own so that I can be guided by how the LPA's interpret the new rules.

Yeah I think when you understand the reason why something is in the legislation it makes it bit easier to understand what is trying to be achieved. 
 

So initial thoughts after your advice are I think I have a reasonable chance up until the potential size issue and structural quality. 

 

So hypothetically speaking of course, if by chance the building happened to expand over night and the internal timbers were miraculously structurally sound I think this could be a goer. As long as nobody knows the miracle has happened.

 

Obviously prefect scenario but if this did get approved for Class Q this leaves me in another tricky situation with a building that would be realistically to small to live in with a family. By the way this isn’t something I’m doing to sell and make money the piece of land has been in the family for many many years and has big sentimental value and I’m hoping to utilise the land and secure the use for generations to come. 
 

Have you had much experience with putting a full application in after class Q was granted? 
 

I’m thinking it would look almost identical to original structure but maybe 3-4 times the size with a full planning app. The extension to the original structure would be along a hedge line so like you said earlier it would be the least intrusive and complimentary to the development as possible. 
 

From what I have been reading it can go one of 2 ways, either the attitude is a dwelling is going to be there does it really matter to anyone if it’s bigger… or Nah do one mate what you’re asking for is 3 times bigger than what you’ve got no chance! I suppose this probably depends on what mood the planners are in.

[IanR]

1 hour ago, Leroy said:

I’m thinking it would look almost identical to original structure but maybe 3-4 times the size with a full planning app. The extension to the original structure would be along a hedge line so like you said earlier it would be the least intrusive and complimentary to the development as possible. 

 

Is the site in open countryside? By that I mean not within the settlement boundary of a village. At 8 acres I'm assuming it is in Open Countryside.

 

If you obtained an approval for a Class Q development, then you have established the right to convert a home of the approved size and massing. This can be used as a fall-back for a full planning app, but you're unlikely to be able to push the size up by much, if you are in Open Countryside. You may be allowed to increase by the size that PD would allow if it were already a house, but unlikely to be any more. For single unit developments LPA's tend to treat Open Countryside in the same way Green Belt is treated, where any development is considered harmful to the openness of the countryside, so if Class Q has established the right to a house of a certain side, any further enlargement of it would likely be considered harmful, with few options to mitigate.

 

Without Class Q you are relying on the clauses of Paragraph 84 of the NPPF:

 

Quote

84. Planning policies and decisions should avoid the development of isolated homes in the countryside unless one or more of the following circumstances apply:
   a) there is an essential need for a rural worker, including those taking majority control of a farm business, to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside;
   b) the development would represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset or would be appropriate enabling development to secure the future of heritage assets;
   c) the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and enhance its immediate setting;
   d) the development would involve the subdivision of an existing residential building; or
   e) the design is 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.

 

From those, (c) and (e) are you options, and only (e) would allow a significant increase in size. However, you should do some reading on what are termed Para 84 homes (previously known as Para 80/Para 79/Para 55), it's a very expensive route to planning approval, with no garuntees.

[Leroy]

1 hour ago, IanR said:

 

Is the site in open countryside? By that I mean not within the settlement boundary of a village. At 8 acres I'm assuming it is in Open Countryside.

Yeah it would be open countryside probably 800 meters from the settlement boundary.

 

Would things be much easier if we were inside the boundary?

1 hour ago, IanR said:

 

If you obtained an approval for a Class Q development, then you have established the right to convert a home of the approved size and massing. This can be used as a fall-back for a full planning app, but you're unlikely to be able to push the size up by much, if you are in Open Countryside. You may be allowed to increase by the size that PD would allow if it were already a house, but unlikely to be any more. For single unit developments LPA's tend to treat Open Countryside in the same way Green Belt is treated, where any development is considered harmful to the openness of the countryside, so if Class Q has established the right to a house of a certain side, any further enlargement of it would likely be considered harmful, with few options to mitigate.

So this is positive I will look into PD for existing single storey dwellings.

 

Does a property in “open countryside” have the same PD rights as a normal residential house on a street.

 

I’m thinking I would have to increase size slightly on the full app to make it liveable with a family then look to maximise PD rights retrospectively. 
 

How far do you think you could push it could you put in 2 full apps getting slightly bigger each time with the previous one to fall back on or could they withdraw the previous granted permission? 

 

 

1 hour ago, IanR said:

 

Without Class Q you are relying on the clauses of Paragraph 84 of the NPPF:

 

 

From those, (c) and (e) are you options, and only (e) would allow a significant increase in size. However, you should do some reading on what are termed Para 84 homes (previously known as Para 80/Para 79/Para 55), it's a very expensive route to planning approval, with no garuntees.

Yeah did look at this but to be honest sounded super expensive! Also couldn’t find any good examples any where close.

[IanR]

14 hours ago, Leroy said:

Does a property in “open countryside” have the same PD rights as a normal residential house on a street.

 

Yes, no distinction is made between rural housing and urban housing within the PD rules for an occupied dwelling house.

 

14 hours ago, Leroy said:

I’m thinking I would have to increase size slightly on the full app to make it liveable with a family then look to maximise PD rights retrospectively. 

 

But, for all housing, the LPA can restrict PD rights when approving a permission. ie. If they feel any further development would be over-development, they can place a condition that removes any further PD Rights. For info, Class Q does this automatically, if you convert under Class Q, all PD Rights (other than green PD) are removed from the completed building. That doesn't mean you can never extend, just that you are required to put in a planning app to do so.

 

14 hours ago, Leroy said:

How far do you think you could push it could you put in 2 full apps getting slightly bigger each time with the previous one to fall back on or could they withdraw the previous granted permission? 

 

I don't believe that would achieve anything larger than a single application that sets out what you want and tries its best to justify your request. When you put in the second planning app the judgement will be based on the original building and will consider the  development that has already occurred.

[Leroy]

1 hour ago, IanR said:

 

Yes, no distinction is made between rural housing and urban housing within the PD rules for an occupied dwelling house.

Perfect good news.

1 hour ago, IanR said:

 

 

But, for all housing, the LPA can restrict PD rights when approving a permission. ie. If they feel any further development would be over-development, they can place a condition that removes any further PD Rights. For info, Class Q does this automatically, if you convert under Class Q, all PD Rights (other than green PD) are removed from the completed building. That doesn't mean you can never extend, just that you are required to put in a planning app to do so.

What’s Green PD? Is this quite likely do you think? All depends on the LPA I suppose I mean the houses that are either side of the field are fairly big and the one opposite is massive with a separate pool house and everything so I would be a bit put out if that was the case. 

1 hour ago, IanR said:

 

 

I don't believe that would achieve anything larger than a single application that sets out what you want and tries its best to justify your request. When you put in the second planning app the judgement will be based on the original building and will consider the  development that has already occurred.

Yeah that makes sense so they would compare any application to the original structure rather than a previous application. I suppose the thing to do would be to just build it as per the original full app and then if PD rights didn’t make it big enough to then put in another full app and hope for the best. In your experience if this was the case are you better of waiting say 5 years for another full app or if I was to go for it straight away would it make much difference?

 

Just been looking through PD rights they seem way over complicated as well! Have you had much experience with them? I’m just wondering if they’re is anything that I should be considering on the full app with regards to the curtailage of the property, I suppose it would just be make it big enough for future potential extensions?

[Leroy]

Sorry IanR you must be fed of me by now! Just another question on this if we were to apply for PP to extend the existing shed then apply for class Q I’m assuming this would then take it out of the category of being an abandoned agri building and make class Q impossible.

[IanR]

5 hours ago, Leroy said:

Sorry IanR you must be fed of me by now! Just another question on this if we were to apply for PP to extend the existing shed then apply for class Q I’m assuming this would then take it out of the category of being an abandoned agri building and make class Q impossible.

 

The newly extended area wouldn't qualify for Class Q Change of Use.

[Leroy]

Thanks so much for all your advice on this very much appreciated! 

[George]

Do a walk round with a structural engineer, they might have a few suggestions on repairs to carry out.

[kandgmitchell]

And always remember the Town and Country Planning Act Section 55 says:

 

The following operations or uses of land shall not be taken for the purposes of this Act to involve development of the land—

(a)the carrying out for the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of any building of works which—

(i)affect only the interior of the building, or

(ii)do not materially affect the external appearance of the building,

 

So internal works to strengthen/repair a barn would not be classed as "development" and if it's not development then the planners are not involved not matter what the building is used for.