Planning Permission
Discussion
Does anyone on PH specialise in this?
I own an 8 acre plot outside the building line of my village. 10 yrs ago permission was granted for a 10 stable block but residential accommodation was refused.
If you specialise in this type of case please drop me a mail - any opinions/advice welcome. Just wanting to see if it's worth pursuing residential planning permission again or not.
Thank you
P.s - The District Council are fccukers
I own an 8 acre plot outside the building line of my village. 10 yrs ago permission was granted for a 10 stable block but residential accommodation was refused.
If you specialise in this type of case please drop me a mail - any opinions/advice welcome. Just wanting to see if it's worth pursuing residential planning permission again or not.
Thank you
P.s - The District Council are fccukers
Planning permission can be got but you will need various things for this to go through.
Building lines for Villages are completely meaningless, they are only there to stop the opertunist developer.
If you are serious about living there then rules can be bent.
secondly if the building line for the village would have been adhere to then the stable block would not have been given permission 10 years ago.
I have carried out some private consultacy work for a few clients in the lake district and managed to get them planning permision within the national park boundary.. I am a Transport Planner by profession which involves residential development and comercial developmetns.. So do know most of the rules around planning permission.
Steve
Building lines for Villages are completely meaningless, they are only there to stop the opertunist developer.
If you are serious about living there then rules can be bent.
secondly if the building line for the village would have been adhere to then the stable block would not have been given permission 10 years ago.
I have carried out some private consultacy work for a few clients in the lake district and managed to get them planning permision within the national park boundary.. I am a Transport Planner by profession which involves residential development and comercial developmetns.. So do know most of the rules around planning permission.
Steve
stevieb said:
Building lines for Villages are completely meaningless.
Bollox
stevieb said:
If you are serious about living there then rules can be bent.
If you can make a good case that the settlement boundary has been incorrectly drawn and that the land in fact falls within the 'natural' limits of development for the village, then you may stand a chance, but don't expect it to be a quick or simple process.
If you are intending a single dwelling, for your own occupancy in connection with an agricultural holding (ie a farm house!), then you stand a fairly good chance of gaining permission regardless of location in relation to the settlement boundaries, but be aware that the Planning Approval is likely to carry a conditon that the house can only be used for a farmworker in connection with the agricultural holding to which it is attached.
stevieb said:
secondly if the building line for the village would have been adhere to then the stable block would not have been given permission 10 years ago.
More bollox. Stable blocks are classed as agricultural buildings, therefore construction of a stable block in green belt is a very different issue to residential development. I've done stable blocks in the middle of nowhere in greenbelt in the Yorkshire Dales National Park with no resistance whatsoever.If I'd have submitted an application for residential development in the same location, the Planner would have probably died laughing...
stevieb said:
I have carried out some private consultacy work for a few clients in the lake district and managed to get them planning permision within the national park boundary.
Development in a National Park is a different issue altogether. Certainly, National Parks can be tricky, but they have areas of settlement within them that can be developed like anywhere else, provided the development is of an appropriate nature.
stevieb said:
I am a Transport Planner by profession...
Since when have Transport Planners got involved with detail planning applications on residential development, Steve? We use them as consultants for a very limited part of the process (transport infrastructure and sustainability, obviously), but I don't know many who have a good overview of the Planning process as a whole.
Get yourself a decent Planning Consultant with local knowledge and contacts to advise you initially.
Edited by Sam_68 on Thursday 24th August 07:11
I must agree with sam_68 the comments of stevie b do in fact equate to bollox. As a property developer I do wish Stevies comments were in fact correct, Building lines are there for a reason to stop money grabbing b@stards like me.
Agricultural occupancy restrictions can be lifted but its not easy, and can be expensive. If you are outside the building line then planning for residential development will be rejected. You do however have the option of submitting planning for commercial / residential premisis in connection with an exsisting on site business activity ie agriculture / livery etc.
Agricultural occupancy restrictions can be lifted but its not easy, and can be expensive. If you are outside the building line then planning for residential development will be rejected. You do however have the option of submitting planning for commercial / residential premisis in connection with an exsisting on site business activity ie agriculture / livery etc.
Edited by jamesuk28 on Wednesday 23 August 21:23
jamesuk28 said:
You do however have the option of submitting planning for commercial / residential premisis in connection with an exsisting on site business activity ie agriculture / livery etc.
...though these are likely to attract the same sort of Planning Condition as for Agricultural Worker's Housing, ie. that the dwelling can only be occupied in connection with the business to which it is attached.
As James says, these conditions can be subsequently varied or lifted, but it is not a straightforward process and, obviously, if they are imposed they will have a huge impact on the market value of the property.
i recently enquired about a plot of land that is within an area of outstanding beauty and the plot has rights for an agricultural building.
however, i spoke to the district planner and he told me to still submit my plans as i may get lucky?!!?
how could this be the case? it sits well within the declared area so could not 'just' fall outside.
however, i spoke to the district planner and he told me to still submit my plans as i may get lucky?!!?
how could this be the case? it sits well within the declared area so could not 'just' fall outside.
burba said:
however, i spoke to the district planner and he told me to still submit my plans as i may get lucky?!!?
how could this be the case?
how could this be the case?
Maybe he is just wanting to boost his targets.
Planning Departments have targets for determination times on applications. Something nice and easy that they can turn down flat immediately looks good on the statistics: a determination period of 3 minutes on an application doesn't half improve your averages.
Seriously, though, would need to know a lot more about the site and the nature of the application to understand why he made such a recommendation.
Greenbelt, National Parks, 'Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty' etc. do not mean that you can't develop at all, just that the nature of the development is more strictly controlled. If you can justify the development as being essential to the local economy or community, you stand a fair chance of getting it through, but there will almost certainly be stringent use/occupancy conditions of the sort discussed above.
If the best you can do is 'I want to build houses there to make a stinking great profit' or 'I want to build a house there for myself 'cos it's pretty', expect the application to fall flat on its face, instantly.
Edited by Sam_68 on Thursday 24th August 13:04
stevieb - why do the local plan lines mean absaloutly jack ??
They are there for a reason and the council are very strict with these (in scotland).
If you are looking to develop the land mate, apply for it to be in the local plan with a good enough case and you might get it - depending on how far from the local plan boundray it actaully is.
You could always sell an option to a developer, i am in the process of trying to get my hands on 12 acres as an option that over time will fall in the local plan boundray lines.
They are there for a reason and the council are very strict with these (in scotland).
If you are looking to develop the land mate, apply for it to be in the local plan with a good enough case and you might get it - depending on how far from the local plan boundray it actaully is.
You could always sell an option to a developer, i am in the process of trying to get my hands on 12 acres as an option that over time will fall in the local plan boundray lines.
ScottNicol said:
stevieb - why do the local plan lines mean absaloutly jack ??
They are there for a reason and the council are very strict with these (in scotland).
If you are looking to develop the land mate, apply for it to be in the local plan with a good enough case and you might get it - depending on how far from the local plan boundray it actaully is.
You could always sell an option to a developer, i am in the process of trying to get my hands on 12 acres as an option that over time will fall in the local plan boundray lines.
They are there for a reason and the council are very strict with these (in scotland).
If you are looking to develop the land mate, apply for it to be in the local plan with a good enough case and you might get it - depending on how far from the local plan boundray it actaully is.
You could always sell an option to a developer, i am in the process of trying to get my hands on 12 acres as an option that over time will fall in the local plan boundray lines.
Having working in Cumbria and in scotland regarding planning, There are strict rules but they can be bent. Builing lines for villages exist to stop money grabbing developers from buying plots on the edge of the village line and then building, selling making profit.
If you have owned the land for some time and have an interest in the area then there is no reason why you cannot build there. it will be tough getting permission but can be done.
Sam_68 said:
Since when have Transport Planners got involved with detail planning applications on residential development, Steve? We use them as consultants for a very limited part of the process (transport infrastructure and sustainability, obviously), but I don't know many who have a good overview of the Planning process as a whole.
The main reasons planning fails is because or poor location or poor access. Transport planners can mitigate the poor access and help towards reducing the effect of the poor location. Based around tranportation reason.
Sam_68 said:
Stable blocks are classed as agricultural buildings
yes they are but there is more guidance then that regarding building them and there uses. Limitations on how many animals can be stored etc. If you have the chance to build a brick build stable on the land then do it. Secondly after 5 years for many reason you life will get easier for planning permision if you build a 1.5 level house (bungalow with converted roof area) as long as it keeps with the local style of housing.
For future reference my comments are not complete bollox, and secondly local authorities can not stand dealing with small time property developers, as they class them down the bottom as in estate agents. either prefer Local residents or large developers who they can screw for money under section 172 for highway improvements.
ScottNicol said:
stevieb - why do the local plan lines mean absaloutly jack ??
They are there for a reason and the council are very strict with these (in scotland).
They are there for a reason and the council are very strict with these (in scotland).
The are there to stop small time property developers, not to stop local residence building. With time effort and a bit of money it can be overruled if you plot is in close proximety to the building line, and secondly it is also worth checking when the line was drafted up as if it is over a certain age then it may become void, due to the council not reassesing the housing guidance in the area.
Building on greenbelt land compared to a building line for a village are 2 different things.
over half of the planning permission cases that have had dealing with have been refused on 2 grounds. location and safety of access.
If dont know f**k all then i will shut it. but i have plenty of clients who i have helped secure planning permission for in rural locations who are happy with what i have done for them.
seem like you need to look from the other side of the fence and not the developers side. do some research into local plans for the area and the targets set by the government on housing then speak to the planning department.
In this case above he was looking for planning permission just outside the building line for the village. (my assumption was less than 500m.) this would not be hard to overcome if there was no objectors in the village to this proposal.
over half of the planning permission cases that have had dealing with have been refused on 2 grounds. location and safety of access.
If dont know f**k all then i will shut it. but i have plenty of clients who i have helped secure planning permission for in rural locations who are happy with what i have done for them.
seem like you need to look from the other side of the fence and not the developers side. do some research into local plans for the area and the targets set by the government on housing then speak to the planning department.
In this case above he was looking for planning permission just outside the building line for the village. (my assumption was less than 500m.) this would not be hard to overcome if there was no objectors in the village to this proposal.
stevieb said:
Sam_68 said:
Since when have Transport Planners got involved with detail planning applications on residential development, Steve? We use them as consultants for a very limited part of the process (transport infrastructure and sustainability, obviously), but I don't know many who have a good overview of the Planning process as a whole.
The main reasons planning fails is because or poor location or poor access. Transport planners can mitigate the poor access and help towards reducing the effect of the poor location. Based around tranportation reason.
Like wot I said. I'd dispute the comment that poor access is one of the main reasons that Planning fails; if you had an overview of the Residential Planning process as a whole, you'd find that your role as a Transport Planner is that of a very small cog in a very big machine. Not sure what that has to do with greenbelt and village boundaries, though.
stevieb said:
Sam_68 said:
Stable blocks are classed as agricultural buildings
yes they are but there is more guidance then that regarding building them and there uses...
Never the less, construction of agricultural buildings in greenbelt is a fundamentally acceptable land use, whereas building dwellings is fundamentally unacceptable and requires robust and specific justification.
stevieb said:
For future reference my comments are not complete bollox, and secondly local authorities can not stand dealing with small time property developers, as they class them down the bottom as in estate agents. either prefer Local residents or large developers who they can screw for money under section 172 for highway improvements.
For future reference, I stand by my original assertion that your comments were complete bollox. For the record, I have spent most of my career (20-odd years) very successfully specialising in residential development and currently work at a senior level for one of the biggest residential developers in the country.
Your comment regarding Section 172 contributions again demonstrates your very limited perspective of the Planning Process as a whole. Section 172 obligations are generally pretty trivial, compared to Section 106 contributions for health, public open space, education, affordable housing, etc., etc. Hell, they even sting us for contributions toward disposing of the dead people on our developments these days!
You are correct that Local Authorities will prefer to deal with larger developers because they are more able to meet these contributions, but I can assure you that this will have little influence on basic planning constraints like greenbelt.
Thanks for the input.
I'm meeting with a planning "specialist" next week.
The plot is about 200 yards outside the building line, is surrounded by trees, won't overlook anyone and has direct road access. I'd be over the moon just to get one property on the plot - I doubt it'll ever happen though.
Cheers
I'm meeting with a planning "specialist" next week.
The plot is about 200 yards outside the building line, is surrounded by trees, won't overlook anyone and has direct road access. I'd be over the moon just to get one property on the plot - I doubt it'll ever happen though.
Cheers
stevieb said:
Section 106 means sod all to 1 off developers. they can hardly say 40% of your development has to be affordable housing. alot of this is completely not bothered with.
Ditto Section 172. They are hardly likely to ask for a roundabout and a scheme of traffic calming to cope with the additional traffic of 1 additional dwelling, so exactly what point were you trying to make?
The only pertinent information that Grebbo has given us so far is that the extent of the site is 8 acres. At PPG3 densities, I would be looking for upwards of 100 units on a site that size (neglecting POS provision), which most definitely would attract significant 106 contributions and an element of affordable housing.
Incedentally, if, when
stevieb earlier said:
do some research into local plans for the area and the targets set by the government on housing then speak to the planning department.
He was alluding to the possibility of including the site as a windfall development (unlikely to be successful, for reasons I won't bore you with), then the Local Authority would be seeking PPG3 levels of density. It may seem strange to some, but can now be difficult to get plannning permission for too few houses on a site, since Uncle Tony's Cronies have dictated that it isn't appropriate for the idle rich to build large, single properties on land which could be developed at 50 units to the hectare as low-cost housing for asylum seekers! As a general rule, if the land is deemed appropriate for residential development, they will be seeking a minimum of 30 units per hectare.
This does not apply if you are seeking to build dwellings specifically linked to the local rural economy, with occupancy restrictions as discussed above, however.
I've arrived at this late but from the size of the plot and hence the amount of development that could be obtained at normal densities the place to start would be looking into the background - the regional spatial strategy and the local development framework (what used to be called the local plan).
It is probably on the small side to attract a developer who would promote it through the next renewals of these documents but if the LDF is up for renewal it might be worthwhile getting a local specialist to make submissions for designation for development. This would allow consideration of the principles without having to draw up detailed proposals.
It also fits in with the principle that the LDF is the starting point for consideration of any planning application; basically if an application is not in accordance with the LDF then consent would normally be refused.
I agree that consent for a stable block is a very different proposition from residential development and I would be surprised if an application were successful based on the information available but if you could get a developer involved to promote the site within the LDF process you cold minimise the cost while getting a hefty slice of any value obtained from a successful approach. They put up the costs and carry out the work and you split the uplift in value - the division being based on cost and risk.
A developer would also be able to assess the likely S106 contributions.
Hope it goes well with the consultant.
It is probably on the small side to attract a developer who would promote it through the next renewals of these documents but if the LDF is up for renewal it might be worthwhile getting a local specialist to make submissions for designation for development. This would allow consideration of the principles without having to draw up detailed proposals.
It also fits in with the principle that the LDF is the starting point for consideration of any planning application; basically if an application is not in accordance with the LDF then consent would normally be refused.
I agree that consent for a stable block is a very different proposition from residential development and I would be surprised if an application were successful based on the information available but if you could get a developer involved to promote the site within the LDF process you cold minimise the cost while getting a hefty slice of any value obtained from a successful approach. They put up the costs and carry out the work and you split the uplift in value - the division being based on cost and risk.
A developer would also be able to assess the likely S106 contributions.
Hope it goes well with the consultant.
Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff