I have challenged this in Planning forums in the past and have always been told it's 10 years. I am only a junior planner so have erred to more experienced peers on enforcement issues.
Planning Applications, PD and the like (General Chat)
- Thread starter George from SJM Planning
- Start date
I believe that should be 10 years as it is a development
- Location
- Near Beeston Castle
Keep challenging it. What I quoted was from the Town and Country Planning act as I am sure you know. Experienced peers are not always right which I am sure you also know.
Apologies, I will delete this post, too many sherberts after the rugby got it all ar$e about face. I have copied and pasted this:
You can apply for a Lawful Development Certificate for an existing use or development providing you can demonstrate that:
- the land has been in continuous use (other than as a dwelling) for more than 10 years
- a condition or limitation on planning permission has not been complied with for more than 10 years
- the building was completed more than 4 years ago, and has been used as a dwelling for more than 4 years.
I have a quick question if anyone has any idea.
Land is on 1 title, no buildings, always ag land. The 1 building is on it's own title and although historically used as part of the 'farm' and was so in 2013 is now not.
Options are Class Q on the barn, complicated by flood plain map which leaves me a 10 year wait for PD on a new barn. Or PD on new barn(s) which leaves me 10 years for class Q.
Is there an argument that although the barn is agricultural, it should be looked at as a separate entity to the farm land / business? Or will they say it's all in the same 'entity' as it were?
In terms of ownership, land is in trust to children. Barn is in sole name but could be transferred into a Ltd if needed.
Land is on 1 title, no buildings, always ag land. The 1 building is on it's own title and although historically used as part of the 'farm' and was so in 2013 is now not.
Options are Class Q on the barn, complicated by flood plain map which leaves me a 10 year wait for PD on a new barn. Or PD on new barn(s) which leaves me 10 years for class Q.
Is there an argument that although the barn is agricultural, it should be looked at as a separate entity to the farm land / business? Or will they say it's all in the same 'entity' as it were?
In terms of ownership, land is in trust to children. Barn is in sole name but could be transferred into a Ltd if needed.
- Location
- Near Beeston Castle
Class Q on the barn now and full planning for new barn.
Class Q is unlikely to be an option in 10 years and is far more valuable than cost of full planning for new shed.
renewablejohn
Member
- Location
- lancs
Have a similar question to Pasty. Also looking for Class Q on a timber chicken shed with tin roof. Unfortunately the last storm has broken some of the roof trusses so I now have a sky slope front to back. The tin roof is all still intact so a simple jack up and replace trusses would be in order but would planners expect a repair of the originals instead. Tempted to put more glass in as well but that would probably be a step to far.
I don't think it really matters as you can flatten the lot and start again as far as I can see. Maybe unless it's old stone. With my barn we have already put in a pad (with DPM) and block walls halfway up. Done with this in mind from the start really.
The question of whether the building is part of the agricultural unit or not is a double edged sword - on one hand if it isn't will the LPA still view it has been "solely for an agricultural use as part of an established agricultural unit" if it is not part of the farm? This is a funamental part of Class Q. If you state it is not part of the agricultural unit then the question will be what has its use been for the past 9 years.
But if it still classed as part of the agricultural unit the conversion will result in your PD rights for new buildings being removed for 10 years but it will be easier to prove it is part of the agricultural unit.
Land ownership is not taken into consideration for planning other than the requirement to notify any othr owners or agricultual tennants.
I would follow @Kidds train of thought, Class Q on the barn and Full Planning for a new one.
Flood Risk can be difficult to overcome in a Class Q application, especially if the floor level needs to be raised. We have had first hand experience of this on several sites and it needs a good flood risk consultant and some architectural design.
Is the shed structually capable of conversion? Was it prior to the storm? A timber and tim chicken shed doesn't sound like an obvious candidate for Class Q. With LPA's looking to refused them at the first hurdle I would make sure you had a comprehensive structural report that says that conversion is possible with minimal structural additions.
Alternativly there is the route of seeking Class Q(a) for the change of use without any building operations and then apply for full planning for the building works. This is a route LPA's hate and don't really understand but it has been supported iwth various appeals and case law.
renewablejohn
Member
- Location
- lancs
I was taking inspiration from this one.
Residential Conversion of Poultry Shed approved by Class Q
residential conversion of poultry shed into a single dwelling permitted by Class Q
www.jjdesign.org.uk
i would be interested to see the actual application for that one and whether it went to appeal or not. There are many more buildings in a better state than that that have been refused Class Q!I was taking inspiration from this one.
Residential Conversion of Poultry Shed approved by Class Q
residential conversion of poultry shed into a single dwelling permitted by Class Q
Planning or Class Q?
Nearly
Member
- Location
- North of York
@nick... got one of the first ones I think.
- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
I don't blame anyone for trying out an application like that but it's that sort of case that undermines the whole system for us all.I was taking inspiration from this one.
Residential Conversion of Poultry Shed approved by Class Q
residential conversion of poultry shed into a single dwelling permitted by Class Q
Part Q's days are numbered for exactly that reason.....
renewablejohn
Member
- Location
- lancs
Is it really any different to developing a brown field site but with the added stipulation that the building cannot alter the footprint of the original building. All this it has to be "structurally sound" is just the planners gold plating the regulations as an excuse to reject a scheme. I am sure if some of these rejections went to appeal this gold plating would soon be dropped in favour of the true spirit being housing in the countryside using areas formally taken up by redundant ag buildings.
Agricultural Buildings and Land are not classed as Brownfield, it is one exception to the term Previously Developed Land (the current term for Brownfield) and therefore farmyards and the like are not treated the same as a builders yard.
Most LPA's will do there upmost to keep residietial use from the countryside, hence why CLass Q's are so difficult to obtain nowadays. Outside of Class Q redundant agricultural buildings are encouraged to be considered for all other uses before residential as the last resort.
renewablejohn
Member
- Location
- lancs
Have you not heard of triggers brush. I thought thats how all chicken sheds operated. I know when I bought it at auction it was 3 bay and the asbestos roof had been taken off. Obviously I rejected the kind offer of the once used asbestos sheets and used new steel sheets instead converting from 3 bay to 2 bay but utilising the 2 spare panels as a feed store attached to the chicken shed. Any replacement panel can be knocked up in a day with simple saw hammer and nails.
renewablejohn
Member
- Location
- lancs
But I thought it was that what the government were trying to change by the introduction of Class Q as left to the planners it would never happen.