Class Q Permitted Development (Barn)...

[Highway Star]

Zeemax_Mini said:

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

I'm a planning consultant (was also LPA in the distant past) and I do advise on Class Q relatively frequently though most of my work is larger scale strategic sites.

From just looking at that photo, it is not in any way a shoo-in. There is a High Court case from last year (can't for the life of me remember it off the top of my head, will look it up), where a more refined view was given on the 'is it a conversion or rebuild?' question that dogs Class Q applications. I am now seeing LPAs use it more regularly on when refusing prior notifications as it has made it easier for them to do so, which in my view is the right thing to do. Some of buildings I see slated for Class Q 'conversion' really do try and take the p1ss quite frankly!

Edited by Highway Star on Tuesday 25th July 23:35

[Highway Star]

Equus said:

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"where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, [permission should be granted] unless: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cannot be demonstrated, then all policies relevant to housing in the Local Plan are automatically considered to be out-of-date.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development in open countryside that was being applied to a housing development, then that policy was considered to be out-of-date in relation to that application.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appeals that have narrowed this view, however, such that only very housing specific policies are now considered to be out of date, and anything else must be given weight.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.

And of course, if the application is in a Neighbourhood Area with a 'made' Neighbourhood Plan which allocates sites for housing, the LPA only needs to demonstrate only a 3 year supply for its housing policies (including those of the NP) to be 'up-to-date'...

[PositronicRay]

Equus said:

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.

Thanks, all good reasons NDPs be kept upto date.