Lazy Sod
Member
- Location
- Warminster Wiltshire
Nice to see that you gave George some business, @holwellcourtfarm. Another + for TFF.
@holwellcourtfarm joins a growing list of TFF members to use our services. Off the top of my head we have prepared and submitted applications for TFF members in:Nice to see that you gave George some business, @holwellcourtfarm. Another + for TFF.
So nice to hear a success story... I just wonder what constitutes "exceptional circumstances", as my property, a redundant pumping station had its PD rights removed & this has got me thinking... Do you by chance have a link to the judgement, please? DxYesterday the work @George from SJM Planning has been doing on our barn PD application came to an end with East herts DC granting conditional approval for the conversion of our 80 x 60 hay barn into 2 dwellings.
Last year we applied under GPDO Part Q to turn this:
View attachment 991227
with this outlook (London is just over the hill behind the trees)
View attachment 991230
into this pair of dwellings
View attachment 991231
We were refused. The barn was originally erected in 2003 under full planning permission (because it was within 3km of an aerodrome) with these conditions:
View attachment 991232
The planning officer, very usefully, wrote a long and complete report on the application demonstrating that it met all of the conditions required for Part Q approval but that he considered that the above condition 2 on the original planning removed PD rights and so our application was invalid, we had been caught by the Dunnett investments test case.
We went away and did LOTS of homework, eventually finding this little gem:
In September 2016 an appeal was made against the refusal by North Herts DC to remove a planning condition which had itself removed PD rights from a barn at Knebworth. The planning inspector upheld the appeal on the grounds that PD rights are only to be removed in exceptional circumstances and that, in removing the rights, the council had failed in this case to prove such exceptional circumstances.
We submitted an application, based on that appeal judgement, for the removal of the second condition from our barns' original planning permission. Our decision was due on April 1st this year but the council sat on it as they didn't quite know what to do. Eventually, after considerable pressure was applied we received approval in August, freeing us to re-apply for Part Q.
Yesterday that application succeded.
It has been a long road but well worth it.
I will find it for youSo nice to hear a success story... I just wonder what constitutes "exceptional circumstances", as my property, a redundant pumping station had its PD rights removed & this has got me thinking... Do you by chance have a link to the judgement, please? Dx
Wow , wouldn't stand a chance in shitty StaffsYesterday the work @George from SJM Planning has been doing on our barn PD application came to an end with East herts DC granting conditional approval for the conversion of our 80 x 60 hay barn into 2 dwellings.
Last year we applied under GPDO Part Q to turn this:
View attachment 991227
with this outlook (London is just over the hill behind the trees)
View attachment 991230
into this pair of dwellings
View attachment 991231
We were refused. The barn was originally erected in 2003 under full planning permission (because it was within 3km of an aerodrome) with these conditions:
View attachment 991232
The planning officer, very usefully, wrote a long and complete report on the application demonstrating that it met all of the conditions required for Part Q approval but that he considered that the above condition 2 on the original planning removed PD rights and so our application was invalid, we had been caught by the Dunnett investments test case.
We went away and did LOTS of homework, eventually finding this little gem:
In September 2016 an appeal was made against the refusal by North Herts DC to remove a planning condition which had itself removed PD rights from a barn at Knebworth. The planning inspector upheld the appeal on the grounds that PD rights are only to be removed in exceptional circumstances and that, in removing the rights, the council had failed in this case to prove such exceptional circumstances.
We submitted an application, based on that appeal judgement, for the removal of the second condition from our barns' original planning permission. Our decision was due on April 1st this year but the council sat on it as they didn't quite know what to do. Eventually, after considerable pressure was applied we received approval in August, freeing us to re-apply for Part Q.
Yesterday that application succeded.
It has been a long road but well worth it.
Have you had an application turned down? Have you looked into the reasons why, and if they can be overcome?Wow , wouldn't stand a chance in shitty Staffs
Pondering one George , be in touch ...Have you had an application turned down? Have you looked into the reasons why, and if they can be overcome?
They must respond to Class Q applications within 56 days otherwise it is "deemed consent" - if no-one is working then thats their fault!Pondering one George , be in touch ...
Problem is no one in the planning dept is actually working presently
Many thanks...I shall have a look for it... DxI will find it for you
Can you post a copy of the condition removing your Pd rights?
The reason given in the notice has to prove exceptional circumstances
The effect of that appeal ruling is that if the council did not clearly demonstrate a justified exceptional circumstance for imposing the condition in the reasoning on the actual decision notice then an application to remove the condition would be successful on appeal, even if not granted by the authority themselves. They cannot retrospectively produce the necessary justification.Many thanks...I shall have a look for it... Dx
Hmmm...The effect of that appeal ruling is that if the council did not clearly demonstrate a justified exceptional circumstance for imposing the condition in the reasoning on the actual decision notice then an application to remove the condition would be successful on appeal, even if not granted by the authority themselves. They cannot retrospectively produce the necessary justification.
Interestingly, the ruling has application to ANY removal of PD rights, not just one affecting agricultural use (plenty of residential properties have had PD rights removed in the past when PP was granted and could benefit from this) ......
Looks like you are stuck there then.Hmmm...
It seems PDR was removed following an appeal which allowed a change of use of the building from sui generis to B1. (To protect the Green Belt?)
'Whilst the re-use without extension or enlargement of the building would have an acceptable impact, The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development (Amendment) (England) Order 2010 and 2013 have introduced permitted development rights for hard surfacing and extensions and conversion to residential use. It would therefore be necessary to remove those rights in order that the grant of permission does not lead to incremental increase in size or alternative uses that would harm the appearance of the Green Belt and the Costal Protection Belt.' Dx
Agreed. There is solid reasoning behind the removal of the PD rights in that case.Looks like you are stuck there then.
There is... and all applications are decided on their own merit...Agreed. There is solid reasoning behind the removal of the PD rights in that case.
It certainly does! If I had the means, I'd pay any amount to be free of all this stress... DxIt pays to pay an expert to advise you what truth to tell.
With all due respect if you don't have access to a few thousand pounds to cover survey fees and to hire an expert the Council will run rings around you, regard the costs as an investment.It certainly does! If I had the means, I'd pay any amount to be free of all this stress... Dx
It's a joke.With all due respect if you don't have access to a few thousand pounds to cover survey fees and to hire an expert the Council will run rings around you, regard the costs as an investment.
It's who you know, not what you know some of the time, unfortunately it applies to all sectors.It's a joke.
It's high paid so called experts telling them the answers they already know?
They know the system and work daily with each other .
Possibly.It's who you know, not what you know some of the time, unfortunately it applies to all sectors.
However if spending £1/£2k in professional fees and surveys leads to obtaining planning permission for something worth 200k? It makes good business sense in all honesty.