Planning Applications, PD and the like (General Chat)

AJ123

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
South east
By obtaining planning either by Class Q or Full Planning does not remove any other legal obstacle. I have no experience of 86 Act tenancies but, for example, when a covenant restricts development and planning is granted the covenant is still valid. Equally the Planning Officer can not take these civil matters into account.
Sorry, what I meant was are there any restrictions on planning being granted if building still required by the tenant?
 

GmB

Member
Location
S.Glos
Can anyone tell me are there any protections for 86 act tenants if Landlords are trying to gain consent for converting barns on their holdings?
through either full planning or class Q?
Is there a separate access to the barns proposed to be converted? When my landlord sold up, I was on an 86 act tenancy and people who came to view the farm had their eyes on the stone barns for conversion, my agents advice was unless there was a dedicated access to the barns, i.e not accessed through the farm yard, the landlord couldn’t take them back. Get a good agent!
 

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
A part Q application for a barn subject to a tenancy requires a signed agreement from the tenant agreeing to the application, effectively releasing the tenancy on it. Without that the barn does not meet the rules for Part Q and so it cannot apply.

Full planning is different and, if granted, would annul the tenancy. You have every right to object though on the grounds that the barn is not redundant and is thus needed for its current agricultural use.
 

AJ123

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
South east
A part Q application for a barn subject to a tenancy requires a signed agreement from the tenant agreeing to the application, effectively releasing the tenancy on it. Without that the barn does not meet the rules for Part Q and so it cannot apply.

Full planning is different and, if granted, would annul the tenancy. You have every right to object though on the grounds that the barn is not redundant and is thus needed for its current agricultural use.
Thanks. As I thought was the case.
 
Best guesses how the imminent white paper on planning reform will affect rural planning and when it might be released?
In what way? I believe National Planning Policy will continue to focus on development being constrained to the current built up areas and urban sprawl being tightly monitored. In terms of rural settlements such as villages and hamlets I don't see them being included in local development plans unless they have their own facilities (shops, school, doctors etc) as sustainability and car use are still big considerations in rural planning.
As for planning for agricultural I don't see much of a change other than I believe Class Q may be on its way out.
 

Kidds

Member
Horticulture
Boris has suggested an easier path to planning and to increase the housing numbers required. Is this going to be as you say aimed at urban development or is there possibly going to be an easing of rural development?
I doubt the latter but I have heard suggestions that Class Q should be supported as it eases the pressure on development within villages where there is always resistance to new housing development (often mostly by new residents!)
Unless very defined it will be open to local authority interpretation and will mean whatever they choose it to mean.
My thoughts are class Q will become more difficult but at the mo I don't think it will go completely.
 
Boris has suggested an easier path to planning and to increase the housing numbers required. Is this going to be as you say aimed at urban development or is there possibly going to be an easing of rural development?
I doubt the latter but I have heard suggestions that Class Q should be supported as it eases the pressure on development within villages where there is always resistance to new housing development (often mostly by new residents!)
Unless very defined it will be open to local authority interpretation and will mean whatever they choose it to mean.
My thoughts are class Q will become more difficult but at the mo I don't think it will go completely.
I think the easier path to planning will be a while away. The zoning that has been mentioned that will define areas where development will be more favourable will all need to be assessed by the local authority and fed into their new Local Plans, I don't see the white paper being a catalyst for all LA's to scrap their local plans and start afresh, it will just be fed into the next iteration.
As for Class Q, as you say it may be altered but remain but the current requirements are being challenged more and more by LA's almost to the point where it is becoming incredibly hard to assess whether a building is suitable for Class Q. I have seen some very strange justification for refusal recently and more often than not they are being upheld at appeal.
 

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
Boris has suggested an easier path to planning and to increase the housing numbers required. Is this going to be as you say aimed at urban development or is there possibly going to be an easing of rural development?
I doubt the latter but I have heard suggestions that Class Q should be supported as it eases the pressure on development within villages where there is always resistance to new housing development (often mostly by new residents!)
Unless very defined it will be open to local authority interpretation and will mean whatever they choose it to mean.
My thoughts are class Q will become more difficult but at the mo I don't think it will go completely.
Have you read the white paper? It proposes dividing the country in "development", "renewal" and "protected" zones. Two guesses which zone most rural areas would fall into.

In "development" zones there would be a presumption of "outline permission" with only the details left to the local authority. That's fine so long as the zoning is very competently done (something many councils would fail especially as they also propose a strict 30 month time limit on creating new local plans).

IMHO it all hinges on improving the definition and operation of the planning "sustainability" test. The current panning interpretation falls way short of the dictionary definition of the word. Under the planning definition most rural areas, even in and around villages, fail. They are too far from shops and schools, have poor public transport and have too little employment within walking distance. Strict interpretation of this will kill the rural communities stone dead.

IMHO the rules need to be different in rural areas where, instead, improving the sustainability should be the aim. Help to generate viable schools. Help make shops viable. Subsidise low carbon travel. Value rural employment more.
 
Have you read the white paper? It proposes dividing the country in "development", "renewal" and "protected" zones. Two guesses which zone most rural areas would fall into.

In "development" zones there would be a presumption of "outline permission" with only the details left to the local authority. That's fine so long as the zoning is very competently done (something many councils would fail especially as they also propose a strict 30 month time limit on creating new local plans).

IMHO it all hinges on improving the definition and operation of the planning "sustainability" test. The current panning interpretation falls way short of the dictionary definition of the word. Under the planning definition most rural areas, even in and around villages, fail. They are too far from shops and schools, have poor public transport and have too little employment within walking distance. Strict interpretation of this will kill the rural communities stone dead.

IMHO the rules need to be different in rural areas where, instead, improving the sustainability should be the aim. Help to generate viable schools. Help make shops viable. Subsidise low carbon travel. Value rural employment more.
I’m sure the local village isn’t the only one that used to have a shop, used to have a school etc but there were plenty who were quite vocal about not wanting more houses.

Now there’s no shop, no school and I wouldn’t like to put money of the future of the pub, it has been unofficially on the market for a couple of years or more with no takers.
 

Kidds

Member
Horticulture
Have you read the white paper?
No I haven't. I was aware of it as it was raised in a recent conversation, which was why I was asking what the implications for rural areas might be.

I’m sure the local village isn’t the only one that used to have a shop, used to have a school etc but there were plenty who were quite vocal about not wanting more houses.

Now there’s no shop, no school and I wouldn’t like to put money of the future of the pub, it has been unofficially on the market for a couple of years or more with no takers.
I think it is a national issue and has been for some time. It seems the first thing incomers want to do is prevent new houses being built despite theirs being 5 years old at most. (They then start giving lectures on local history in the village hall :D)
 

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
No I haven't. I was aware of it as it was raised in a recent conversation, which was why I was asking what the implications for rural areas might be.


I think it is a national issue and has been for some time. It seems the first thing incomers want to do is prevent new houses being built despite theirs being 5 years old at most. (They then start giving lectures on local history in the village hall :D)
We see time and again that it's the people living in the last batch of new houses who object to more new houses being built and "spoiling the village".

Rural areas have been failed by development policy for decades. Maybe the exodus from cities during Covid will start to drive a change.
 

# Robin

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Kent
Hi guys, please can I ask your opinions as I’ve read the last 30 pages with increasing anxiety...

In 2013 I applied for Prior Notification to erect some modern buildings. They basically just replaced others in same location so in retrospect I could have got away without PN.

Now I want to convert old brick buildings into residential and I employ the well-heeled planning agent.
As you guys have confirmed earlier in this thread, he advised that due to being given Prior Notification, I have to wait 10 years (2023) until I regain Class Q rights.
Plus the brick building has recently become a little dilapidated after a storm so would need some repairs to be fully structurally sound.

So he makes a full PP application.

The Case officer has recommended PP is rejected for similar reasons I’ve read earlier on this thread:
I can advise you that I will be recommending the application for refusal based upon the sites location within the countryside, outside of any built - up area boundary and therefore the principle of development is unacceptable and contrary to policies...

Plus need Electric car hookups/more amenity space/better field of view for the separate driveway.

So which way forward?
Planning rejection and an appeal seems fruitless.

Repair the shed, wait two years and apply under Q? (But there seems concern Q will get harder or be withdrawn?)

Or would you modify the PP application to holiday lets instead which is apparently more likely to be granted as it’s considered sustainable use? Then battle residential later if required.

I feel in a right pickle!
Thanks
 

Still Farming

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
South Wales UK
Sarah Beeny new tv show life on the farm on Channel 4.
She wants to build a massive mansion esk house bang in open countryside ,on their new farm ???(looks like already house and buildings there)
Story continues ????
 

Kidds

Member
Horticulture
Hi guys, please can I ask your opinions as I’ve read the last 30 pages with increasing anxiety...

In 2013 I applied for Prior Notification to erect some modern buildings. They basically just replaced others in same location so in retrospect I could have got away without PN.

Now I want to convert old brick buildings into residential and I employ the well-heeled planning agent.
As you guys have confirmed earlier in this thread, he advised that due to being given Prior Notification, I have to wait 10 years (2023) until I regain Class Q rights.
Plus the brick building has recently become a little dilapidated after a storm so would need some repairs to be fully structurally sound.

So he makes a full PP application.

The Case officer has recommended PP is rejected for similar reasons I’ve read earlier on this thread:


Plus need Electric car hookups/more amenity space/better field of view for the separate driveway.

So which way forward?
Planning rejection and an appeal seems fruitless.

Repair the shed, wait two years and apply under Q? (But there seems concern Q will get harder or be withdrawn?)

Or would you modify the PP application to holiday lets instead which is apparently more likely to be granted as it’s considered sustainable use? Then battle residential later if required.

I feel in a right pickle!
Thanks
Withdraw the application so there is no refusal against the property.
Repair the building and make any small changes that may assist your future application (increase openings for windows being the main usual one)
Wait two years.
Sack the "well healed" advisor for being a dick
 
Hi guys, please can I ask your opinions as I’ve read the last 30 pages with increasing anxiety...

In 2013 I applied for Prior Notification to erect some modern buildings. They basically just replaced others in same location so in retrospect I could have got away without PN.

Now I want to convert old brick buildings into residential and I employ the well-heeled planning agent.
As you guys have confirmed earlier in this thread, he advised that due to being given Prior Notification, I have to wait 10 years (2023) until I regain Class Q rights.
Plus the brick building has recently become a little dilapidated after a storm so would need some repairs to be fully structurally sound.

So he makes a full PP application.

The Case officer has recommended PP is rejected for similar reasons I’ve read earlier on this thread:


Plus need Electric car hookups/more amenity space/better field of view for the separate driveway.

So which way forward?
Planning rejection and an appeal seems fruitless.

Repair the shed, wait two years and apply under Q? (But there seems concern Q will get harder or be withdrawn?)

Or would you modify the PP application to holiday lets instead which is apparently more likely to be granted as it’s considered sustainable use? Then battle residential later if required.

I feel in a right pickle!
Thanks
I wouldn't go as far as calling your planning agent a dick, but I would be asking serious questions as to what grounds they believed the planning application would be the best way forward. Are they a land agent who undertakes planning or are they a qualified planning consultant accredited by the RTPI?

There are cases where full planning for barn conversions have been approved where Class Q is unavailable, these applications usually have the backing of sustainability assessments, ecological enhancements, renewable energy statements. Has a planning statement been submitted outlining the proposal and how it complies with local and national planning policy and citing similar examples recently approved by the council or case law from decions overturned at appeal.

From what you have described I would suggest withdrawing the application and either seeking fresh planning guidance and resubmitting or holding off for two years and hope Class Q is still an option. Holiday Let's could be an option but an application swiftly following the refusal or withdrawal of a residential application might be viewed with suspicion.

I would be happy to look at the current live application for you.
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 78 43.1%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 63 34.8%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 30 16.6%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.7%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.7%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 4 2.2%

Red Tractor drops launch of green farming scheme amid anger from farmers

  • 1,286
  • 1
As reported in Independent


quote: “Red Tractor has confirmed it is dropping plans to launch its green farming assurance standard in April“

read the TFF thread here: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/gfc-was-to-go-ahead-now-not-going-ahead.405234/
Top