Stable block conversion - planning requirements query

[Mike Wynn]

I'm considering converting my derelict stable block located in the Cotswold AONB (not listed). It is my understanding that as it is not classed as an agricultural building, plus some structural alterations may be required I cannot proceed through Class R conversion, therefore I would need to proceed with a full planning application.

 

May I have some advice as to whether by converting the stable it would effectively become a 'new' dwelling and therefore have to comply with the countless requirements for a new build, energy efficiency (possible solar PV, air-souce heat pump), attenuation tanks, electric vehicle charging, mini sewage treatment plant, BNG, etc. etc.? Or would I be able to avoid some of this?

 

[Russell griffiths]

It would be classed as a conversion not a new build. 
so building regs for conversion and vat rate for the same. 
 

if you apply to knock it down and replace it, then it will be a new dwelling. 
 

we used an excellent planning consultant in Cirencester, pm me if you want a number. 

[IanR]

42 minutes ago, Mike Wynn said:

It is my understanding that as it is not classed as an agricultural building, plus some structural alterations may be required I cannot proceed through Class R conversion, therefore I would need to proceed with a full planning application.

 

Correct. Class R Change of Use is not permitted if:
 

Quote

R.1  Development is not permitted by Class R if—

   (a)the building was not used solely for an agricultural use as part of an established agricultural unit—

      (i)on 3rd July 2012;

      (ii)in the case of a building which was in use before that date but was not in use on that date, when it was last in use, or

      (iii)in the case of a building which was brought into use after 3rd July 2012, for a period of at least 10 years before the date development under Class R begins;

   (b)the cumulative floor space of buildings which have changed use under Class R within an established agricultural unit exceeds 1,000 square metres;

   (c)the site is, or forms part of, a military explosives storage area;

   (d)the site is, or forms part of, a safety hazard area; or

   (e)the building is a listed building or a scheduled monument.

 

So, under R.1(a)(i) the building needs to have been used solely for Agriculture, as part of an Agricultural Unit (viable farm business) on 03.07.2012, or last used if it was not in use on that date.
 

42 minutes ago, Mike Wynn said:

May I have some advice as to whether by converting the stable it would effectively become a 'new' dwelling and therefore have to comply with the countless requirements for a new build, energy efficiency (possible solar PV, air-souce heat pump), attenuation tanks, electric vehicle charging, mini sewage treatment plant, BNG, etc. etc.? Or would I be able to avoid some of this?

 

You've used the term "Converting", so assuming the building is structurally capable of Conversion, then the performance requirements are lower than a new build, but there are still targets that need to be met. Some of what you list maybe covered by local policies that you need to research from your LPA, some are covered by Building Control and are National requirements.   I'd suggest a local Planning Consultant to help you work out what applies.

 

But, if the "derelict stable block" is not structurally capable of Conversion, then it becomes a New Build (knock down and build), for which there are less routes to a successful planning application, and New Build rules apply, as laid out by your local plan and Building Control.

 

btw, Class R doesn't cover Change of Use to Residential, you'd need use Class Q, for which your equestrian stable block is also unlikely to meet.

Edited February 19 by IanR

[saveasteading]

 Should know this but, doesn't it apply also to redundant social buildings eg churches and village halls.

[IanR]

16 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

 Should know this but, doesn't it apply also to redundant social buildings eg churches and village halls.

 

Don't they come under F1/F2 Uses? There's not a PD Class for Change of Use from F to anything other, so Planning would be required.

 

Classes Q and R are specifically for Agricultural buildings

[Tosh]

On 19/02/2025 at 11:19, Mike Wynn said:

May I have some advice as to whether by converting the stable it would effectively become a 'new' dwelling and therefore have to comply with the countless requirements for a new build, energy efficiency (possible solar PV, air-souce heat pump), attenuation tanks, electric vehicle charging, mini sewage treatment plant, BNG, etc. etc.? Or would I be able to avoid some of this?

Every LPA is different but our experience was the planner wanted to keep as much as possible of the old building whereas we wanted to remove as much as possible. Our LPA were dead against converting our building in the first place so our approach was to get full planning permission established albeit with a god awful design that retained just about everything we hated about the shed we were converting just to appease the planner. Once full planning was established we then went through a couple of S73's to refine the design to something more akin to what we wanted. Although S73 is effectively another full planning application its basis is on the principle that the dwelling already has planning approved for a conversion, it removed some of the conditions e.g. retain/repair the fibre cement roof and metal sheet cladding etc. We managed to get it back to just retaining the steel frame and the existing concrete slab to retain its conversion status. The slab is hidden and the steel is embedded into the walls so you can't see any of it at all, bonkers and a waste of everyone's time and my money. Your approach will no doubt be dictated by the officer and your LPA. There were a few benefits to conversion in terms of BR but we aimed to set the bar higher than that e.g. we used new build U values as a minimum.

[Mike Wynn]

Thank you all very much for your responses. I will certainly do some more investigation, it sounds as if I may not know fully until a question is raised through the pre-app service.

[saveasteading]

On 19/02/2025 at 12:19, Mike Wynn said:

would I be able to avoid some of this?

Is the intention to be a self contained dwelling or an annex? 

If the former then it is clearly a new dwelling.

If the latter then you would not need the works, by extending the current services, shared  access, etc.

 

Don't cheat the system by pretending the latter, as it is wrong, and you would be found out ag some awkward stage.

[Mike Wynn]

At this stage the intention would be to convert the building into a holiday let, however it would be self contained as it is a considerable distance from the main house. 

[saveasteading]

15 minutes ago, Mike Wynn said:

a holiday let

That solves access which would be s major planning issue. You might be able to extend water and elec too.

Could you pump sewage to your existing system rather than a new digester. 

[Mike Wynn]

I think water shouldn't be an issue and there is electricity to the stable already. Unfortunately, I don't think we could connect to the existing digester as it is a considerable rise and run to connect into it.

[saveasteading]

24 minutes ago, Mike Wynn said:

considerable rise and run to connect into it.

Pump. Even a saniflo can shift a fair distance or height. 20m or up 1m or so. 

Then there are dedicated pump chambers. Worth a look.

 

Anyway, for planning they need a feasible proposal. You can change methodology for the construction.