Planning Applications, PD and the like (General Chat)

[chaffcutter]

@WoodyWoodyWoody how about getting a converted container, bunkhouse sort of thing with a kitchen etc drop inside the pole barn, would be a temporary building as it's easily moved?

 

[Agri Design]

I "think" it needs to be more than 90m away but I'm not sure

It is 450m2 (4843.76 Sq ft) per agricultural holding every 2 years so distance doesn't change anything. It wouldn't matter if they were a mile apart, if they are part of the same holding they must be at least 2 years apart.

Definitely 465m2 (5000 ft2) or else you wouldn't be able to build 100x50 shed.

If you look at The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015. it does mention 90m.
Page 64
(2) For the purposes of Classes A, B and C— (a) an area “calculated as described in paragraph D.1(2)(a)” comprises the ground area which would be covered by the proposed development, together with the ground area of any building (other than a dwelling), or any structure, works, plant, machinery, ponds or tanks within the same unit which are being provided or have been provided within the preceding 2 years and any part of which would be within 90 metres of the proposed development;

Council's should allow multiple prior notifications within the 2 years as long as its more than 90m from any previous planning or prior notification within 2 years. That is my and most councils understanding of the above well after I point out the above to them anyway. There are quite a few conditions as with typical prior notification but it should be allowed. For example though this cannot be used to build 2 sheds 90m distant then roof between on future prior notifications, well it shouldn't as the over all floor area of the total not just the new should be used so it would take it over 465m and into full planning.

Edit: Same applies in Scotland.

David
Agri Design

 

[George from SJM Planning]

If you look at The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015. it does mention 90m.
Page 64
(2) For the purposes of Classes A, B and C— (a) an area “calculated as described in paragraph D.1(2)(a)” comprises the ground area which would be covered by the proposed development, together with the ground area of any building (other than a dwelling), or any structure, works, plant, machinery, ponds or tanks within the same unit which are being provided or have been provided within the preceding 2 years and any part of which would be within 90 metres of the proposed development;

Council's should allow multiple prior notifications within the 2 years as long as its more than 90m from any previous planning or prior notification within 2 years. That is my and most councils understanding of the above well after I point out the above to them anyway. There are quite a few conditions as with typical prior notification but it should be allowed. For example though this cannot be used to build 2 sheds 90m distant then roof between on future prior notifications, well it shouldn't as the over all floor area of the total not just the new should be used so it would take it over 465m and into full planning.

David
Agri Design

That is a good spot, I don't believe we have had a case that we have implemented this or had the need to. Thank you for the heads up, every day is a school day.

 

[Bruce Almighty]

Thanks David @Agri Design this is what I thought was correct

We have previously had permissions on 28 day notice in less than 2 years and been granted them as they were more than 90m apart

We did get turned down for a lean-to on a building that was less than 2 years old - which was obviously within 90m ! But we got the lean-to after 2 years. We would probably have got it earlier had we applied for full PP

 

[WoodyWoodyWoody]

@WoodyWoodyWoody how about getting a converted container, bunkhouse sort of thing with a kitchen etc drop inside the pole barn, would be a temporary building as it's easily moved?

That's an excellent idea.

 

[George from SJM Planning]

That's an excellent idea.

It could still need planning depending on the Local Authority's interpretation of the Temporary Buildings Permitted Development rules as the Temporary Buildings section doesn't mention the use for accommodation at all (either allowing or refusing) so they may class it as a caravan and off the top of my head planning requirements are dependant on the amount of time you'd be using it.

Most on here would say JFDI and personally I'd be inclined to agree but professionally I would be remiss nt to highlight the pitfalls.

 

[DaveJ]

Right, been asked to move this here. Quick few questions on prior notification. We've got a couple of sheds in mind on the farm. One at the main yard and one half a mile away by my Sister's house.
Is there anything stopping us doing both at the same time, or at least within the same calendar year? And if so, is it just each individual building that has to be under the required footprint, or is it combined? We could just about squeak under 5000sq ft combined but it would be tight.

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

Right, been asked to move this here. Quick few questions on prior notification. We've got a couple of sheds in mind on the farm. One at the main yard and one half a mile away by my Sister's house.
Is there anything stopping us doing both at the same time, or at least within the same calendar year? And if so, is it just each individual building that has to be under the required footprint, or is it combined? We could just about squeak under 5000sq ft combined but it would be tight.

The exemption is for up to a total area of 5000 square feet in any 2 year period.

 

[George from SJM Planning]

Right, been asked to move this here. Quick few questions on prior notification. We've got a couple of sheds in mind on the farm. One at the main yard and one half a mile away by my Sister's house.
Is there anything stopping us doing both at the same time, or at least within the same calendar year? And if so, is it just each individual building that has to be under the required footprint, or is it combined? We could just about squeak under 5000sq ft combined but it would be tight.

Hi Dave

Are both under the same agricultural holding? If so the combined size would have to be under the PD limit of 465m2.
If they are two separate holdings, that both are eligible to claim PD then they could be 465m2 each.
If they are classed as a single holding then do one now and one in two years time. You have a 465m2 allowance per two years.

 

[DaveJ]

Both are on the same holding. There seems to be conflicting advice having now read over this thread, with unless I've got the wrong end of the stick, @Agri Design saying providing the two buildings are more than 90m apart, I could make 2 separate Prior Notification applications.

 

[Nearly]

How do council check what's one holding and what's a second one?

 

[George from SJM Planning]

How do council check what's one holding and what's a second one?

Now that is a good question!

 

[George from SJM Planning]

Both are on the same holding. There seems to be conflicting advice having now read over this thread, with unless I've got the wrong end of the stick, @Agri Design saying providing the two buildings are more than 90m apart, I could make 2 separate Prior Notification applications.

I think maybe @Agri Design could comment on this as I interpreted the GPDO on agricultural buildings differently to him and I feel he has had more experience in multiple applications on a single holding and I defer to his better knowledge.

 

[DaveJ]

If you built say a 75 x 40 shed with a 5ft canopy, would that count as 75x40 or 75x45 footprint for planning?

 

[George from SJM Planning]

If you built say a 75 x 40 shed with a 5ft canopy, would that count as 75x40 or 75x45 footprint for planning?

I have never discussed that particular issue with a LPA and I have not seen it mentioned in the GPDO so I would think it would be down to interpretation by the individual Planning Officer as to the purpose of the canopy.

 

[theboytheboy]

Now that is a good question!

I'd like to know aswell.

We have some farm buildings that are now isolated from the main Farm as we sold the ground between.

We also have a piece of ground separate from the main Farm and the isolated farm buildings.

Wondering if these are three different "holdings" for planning purposes?

 

[Nearly]

I'd like to know aswell.

We have some farm buildings that are now isolated from the main Farm as we sold the ground between.

We also have a piece of ground separate from the main Farm and the isolated farm buildings.

Wondering if these are three different "holdings" for planning purposes?

Not that the council has any idea of the holding numbers system but I've got 5 to play with.

The in-laws could apply for one shed on the bit you're renting to them?

 

[multi power]

I take it the Planning system in mainland UK is different to NI?

Very very different

 

[Agri Design]

I think maybe @Agri Design could comment on this as I interpreted the GPDO on agricultural buildings differently to him and I feel he has had more experience in multiple applications on a single holding and I defer to his better knowledge.

If you built say a 75 x 40 shed with a 5ft canopy, would that count as 75x40 or 75x45 footprint for planning?

I have never discussed that particular issue with a LPA and I have not seen it mentioned in the GPDO so I would think it would be down to interpretation by the individual Planning Officer as to the purpose of the canopy.

How do council check what's one holding and what's a second one?

Ok been busy.
As long as the proposed sheds are over 90m apart and outwith 90m of any previous prior notification applications, holdings numbers don't mater but some council will have issues with this! Councils have no way to check holding numbers its up to you to outline land owned within the applications.

As for overhangs. Some councils allow them to be excluded from the area calculation others don't. The council have supposed to calculate on floor area. I have had them say that the cattle are feeding through that barrier so that floor area below the canopy is required for the shed to function. I haven't came across a good water tight argument for including or excluding them. I have asked for guidance on this but not really had anything that fits this type of situation. If anyone had anything please share!

David
Agri Design

 

[George from SJM Planning]

Ok been busy.
As long as the proposed sheds are over 90m apart and outwith 90m of any previous prior notification applications, holdings numbers don't mater but some council will have issues with this! Councils have no way to check holding numbers its up to you to outline land owned within the applications.

As for overhangs. Some councils allow them to be excluded from the area calculation others don't. The council have supposed to calculate on floor area. I have had them say that the cattle are feeding through that barrier so that floor area below the canopy is required for the shed to function. I haven't came across a good water tight argument for including or excluding them. I have asked for guidance on this but not really had anything that fits this type of situation. If anyone had anything please share!

David
Agri Design

Yesterday I had a meeting with a Senior Planning Officer from a LPA in the South East on an non-agricultural site visit and over a cup of coffee I put a couple of these hypothetical queries based on the fact he knows I'm a smallholder.

Firstly, on the 90m separation he agrees with David's reading of the GPDO.

Secondly, on the "what defines a holding" in relation to PD, he admitted that there is no hard and fast way of determining a holding but for PD he would ideally like to see that each portion could/is working as a self contained farm i.e a retirement bungalow on a paddock with no other infrastructure would be looked upon dimly but if that bungalow had a yard, maybe a muck heap and direct access to surrounding fields it may be eligible. Ultimately, the building must be reasonably necessary for the holding that it is being applied on. Separate RPA maps would be the ideal proof I believe.

Finally, on the overhang being part of the floor area. He said that he would consider the area as part of the floor area if it was integral to the internal use of the building as for example a feed passage or an external (covered) collecting yard. If the area beneath the canopy was not linked to the main shed i.e it has a solid wall between them then it may be excluded.

All of his comments were unofficial and off the record and he said that every PD application will be interpreted by an individual who may have a different reading than he.