Class Q Permitted Development (Barn)...

[Zeemax_Mini]

Hey guys,

I've found a barn for sale which I'm interested in, and which seems to meet the criteria for class Q permitted development approval to convert it into a house. It seems a real minefield though, so i'm wondering if there's anyone with knowledge of the regs that could point me in the right direction of working out how much of a gamble the place would be? I've spoken to the agent and they're not open to offers subject to planning which I guess might not be a good sign...?!

Picture below...the building was erected in 1999 so well before the cut off...it's been in agricultural use, although is bigger than the 450 m2 limit, but perhaps I could take down an end section to make it smaller than 450m2 before applying for the change of use?

https://symondsandsampson.reapitcloud.com/sasrps/p...

Thanks in advance!

Dom

[Equus]

You don't have to convert the whole lot.

But you're right, it's a minefield, and I'd say that you may have difficulty convincing them that the structure is suitable for conversion on that one. I've seen worse, mind you, but the onus would be on you (and your architect) to prove that the design is viable.

Contact me if you're serious - we have plenty of expertise in this sort of thing - but we're a business.

[Zeemax_Mini]

Thanks!

It's a difficult one isn't it - I don't want to start spending money on something that isn't likely to get permission (especially as it's not even my property and could be sold at any time), but I appreciate that I need someone who knows what they're talking about to look at it and that costs money. I guess the best case is to find someone to give some advice for free, on the agreement that they get the work if I'm successful at purchasing it.

Dom

[C Lee Farquar]

I would suggest Equus has given you as much free advice (of any value) as your likely to get anywhere.

I've done similar, it's a gamble. Sometimes it pays off and sometimes it doesn't. If it was cheap and easy the vendor would have done it and be asking more money.

Site looks fantastic, good luck!

If you fancy some bedtime reading have a look at Martin Goodall's planning law blog.

[cossy400]

That's not a barn looks more like a hay shed to me.


Good luck though if your that brave.

[cossy400]

That's not a barn looks more like a hay shed to me.


Good luck though if your that brave.

[Equus]

Zeemax_Mini said:

I guess the best case is to find someone to give some advice for free, on the agreement that they get the work if I'm successful at purchasing it.

I would strongly suggest that you don't purchase it unless it's subject to Planning (prior approval): from the photo provided, it looks a sufficiently long shot that you'd only sensibly do so if you have some other use for a dilapidated pole barn. If the Agent wants more than the value of a dilapidated barn (ie. bugger all), then tell them to pursue Part Q themselves and to come back when they've got the piece of paper in their sweaty little hands. I come across these chancers all the time: usually asking more than the land is worth in the first place, but then with the cheek of imposing a bloody great uplift clause as well, if you do manage to battle it through.

As C Lee Farquar says, you're unlikely to find anyone willing to get into giving detailed advice on a speculative basis: anyone with enough knowledge and experience to provide advice of any value isn't desperate for work at the moment: certainly not to the degree that they'd waste time and money on your behalf on a project that you might decide to make an offer on if their advice is favourable.

One additional free bit of advice: in addition to someone who knows their way around Part Q, you will need a Structural Engineer's report at the Planning stage to convince the Planners that the structure is suitable for conversion. Add an ecology report to that, and you've already got three specialists to pay (four if you use a separate Architect and Planning Consultant; we're combined) before you even get to a Planning Application.

Old Injun saying: Talk is cheap; takes money to buy whiskey.

Edited by Equus on Monday 24th July 21:06

[TA14]

Equus said:

you will need a Structural Engineer's report at the Planning stage to convince the Planners that the structure is suitable for conversion.

That's going to involve creative writing.

[Equus]

TA14 said:

That's going to involve creative writing.

Yup.

There is at least one trick that you can get away with with some authorities on this type of structure, but it's far from foolproof and I'm certainly not going to give it away on here!

Definitely looks to be a longshot, though, and I'm willing to bet they're asking above market value for it as an agricultural building and there will be an uplift clause.... they're living in the hope of finding one of the ones that is born every minute, at a guess.

[Eddieslofart]

cossy400 said:

That's not a barn looks more like a hay shed to me.


Good luck though if your that brave.

Agreed.

[Equus]

I've just looked up the EA's details. It's a timber portal frame structure, with no apparent gable wind bracing that I can see (open ended gables, so maybe doesn't need any in its current form), which would make things even more interesting.

To be fair, the asking price is pretty much at agricultural value for pasture land (7.1 acres @ £125K), so the only thing to be wary of is an uplift clause.

It's a stone's throw from where our Planning Director lives, though, if you're still feeling like a gamble, OP.

[C Lee Farquar]

A neighbour recently got consent, on appeal, for three dwellings in three derelict Nissen huts, with costs against the Council.

Elsewhere, barns that seem to tick all the boxes are being refused.

As a layman it seems that a robust approach from expensive, competent advisers stands the most chance of success. Councils don't want to go to appeal.

[Escort3500]

C Lee Farquar said:

A neighbour recently got consent, on appeal, for three dwellings in three derelict Nissen huts, with costs against the Council.

Elsewhere, barns that seem to tick all the boxes are being refused.

As a layman it seems that a robust approach from expensive, competent advisers stands the most chance of success. Councils don't want to go to appeal.

Agree about the need for instructing professional adviser/s to take on a case like this.

Don't agree that "Councils don't want to go to appeal". The number of appeals, including prior approval cases, says otherwise.

[PositronicRay]

On this subject where there is a neighbourhood development plan. How likely is it to be ignored if a developer comes up with an alternative proposal?

[Zeemax_Mini]

Wow thanks all, didn't expect this many replies when I logged in this morning! Equus - I'll drop you a PM.

Cheers

Dom

[roadie]

I'm a planning officer with some experience in Class Q and defending refusals at appeal.

Although Class Q appears on the face of it to be straightforward, it is not!

[Escort3500]

roadie said:

I'm a planning officer with some experience in Class Q and defending refusals at appeal.

Although Class Q appears on the face of it to be straightforward, it is not!

Agree. The whole b****y prior approval process is

[Zeemax_Mini]

roadie said:

I'm a planning officer with some experience in Class Q and defending refusals at appeal.

Although Class Q appears on the face of it to be straightforward, it is not!

Thanks for the reply - that's definitely the impression I've got too! From looking at it what's your initial impression....interesting/possible or bargepole?!

Cheers,
Dom

[Equus]

Escort3500 said:

Don't agree that "Councils don't want to go to appeal". The number of appeals, including prior approval cases, says otherwise.

This is true... LPA's actually have 'targets' for the number of appeals they expect (and expect to lose a percentage) and it rings alarm bells if they don't come somewhere close to these targets in either direction.

Each Planning Authority, and the Planning system as a whole, is about achieving the best balance of impacts vs. benefits from development.

If you think about it, any authority that is not ending up at appeal on a percentage of its applications (and losing a percentage of those appeals) is clearly biased too far in favour of development. There are always going to be cases that are grey areas, so any authority that is either not receiving appeals against it, or is winning every single appeal, is obviously only refusing the most blatantly inappropriate of development and is letting stuff through that perhaps it really shouldn't.

Development Control Managers should be monitoring their department's performance on an ongoing basis, to ensure that they are operating at the right level: but the right level is NOT no appeals or a 100% success rate for the Authority.

[Equus]

PositronicRay said:

On this subject where there is a neighbourhood development plan. How likely is it to be ignored if a developer comes up with an alternative proposal?

That's a complicated question (or rather it has a complicated answer!).

At Officer level, if the Local Plan is up to date then the Officer's recommendation should be in line with it, simple as that.

If it gets to Committee, then Members can choose to go against the Plan... it is impossible to say how likely this is, though - it will depend on the precise circumstances.

To quote from the NPPF, however:

"where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, [permission should be granted] unless:

• any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or
• specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted."

The current rule is that where adequate 5 year land supply for housing cannot be demonstrated, then all policies relevant to housing in the Local Plan are automatically considered to be out-of-date. Until recently, a very broad view was taken of what made a policy 'relevant to housing'; so, for example, if there was a policy against development in open countryside that was being applied to a housing development, then that policy was considered to be out-of-date in relation to that application. There have been recent appeals that have narrowed this view, however, such that only very housing specific policies are now considered to be out of date, and anything else must be given weight. There has been a tendency to send more applications to Committee, where this has resulted in grey areas... the DCM's have quite rightly decided that they don't want their Officers making these judgements, so they pass the buck to the elected members.