Class Q debacle

[Pipspaw]

Hi,

This is a bit of a long one, but if anyone has the inclination to read this, I would definitely like to hear of other people’s experience and your views in this crazy situation I am in with my Class Q permitted development!!

In March 2020 I applied for Class Q permitted development (via a planning consultant) to convert an agricultural barn to a dwelling. The decision of “prior approval given” was granted in May 2020 and in the delegated report associated with this, the planning officer references all the planning history since I purchased the property in 2011.

Since this decision was made by the Council, I have decided to sell the property. We exchanged at the beginning of January and are due to complete on 18th May 2021.

In January 2021 the buyers put in planning permission which was declined for various reasons not relating to the Class Q permitted development. However, in the delegate report of the buyers declined planning it states;

‘Further consideration of the planning history of the site has identified discrepancies.’

As you can imagine, this statement has called into question the validity of the Class Q prior approval. The frustrating part is that there is no new evidence - all dates and information were available when the decision was made a year ago. Why, if there was any reason to question the decision to grant the prior approval, was it not brought up with the original application in 2020? I would also like to point out that it is the same case officer who has dealt with both applications.

We have put forward all the information we have to clear up the ‘discrepancies’ but have spent the last month going round in circles, as the Council are unable or unwilling to decide on the lawfulness of our prior approval.

I have asked the Council for a meeting to discuss this and to hopefully either conclude this matter or understand what more is needed. I have been advised by the Council that they can’t make any further decision as there is no planning application open, which is correct as it was granted over a year ago.

Last week we were advised by the Council that to get this sorted we need to apply for a “Certificate of Lawfulness” – it seems like madness that we are having to ask the Council to clear up the confusion that it has unilaterally caused. Having spoken to professionals in this field, this seems a highly unusual approach seeing as permitted development has already been approved. It can also take up to 8 weeks to process, which will cause unnecessary mental and financial stress on many families as there is a chain of 4 houses in this sale chain.

We also don’t want to go down the route of the Certifiacte of Lawfulness as we believe the Council have already made up their mind and if they say no, than this has been decided, as with the present position there is still a discussion.

I have had nothing but a positive experience with the Council planning department, but I am now extremely disappointed with the unprofessional way that the Council have dealt with this matter.

We are looking to the Council to formally state its position on the status of the determination of the prior approval now made and the planning permission that has been granted. This uncertainty has been unilaterally caused by the local planning authority and I feel the onus is now on the Council to clear up this confusion.

I am wondering if anyone has been put into this type of position around Class Q or if you have any suggestions or recommendations to try and break this deadlock?

Any feedback welcomed

 

[chaffcutter]

@George from SJM Planning ?

 

[chaffcutter]

You need a professional opinion on this, it’s too complex for us amateurs imo!

 

[robs1]

If they stated it was permitted development last year I cant see how they can rescind it.

 

[Pipspaw]

You need a professional opinion on this, it’s too complex for us amateurs imo!

Thanks. We are receiving professional legal advice and we believe the council don’t have a leg to stand on.

 

[Pipspaw]

If they stated it was permitted development last year I cant see how they can rescind it.

Agreed with this statement. We believe they are asking us to go down the Certificate if Lawfulness as they have already made up their mind so that they can decline it. This will mean they are not financially liable, as at present they will be as we have made decisions off their decision. I strongly believe they are stuck! I believe that they aren’t worried about my Class Q but they don’t want our buyers planning any they have confused the matters. Fun times!!

 

[George from SJM Planning]

This seems very irregular. If Prior Approval for Class Q has been approved then there is no facility for it to be rescinded.
On what grounds do they citing the Class Q not to be valid?

 

[George from SJM Planning]

This link may be of use http://planninglawblog.blogspot.com/2017/01/can-lpa-override-prior-approval.html?m=1

 

[Pipspaw]

It is very irregular.

They are now stating that the Class Q has discrepancies as the cut off date is March 2013. We were granted change of use in October 2012 from Agricultural to Equestrian, however the horses didn’t arrive until May 2013 and the business didn’t start until Oct 2013 and the barn in question didn’t have stables built in it until 2016. We knew when we applied that we were on the cusp, but they granted it and mentioned all our planning history in their delegate report. I would have thought they would have questioned it at the point of application not a year later. I would have been scuppered if I have built the house!!

 

[Kidds]

This seems very irregular. If Prior Approval for Class Q has been approved then there is no facility for it to be rescinded.
On what grounds do they citing the Class Q not to be valid?

Not strictly true

https://pa.cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OCVJ6NTE02X00

Bloody stupid way to lose your permission but there you go.
I also expect that if the planning debt consider the original application unlawful in the light of new information then it can be rejected, the above is an example of that.

Whatever the argument it must be a nightmare this close to completion of the sale. The planning dept is not populated by the brightest of people or the most diligent of people, keep persevering. Best of luck.

Edit: Pipsaw posted while I was writing. As I said if the Council deem the application unlawful they can and have rejected it after the decision. The legalities of it are beyond my knowledge.

 

[Pipspaw]

Not strictly true

https://pa.cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OCVJ6NTE02X00

Bloody stupid way to lose your permission but there you go.
I also expect that if the planning debt consider the original application unlawful in the light of new information then it can be rejected, the above is an example of that.

Whatever the argument it must be a nightmare this close to completion of the sale. The planning dept is not populated by the brightest of people or the most diligent of people, keep persevering. Best of luck.

 

[Pipspaw]

Yea it is a nightmare. The council originally stated there was new evidence. Having pushed them for the evidence it transpires there isn’t any, as it was all supplied as part of the original application, so we are in a circle of pain that as the authority, who have caused this doubt aren’t willing to make a decision. We push on.

 

[designanddetail]

Sounds like the planners have realised they made an error giving permission, so instead of admitting it they are making up a story about evidence. Have you built anything for class Q?

 

[Pipspaw]

Sounds like the planners have realised they made an error giving permission, so instead of admitting it they are making up a story about evidence. Have you built anything for class Q?

Sounds like the planners have realised they made an error giving permission, so instead of admitting it they are making up a story about evidence. Have you built anything for class Q?

Nothing built yet. We were going to start but decided to sell instead.

 

[robs1]

My understanding was that to qualify for part q the building has to be in ag use at time of application or when last used, didnt know it was the use at 2013 . Looks like the planner cocked up(no surprise there) and now are trying to get round it. If you provided all the info at the time and they approved it then they are buggered, the last thing I would be doing is a lawful development/use application, I would do enough to show you have made a start and pass the ball back to them, they will try and run the clock down .

 

[Goweresque]

One option would be to start work, and make them take enforcement action to stop you. That would put the onus back on them, as they'd have to prove to a court (ultimately) that you were somehow breaking the law by utilising a PP they themselves granted. And haven't formally rescinded either. Its a bit of a 'Balls out' move and you'd have to be prepared for a court case.

 

[Pipspaw]

Nothing built yet. We were going to start but decided to sell instead.

One option would be to start work, and make them take enforcement action to stop you. That would put the onus back on them, as they'd have to prove to a court (ultimately) that you were somehow breaking the law by utilising a PP they themselves granted. And haven't formally rescinded either. Its a bit of a 'Balls out' move and you'd have to be prepared for a court case.

haha - indeed. I did ask them what would have happened if I had already built the house? No response!!!

 

[Kidds]

Just to cheer you up, are you aware that all building works are to be completed within 3 years of the permission being granted for class Q?
What usually happens is the original plans are amended and full planning is granted so the above doesn't apply but you say the buyer has been knocked back on that.

No idea what happens if the works are not completed within the 3 years but that is the rule.

 

[steveR]

Just to cheer you up, are you aware that all building works are to be completed within 3 years of the permission being granted for class Q?
What usually happens is the original plans are amended and full planning is granted so the above doesn't apply but you say the buyer has been knocked back on that.

No idea what happens if the works are not completed within the 3 years but that is the rule.

Ahhh, interesting, and in a purely academic sense, I thought it was 5 years like "normal" PP. Useful to know.

 

[Highland Mule]

haha - indeed. I did ask them what would have happened if I had already built the house? No response!!!

Just get a guy for a day with a digger then. Do it now, and force their hand.