Changing Planning Policy for Derelict Farmsteads

[George from SJM Planning]

I am considering writing a report to try to encourage the powers that be to look at the national and local planning policies thst are currently restricting the rejuvenation of derelict farmsteads.

Here in West Wales there are many examples of smaller farmsteads that have been left to ruin back in the mid 20th century which are just turning into wasteland as nobody wants to buy somewhere without a house on it? Most Local Authority's take the view that if a house needs major structural work (new walls, roof etc) that it has lost its residential status. With the current drive for new homes would it not be prudent to look at these sites for new dwellings? I'm not suggesting housing estates but limiting them to the number of units that were there in the past. I would also urge planning to include legal agreements that the dwelling should only be used as the owners primary accomodation and not to be let or as a second home.

Do other areas of the country have these types of holdings, if so, a few photos, a brief description and a location would be great for my research.

Your thoughts are most welcome.

 

[AJTG]

Totally agree with this. I recently tried to get Class Q planning through for a friends farm who has teetered down its farm usage over the last couple of decades. They had sold all the land too, and were just left with some buildings, which were in good shape. Unfortunately, there hasn't been any farming use since before 2013, so class q wasn't applicable, but a traditional planning route won't deliver either. So essentially, the site is derelict and useless by planning terms. It's on the edge of a village, and would have provided some good housing, but there isn't any way forward at all with the site.

 

[George from SJM Planning]

Totally agree with this. I recently tried to get Class Q planning through for a friends farm who has teetered down its farm usage over the last couple of decades. They had sold all the land too, and were just left with some buildings, which were in good shape. Unfortunately, there hasn't been any farming use since before 2013, so class q wasn't applicable, but a traditional planning route won't deliver either. So essentially, the site is derelict and useless by planning terms. It's on the edge of a village, and would have provided some good housing, but there isn't any way forward at all with the site.

Would the buildings suitable for conversion if Class Q was available? If so, some Local Authorities have rural building conversion policies that may get you something on the site through full planning.

 

[AJTG]

I think Class Q was the best route for the site, as the buildings weren't traditional masonry style. There would have been potential for a full planning route for one of the buildings potentially, but the rest we felt suited the "looser" Class Q approach.

 

[George from SJM Planning]

This is the property that brought this to mind; 7.5ac of smallholding, 3 miles from the nearest town. I did a pre-app with the Local Authority to seek reinstating the residential dwelling whilst losing the storage building. I suggested a new build with modern efficiency and renewables but in the style of the original farmhouse and reusing the original materials as external cladding.
The response was (I am paraphrasing) "the residential use has been lost, a new build would be classed as a new dwelling in the countryside which is against poliy"

 

[George from SJM Planning]

I think Class Q was the best route for the site, as the buildings weren't traditional masonry style. There would have been potential for a full planning route for one of the buildings potentially, but the rest we felt suited the "looser" Class Q approach.

Have you considered a pre-app with the council?

 

[AJTG]

Those images clearly show that at one point, dwellings were in use there. It's truly a shame to waste them! I love that welsh stone

 

[renewablejohn]

I am considering writing a report to try to encourage the powers that be to look at the national and local planning policies thst are currently restricting the rejuvenation of derelict farmsteads.

Here in West Wales there are many examples of smaller farmsteads that have been left to ruin back in the mid 20th century which are just turning into wasteland as nobody wants to buy somewhere without a house on it? Most Local Authority's take the view that if a house needs major structural work (new walls, roof etc) that it has lost its residential status. With the current drive for new homes would it not be prudent to look at these sites for new dwellings? I'm not suggesting housing estates but limiting them to the number of units that were there in the past. I would also urge planning to include legal agreements that the dwelling should only be used as the owners primary accomodation and not to be let or as a second home.

Do other areas of the country have these types of holdings, if so, a few photos, a brief description and a location would be great for my research.

Your thoughts are most welcome.

No point in doing that. Legislation is already in place and being used around here to just demolish and replace with something exceptional. One mans exceptional is another mans eyesore but there is now very few derelict sites left.

 

[George from SJM Planning]

No point in doing that. Legislation is already in place and being used around here to just demolish and replace with something exceptional. One mans exceptional is another mans eyesore but there is now very few derelict sites left.

I presume they are Para 79 "Grand Design" houses utilising the argument that it is a "betterment". We work with a Para 79 architect occasionally and the costs are huge! Some houses, just to get through planning costs more than my house cost to buy!

I tend to agree that some of these modern examples are not to everyone's tastes.

There may not be many examples in your area but in my local area I can count at least a dozen. In West Kent near our office I can think of another half a dozen. All of these are in Local Authorities which have a housing deficit.

 

[goldeneagle]

Scottish planning system now classifies these buildings as brownfield and relaxed planning constraints associated with them. Previously (prior to 2012 I think) steadings could only be converted but now can be demolished and new build on similar footprint to what was there. Has had effect of increasing greatly amount of sites for sale but with ever increasing build costs and obligations on design and construction there is not any real saving nowadays on commissioning new build on own site compared to what it was. All relative to local house prices and demand though.
I am currently building house in north east Scotland on footprint of derelict steading so if this is of interest can forward background and details to date.

 

[George from SJM Planning]

Scottish planning system now classifies these buildings as brownfield and relaxed planning constraints associated with them. Previously (prior to 2012 I think) steadings could only be converted but now can be demolished and new build on similar footprint to what was there. Has had effect of increasing greatly amount of sites for sale but with ever increasing build costs and obligations on design and construction there is not any real saving nowadays on commissioning new build on own site compared to what it was. All relative to local house prices and demand though.

Thank you, that is interesting, may be something I can use to support my arguement.

 

[goldeneagle]

Here is what Scottish planning system allows with Aberdeenshire council. House is not grand designs as didn’t need hassle with planners getting passed nor the will to pay the potential elevated price tag to realise.

 

[George from SJM Planning]

Here is what Scottish planning system allows with Aberdeenshire council. House is not grand designs as didn’t need hassle with planners getting passed nor the will to pay the potential elevated price tag to realise.

Thank you, that is very interesting

 

[rob1]

Totally agree with this. I recently tried to get Class Q planning through for a friends farm who has teetered down its farm usage over the last couple of decades. They had sold all the land too, and were just left with some buildings, which were in good shape. Unfortunately, there hasn't been any farming use since before 2013, so class q wasn't applicable, but a traditional planning route won't deliver either. So essentially, the site is derelict and useless by planning terms. It's on the edge of a village, and would have provided some good housing, but there isn't any way forward at all with the site.

I thought the wording was used for or "last" used for ag, does it matter when last used was, obviously trying to get planning on a pile of stones isnt going to work but a decent shed surely should qualify

 

[Still Farming]

The local Authorities , listed buildings ,cadw ,conservation areas, Countryside commission, national parks etc etc will all have their views no doubt to make it as difficult and money earning for them and their approved consultants as possible .

 

[George from SJM Planning]

The local Authorities , listed buildings ,cadw ,conservation areas, Countryside commission, national parks etc etc will all have their views no doubt to make it as difficult and money earning for them and their approved consultants as possible .

There will be a lot of hurdles to jump though but at present you can't even get to the first hurdle because the NPPF limits the building of new dwellings in the countryside to Para 79 developments or AOC's

 

[David.]

This is the property that brought this to mind; 7.5ac of smallholding, 3 miles from the nearest town. I did a pre-app with the Local Authority to seek reinstating the residential dwelling whilst losing the storage building. I suggested a new build with modern efficiency and renewables but in the style of the original farmhouse and reusing the original materials as external cladding.
The response was (I am paraphrasing) "the residential use has been lost, a new build would be classed as a new dwelling in the countryside which is against poliy"View attachment 846381View attachment 846380View attachment 846379View attachment 846378View attachment 846377View attachment 846376View attachment 846375View attachment 846373View attachment 846372

I think I agree with them. That is abandoned for decades. Q conversions are for buildings recently used for agriculture, not horse yards, not derelict ruins. They have interpreted the rules as intended surely?

 

[Smith31]

This is the property that brought this to mind; 7.5ac of smallholding, 3 miles from the nearest town. I did a pre-app with the Local Authority to seek reinstating the residential dwelling whilst losing the storage building. I suggested a new build with modern efficiency and renewables but in the style of the original farmhouse and reusing the original materials as external cladding.
The response was (I am paraphrasing) "the residential use has been lost, a new build would be classed as a new dwelling in the countryside which is against poliy"View attachment 846381View attachment 846380View attachment 846379View attachment 846378View attachment 846377View attachment 846376View attachment 846375View attachment 846373View attachment 846372

A friend of ours had similiar, way he got around it was that he did substantial external repair works to the buildings over time, then waited 4 years and applied for conversion, on the basis that the buildings were structurally sound and he got it. Admittedly it did take him a year to do the repairs and then waited 4 years so he had no comebacks but he made money.

 

[Kidds]

I was just going to ask why you can’t repair the derelict buildings? Even if just as original

 

[George from SJM Planning]

I think I agree with them. That is abandoned for decades. Q conversions are for buildings recently used for agriculture, not horse yards, not derelict ruins. They have interpreted the rules as intended surely?

Yes they interpreted the current policies correctly and I wasn't asking for Class Q, for Class Q the buildings need to be structurally sound.
The intention of this thread was to see if other members felt that current planning policy could be changed to support the rejuvenation of these abandoned holdings.