Planning Applications, PD and the like (General Chat)

I have not read all the responses but there was guidance issued regarding how LPA should treat this paragraph and examples of what was executable and what was not it came out in 2015 from dclg
I think this is the guidance you refer to:

What is meant by impractical or undesirable for the change to residential use?

Impractical or undesirable are not defined in the regulations, and the local planning authority should apply a reasonable ordinary dictionary meaning in making any judgment. Impractical reflects that the location and siting would “not be sensible or realistic”, and undesirable reflects that it would be “harmful or objectionable”.


When considering whether it is appropriate for the change of use to take place in a particular location, a local planning authority should start from the premise that the permitted development right grants planning permission, subject to the prior approval requirements. That an agricultural building is in a location where the local planning authority would not normally grant planning permission for a new dwelling is not a sufficient reason for refusing prior approval.


There may, however, be circumstances where the impact cannot be mitigated. Therefore, when looking at location, local planning authorities may, for example, consider that because an agricultural building on the top of a hill with no road access, power source or other services its conversion is impractical. Additionally the location of the building whose use would change may be undesirable if it is adjacent to other uses such as intensive poultry farming buildings, silage storage or buildings with dangerous machines or chemicals.


When a local authority considers location and siting in this context it will not therefore be appropriate to apply tests from the National Planning Policy Framework except to the extent these are relevant to the subject matter of the prior approval. So, for example, factors such as whether the property is for a rural worker, or whether the design is of exceptional quality or innovative, are unlikely to be relevant.
 

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
3 months before a case officer is assigned, a further 3 months before they do anything, and the latest is they must have another ecology report and they can't do that until bat season which is in May. Just ridiculous!
This isn't a sensitive site, just the LPA using it as a delay tactic as they are drastically understaffed. Previous reports haven't flagged anything and a greenfield application not 100 yards away was passed without an ecology report being requested.
And yet there were bats flying this morning when I walked the dogs at 7am....
 

MF35

Member
Location
Hampshire
Hi MF35, I was just drafting a PM to you but I'm happy to share with the forum.

This is a very interesting and ultimately confusing situation as it really depends on the views of the planning officer and the local authority which is contradictory to the ethos of the GPDO which is to make the decision black or white. After a little reserach it seems that it is not a view taken by all case officers and local authorities but knowing how far and wide it speads is unknown.

I have found an appeal that was brought against a decision that Shropshire Council had refused and that refusal was upheld by the Inspectorate on the grounds that it could not be determined whether the building was suitable for conversion under Q.2 (e):
Q.2—(1) Where the development proposed is development under Class Q(a) together with development under Class Q(b), development is permitted subject to the condition that before beginning the development, the developer must apply to the local planning authority for a determination as to whether the prior approval of the authority will be required as to—
(a) transport and highways impacts of the development,
(b) noise impacts of the development,
(c) contamination risks on the site,
(d) flooding risks on the site,
(e) whether the location or siting of the building makes it otherwise impractical or undesirable for the building to change from agricultural use to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses) of the Schedule to the Use Classes Order, and
(f) the design or external appearance of the building, and the provisions of paragraph W (prior approval) of this Part apply in relation to that application.


We have never come across this ourselves and I have a call out to a contact who has a larger portfolio of Class Q applications to see if it something they have come across but now there is an appeal decision upholding a council's decision then it is out there to be cited time and again. We are now considering whether we should be factoring in ecology surveys for all our rural projects as I have just had an application returned asking for an ecology report for an application to resite a timber 4 bay stable building 25m!

I hope this helps
Thanks for your thoughts on this matter and the additional comments thus far.
 

woodworm

Member
Location
Thetford Norfolk
Hi @George from SJM Planning
We have a business on the edge of a small town surrounded by small and large industrial businesses. Our business is solely related to forestry and biomass (woodchips and wood products) so I believe should really be classed as agricultural rather than industrial (we are also in the centre of 40000 acres of pine forest)
What would the chance be of getting our classification changed from industrial to agricultural and do you have an idea of the costs and implications involved in trying to do this?
Many thanks
woodworm
 
Hi @George from SJM Planning
We have a business on the edge of a small town surrounded by small and large industrial businesses. Our business is solely related to forestry and biomass (woodchips and wood products) so I believe should really be classed as agricultural rather than industrial (we are also in the centre of 40000 acres of pine forest)
What would the chance be of getting our classification changed from industrial to agricultural and do you have an idea of the costs and implications involved in trying to do this?
Many thanks
woodworm
It would be a change of use application from its existing use to a forestry/agriculture. They are fairly simple as it is two commercial uses, just in different classes.
 

daveydiesel1

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Co antrim
After responding to several posts recently on particular planning queries which have descended into general chats I thought it might be good to have a place where we can discuss planning queries in general without hijacking other people's posts.

So feel free to post anything Planning/Permitted Development/Appeals/Enforcement related.
Want to put pig shed up in co antrim for either m keys pigs or jmw farms. Whats the current law with plannin as dont want to go down that routeif can be avoided
 

Nearly

Member
Location
North of York
Hi @George from SJM Planning
We have a business on the edge of a small town surrounded by small and large industrial businesses. Our business is solely related to forestry and biomass (woodchips and wood products) so I believe should really be classed as agricultural rather than industrial (we are also in the centre of 40000 acres of pine forest)
What would the chance be of getting our classification changed from industrial to agricultural and do you have an idea of the costs and implications involved in trying to do this?
Many thanks
woodworm
Any chance of selling the industrial site you have and moving further into the forest? Just a thought from an amateur.
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 77 43.5%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 62 35.0%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 28 15.8%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.7%
  • 75-100%

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

    Votes: 4 2.3%

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

  • 1,285
  • 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