[SmallWelshBarn]

Little background. I brought a barn conversion about four years ago. It had its PDR stripped away this is standard practice by Monmouth for agricultural conversions.
Last year I successfully gained planning permission to almost double the size of my barn ( its tiny ) even doubling it size it is still small.
I have not started work on the conversion yet as I have been tied up finishing building an oak framed 3 bay barn.
I have decided to make an application for the barn to have its PDR returned. No rights mean I can't make any changes what so ever its highly restrictive. I already knew that the planners would resist they are un-flexable and don't actually have a good grasp on PDR removal legislation. I on the other hand now do.
PDR should only be removed in exceptional circumstances i.e listed building etc. The council have to apply a six stage test and give reason why the rights should not be returned. English & Welsh policy is almost the same. This is the link to the circular the council should adhere to http://gov.wales/docs/desh/publications/141007circular16-2014-en.pdf
Sadly they seem to want to ignore this...... Makes life interesting as I already know they are going to refuse my application. However I am not in the least worried. Simple because of this case.....
Appeal Ref: APP/Q4625/A/12/2170281 Betteridges Barn, Tilehouse Lane, Shirley, Solihull B90 1PW

The appeal was made against the decision of Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council to refuse permission to grant permission without removing Permitted Development Rights for extensions and alterations

The reason given for the condition was: “In order to maintain and preserve the amenities of the area”.

Decision
The appeal was allowed subject to the other conditions imposed.
Main Issue
The main issue was whether there were exceptional circumstances to justify retaining the restriction on permitted development rights.
Reasons
Circular 11/95 establishes tests for conditions including whether the condition is necessary and whether it is reasonable and restrictions on permitted development rights should be imposed “exceptionally” and there should be a presumption against such restrictions with clear evidence of serious adverse effects on amenity or the environment to justify restrictions of this kind.
New residential development is not generally seen to be appropriate development in the Green Belt however Barn conversions in the Green Belt are an exceptional circumstance and permitted under Policy C2 of the Solihull UDP where the character of the original building would be retained and there would be no adverse effect on its setting and surroundings. It is not unreasonable for an Authority to limit the amount of additional extensions and alterations.
In this case the reason given for the disputed condition was to maintain and preserve the openness of the Green Belt and permitted development rights would have allowed a range of alterations or small extensions to the property, and the construction of ancillary buildings. In theory at least, these could result in a significant amount of new built development, including coverage of up to 50% of the domestic garden area behind the alignment of the frontage.
These additions could appear unsightly or as an unattractive or insensitive intensification of development in the Green Belt, particularly if it is in an exposed, open or isolated rural setting.
This Barn is now a well established residential property, part of a small node of development and the property is surrounded by tall hedges and fences. There is open countryside to the north and east which is used, at least in part, for stables and playing fields. Although the area is in the Green Belt, it is not a protected landscape area, and there are no significant public viewpoints in the vicinity from which the property can be seen to be intrusive or conspicuous.
The house and outbuildings are not Listed, nor are they noted on any local list of buildings of architectural or historic interest. The barn doors are the only interesting remnant feature of its previous use, but these are largely hidden in any public appreciation of the property by the roadside hedge and fences; so the doors are not a significant contributor to the street scene or any notably rural character of this locality.
Taking account of the current circumstances at the appeal site, where hedges and fences physically and visually enclose the house and its gardens, the likelihood of such changes being perceived as materially harmful to the character of the property and its surroundings is low. Neither would the openness of the Green Belt be materially affected as development would not extend beyond the confines of the hedges and fences.
Drawing these points together, the circumstances at Betteridges Barn do not fall within the sort of situation which might justify the restriction.
The condition was properly applied in 1987, circumstances now – some 25 years on – are such that there is no sensitive landscape or habitat requiring protection, or architectural style, form, detailing or massing which needs to be conserved, or other aspect of the amenity value of the Green Belt, or any other component of amenity in the public domain in the vicinity of the appeal site which is likely to be seriously harmed by the exercise of permitted development rights at this property. That is, there is no clear evidence of serious adverse effects on amenity or the environment to justify restrictions of this kind.
Accordingly, in this instance, the disputed condition no longer serves a useful purpose and hence cannot be seen to be either reasonable or necessary because there are no exceptional circumstances which justify retaining the restriction on permitted development rights. The appeal should be allowed.

Now this is an older case however it is still very much valid and the information is often sighted. I have used all of the above arguments in my application. It will be interesting to see how the LA try to justify their decision which I will challenge at appeal if need be.

[landroverroy]

Good luck with that. As  you you have found out, planning authorities are often illogical, ignorant of planning law and make a lot up as they go along. But if all else fails it's well worth appealing. I've just won an appeal against our council's refusal to allow permitted development for conversion of an agricultural building to a dwelling. The council virtually called me a liar on 3 points. The Planning Inspectorate agreed with what I'd said on all 3. I was really pleased to have won because apparently E Riding of Yorkshire Council is dead against any barn conversions (jealousy?) and make up any scenarios they possibly can in order to refuse them.   

[SmallWelshBarn]

Good luck with that. As  you you have found out, planning authorities are often illogical, ignorant of planning law and make a lot up as they go along. But if all else fails it's well worth appealing. I've just won an appeal against our council's refusal to allow permitted development for conversion of an agricultural building to a dwelling. The council virtually called me a liar on 3 points. The Planning Inspectorate agreed with what I'd said on all 3. I was really pleased to have won because apparently E Riding of Yorkshire Council is dead against any barn conversions (jealousy?) and make up any scenarios they possibly can in order to refuse them.   

Well done on winning do you have a link I would be interested in reading the appeal decision knowledge is power ?
The planner told me before I had submitted my application she would not grant the return of my PD rights.
This shows a lack of a proper thought process. No consideration to the facts no looking at previous case law no following the guide lines. That kind of attitude pisses me off.
I will challenge and when when I win, I’ll take pleasure in sticking an advert in the local rag recommending that any one who has had PDR removed  challeng the LA decision. 
What irks me the most is I called the planning directorate and spoke to the planner that deals with PD rights for clarification on the rules to make sure I understood. The LA just choose to ignore the directorates rules.
He was very helpful and sent me this.
Further to our discussion, national policy and guidance on applying conditions to planning permission is set out in Welsh Government Circular 016/2014: The Use of Planning Conditions for Development Management - http://gov.wales/docs/desh/publications/141007circular16-2014-en.pdf
 
The Circular provides guidance on:
·        The Power to Impose Conditions
·        The Six Tests for the validity of planning conditions
·        Drafting, Agreeing and Discharging Conditions
·        The Regulation of Development
·        List of Model Conditions
 
The national policy position regarding the use of conditions to restrict permitted development rights is set out in paragraphs 5.101 – 5.106.
 
Paragraph 5.105 states:
 
“The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) and the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) are designed to give or confirm a freedom from detailed control which will be acceptable in the great majority of cases. Save in exceptional circumstances, conditions should not be imposed which restrict either permitted development rights granted by development orders or future changes of use which the Use Classes Order would otherwise allow. For example, a condition would only prove reasonable if there was evidence that it would prevent a serious adverse effect on amenity or the environment, there were no other forms of control and it served a planning purpose. Care must be taken to ensure that the condition is no more onerous than can be justified. If a more specific condition can be imposed which will address the problem, rather than restricting development, then it should be. For example, where it is necessary to restrict the volume of noise emitted from an industrial site, a specific noise condition (see conditions 66 to 69 of the appendix) may be more appropriate than a condition restricting development.”


 

[SmallWelshBarn]

As expected I had the application refused.
Refusal reasons.
The application site relates to a converted agricultural building for residential use, situated in the open countryside, the Wye Valley AONB and in close proximity of Public Rights of Way including the Offa’s Dyke Path National Trail. This application seeks to remove three planning conditions that restrict extensions and alterations, control demolition and rebuild, and control boundary materials. The removal of these conditions would enable the site to be significantly adversely altered through inappropriate alterations, substantial reconstruction and visually intrusive boundary materials. This would detract significantly from the character of the existing building, domesticating a converted agricultural building, eroding the character and appearance of the local area within the Wye Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The proposal fails to comply with criteria a) and d) of Policy H4 of the Monmouthshire Local Development Plan. The cumulative impact of this development together would change the character of the land to an overtly domestic nature, which would appear out of place in this sensitive rural landscape contrary to criteria a) and b) of Policy LC4 of the Monmouthshire Local Development Plan.

I will be challenging the decision as the reasons for refusal make no actual sense and have no regard for the national frame work.
1. It’s no longer a barn sitting in the middle of a field on its own . I have planning permission already in place for a two story extension to double it’s size. The council have had no regard for that fact.
The illogical argument about detracting from the character of the building and domesticating an agricultural building fail as it’s already been domesticated and granted a double size extension at committee stage.
2.Eroding the character of the area.... errr It’s no longer a barn sitting in the middle of a field on its own it’s a working small holding with 3 buildings around it a ménage and fencing. All set back under the tree line. Any impact has already taken place.
4.The return of permitted development rights for the actual barn I live in won’t actually impact a huge amount. It simply affords me the same
rights as the neighbouring properties.

[landroverroy]

Don't know if you're submitting the appeal yourself SWB, as you've obviously read up on the subject and your arguments are logical.
However, if not already using one, I would recommend getting a good planning consultant to argue your case. And by good, I mean one that has had considerable success in handling appeals - not just one who says they are good. Self praise is no recommendation.
The one I use charges £65/hour and knows planning policy in the minutest detail. She can turn any planning officer's nonsense inside out.
The previous one that I used only once for an application (that failed) was full of how brilliant he was, charged £85 (and then some in "extras") and I could have done better myself.


Good luck anyway.

[SmallWelshBarn]

Don't know if you're submitting the appeal yourself SWB, as you've obviously read up on the subject and your arguments are logical.
However, if not already using one, I would recommend getting a good planning consultant to argue your case. And by good, I mean one that has had considerable success in handling appeals - not just one who says they are good. Self praise is no recommendation.
The one I use charges £65/hour and knows planning policy in the minutest detail. She can turn any planning officer's nonsense inside out.
The previous one that I used only once for an application (that failed) was full of how brilliant he was, charged £85 (and then some in "extras") and I could have done better myself.




Good luck anyway.

Can you send me the details of your planning consultant please.

[landroverroy]

Her name is Melissa Madge, Derwent Crescent, Howden.
If you google it you'll see her phone number (which I don't have with me) and further details.
I know she's pretty busy, but you may be lucky. She really is good.

[Dairyfarm]

I am in a similar process with my local council, planning was granted to convert old barn but PD rights have been withdrawn, i am expecting them to refuse the application and will be appealing. I have several other Appeal cases if you need any help. I would be interested to see your application, can you send me planning ref number?

Little background. I brought a barn conversion about four years ago. It had its PDR stripped away this is standard practice by Monmouth for agricultural conversions.
Last year I successfully gained planning permission to almost double the size of my barn ( its tiny ) even doubling it size it is still small.
I have not started work on the conversion yet as I have been tied up finishing building an oak framed 3 bay barn.
I have decided to make an application for the barn to have its PDR returned. No rights mean I can't make any changes what so ever its highly restrictive. I already knew that the planners would resist they are un-flexable and don't actually have a good grasp on PDR removal legislation. I on the other hand now do.
PDR should only be removed in exceptional circumstances i.e listed building etc. The council have to apply a six stage test and give reason why the rights should not be returned. English & Welsh policy is almost the same. This is the link to the circular the council should adhere to http://gov.wales/docs/desh/publications/141007circular16-2014-en.pdf
Sadly they seem to want to ignore this...... Makes life interesting as I already know they are going to refuse my application. However I am not in the least worried. Simple because of this case.....
Appeal Ref: APP/Q4625/A/12/2170281 Betteridges Barn, Tilehouse Lane, Shirley, Solihull B90 1PW

The appeal was made against the decision of Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council to refuse permission to grant permission without removing Permitted Development Rights for extensions and alterations

The reason given for the condition was: “In order to maintain and preserve the amenities of the area”.

Decision
The appeal was allowed subject to the other conditions imposed.
Main Issue
The main issue was whether there were exceptional circumstances to justify retaining the restriction on permitted development rights.
Reasons
Circular 11/95 establishes tests for conditions including whether the condition is necessary and whether it is reasonable and restrictions on permitted development rights should be imposed “exceptionally” and there should be a presumption against such restrictions with clear evidence of serious adverse effects on amenity or the environment to justify restrictions of this kind.
New residential development is not generally seen to be appropriate development in the Green Belt however Barn conversions in the Green Belt are an exceptional circumstance and permitted under Policy C2 of the Solihull UDP where the character of the original building would be retained and there would be no adverse effect on its setting and surroundings. It is not unreasonable for an Authority to limit the amount of additional extensions and alterations.
In this case the reason given for the disputed condition was to maintain and preserve the openness of the Green Belt and permitted development rights would have allowed a range of alterations or small extensions to the property, and the construction of ancillary buildings. In theory at least, these could result in a significant amount of new built development, including coverage of up to 50% of the domestic garden area behind the alignment of the frontage.
These additions could appear unsightly or as an unattractive or insensitive intensification of development in the Green Belt, particularly if it is in an exposed, open or isolated rural setting.
This Barn is now a well established residential property, part of a small node of development and the property is surrounded by tall hedges and fences. There is open countryside to the north and east which is used, at least in part, for stables and playing fields. Although the area is in the Green Belt, it is not a protected landscape area, and there are no significant public viewpoints in the vicinity from which the property can be seen to be intrusive or conspicuous.
The house and outbuildings are not Listed, nor are they noted on any local list of buildings of architectural or historic interest. The barn doors are the only interesting remnant feature of its previous use, but these are largely hidden in any public appreciation of the property by the roadside hedge and fences; so the doors are not a significant contributor to the street scene or any notably rural character of this locality.
Taking account of the current circumstances at the appeal site, where hedges and fences physically and visually enclose the house and its gardens, the likelihood of such changes being perceived as materially harmful to the character of the property and its surroundings is low. Neither would the openness of the Green Belt be materially affected as development would not extend beyond the confines of the hedges and fences.
Drawing these points together, the circumstances at Betteridges Barn do not fall within the sort of situation which might justify the restriction.
The condition was properly applied in 1987, circumstances now – some 25 years on – are such that there is no sensitive landscape or habitat requiring protection, or architectural style, form, detailing or massing which needs to be conserved, or other aspect of the amenity value of the Green Belt, or any other component of amenity in the public domain in the vicinity of the appeal site which is likely to be seriously harmed by the exercise of permitted development rights at this property. That is, there is no clear evidence of serious adverse effects on amenity or the environment to justify restrictions of this kind.
Accordingly, in this instance, the disputed condition no longer serves a useful purpose and hence cannot be seen to be either reasonable or necessary because there are no exceptional circumstances which justify retaining the restriction on permitted development rights. The appeal should be allowed.

Now this is an older case however it is still very much valid and the information is often sighted. I have used all of the above arguments in my application. It will be interesting to see how the LA try to justify their decision which I will challenge at appeal if need be.

[bazzais]

dont mention horses or ménage in any planning application

[SmallWelshBarn]

Just an update had a visit on Friday from the Welsh Planning inspectorate for my appeal.
Fingers crossed and feeling positive :-)
Should have an answer soon.

[SmallWelshBarn]

For those that are interested. I won my appeal and am now doing a happy dance ;-)

https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?Caseid=3203203&CoID=0

[SteveB]

Brilliant, well done you 

[landroverroy]

For those that are interested. I won my appeal and am now doing a happy dance ;-)

https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?Caseid=3203203&CoID=0

Fantastic news.
But can't believe the speed of the decision. The appeals I've been involved in have taken about 6 months before a decision was reached.

[Dookie]

Little background. I brought a barn conversion about four years ago. It had its PDR stripped away this is standard practice by Monmouth for agricultural conversions.
Last year I successfully gained planning permission to almost double the size of my barn ( its tiny ) even doubling it size it is still small.
I have not started work on the conversion yet as I have been tied up finishing building an oak framed 3 bay barn.
I have decided to make an application for the barn to have its PDR returned. No rights mean I can't make any changes what so ever its highly restrictive. I already knew that the planners would resist they are un-flexable and don't actually have a good grasp on PDR removal legislation. I on the other hand now do.
PDR should only be removed in exceptional circumstances i.e listed building etc. The council have to apply a six stage test and give reason why the rights should not be returned. English & Welsh policy is almost the same. This is the link to the circular the council should adhere to http://gov.wales/docs/desh/publications/141007circular16-2014-en.pdf
Sadly they seem to want to ignore this...... Makes life interesting as I already know they are going to refuse my application. However I am not in the least worried. Simple because of this case.....
Appeal Ref: APP/Q4625/A/12/2170281 Betteridges Barn, Tilehouse Lane, Shirley, Solihull B90 1PW

The appeal was made against the decision of Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council to refuse permission to grant permission without removing Permitted Development Rights for extensions and alterations

The reason given for the condition was: “In order to maintain and preserve the amenities of the area”.

Decision
The appeal was allowed subject to the other conditions imposed.
Main Issue
The main issue was whether there were exceptional circumstances to justify retaining the restriction on permitted development rights.
Reasons
Circular 11/95 establishes tests for conditions including whether the condition is necessary and whether it is reasonable and restrictions on permitted development rights should be imposed “exceptionally” and there should be a presumption against such restrictions with clear evidence of serious adverse effects on amenity or the environment to justify restrictions of this kind.
New residential development is not generally seen to be appropriate development in the Green Belt however Barn conversions in the Green Belt are an exceptional circumstance and permitted under Policy C2 of the Solihull UDP where the character of the original building would be retained and there would be no adverse effect on its setting and surroundings. It is not unreasonable for an Authority to limit the amount of additional extensions and alterations.
In this case the reason given for the disputed condition was to maintain and preserve the openness of the Green Belt and permitted development rights would have allowed a range of alterations or small extensions to the property, and the construction of ancillary buildings. In theory at least, these could result in a significant amount of new built development, including coverage of up to 50% of the domestic garden area behind the alignment of the frontage.
These additions could appear unsightly or as an unattractive or insensitive intensification of development in the Green Belt, particularly if it is in an exposed, open or isolated rural setting.
This Barn is now a well established residential property, part of a small node of development and the property is surrounded by tall hedges and fences. There is open countryside to the north and east which is used, at least in part, for stables and playing fields. Although the area is in the Green Belt, it is not a protected landscape area, and there are no significant public viewpoints in the vicinity from which the property can be seen to be intrusive or conspicuous.
The house and outbuildings are not Listed, nor are they noted on any local list of buildings of architectural or historic interest. The barn doors are the only interesting remnant feature of its previous use, but these are largely hidden in any public appreciation of the property by the roadside hedge and fences; so the doors are not a significant contributor to the street scene or any notably rural character of this locality.
Taking account of the current circumstances at the appeal site, where hedges and fences physically and visually enclose the house and its gardens, the likelihood of such changes being perceived as materially harmful to the character of the property and its surroundings is low. Neither would the openness of the Green Belt be materially affected as development would not extend beyond the confines of the hedges and fences.
Drawing these points together, the circumstances at Betteridges Barn do not fall within the sort of situation which might justify the restriction.
The condition was properly applied in 1987, circumstances now – some 25 years on – are such that there is no sensitive landscape or habitat requiring protection, or architectural style, form, detailing or massing which needs to be conserved, or other aspect of the amenity value of the Green Belt, or any other component of amenity in the public domain in the vicinity of the appeal site which is likely to be seriously harmed by the exercise of permitted development rights at this property. That is, there is no clear evidence of serious adverse effects on amenity or the environment to justify restrictions of this kind.
Accordingly, in this instance, the disputed condition no longer serves a useful purpose and hence cannot be seen to be either reasonable or necessary because there are no exceptional circumstances which justify retaining the restriction on permitted development rights. The appeal should be allowed.

Now this is an older case however it is still very much valid and the information is often sighted. I have used all of the above arguments in my application. It will be interesting to see how the LA try to justify their decision which I will challenge at appeal if need be.

Thank you so much for this!! It is called an Article 4, I believe... My local authority has done the same thing with my property, a redundant water pumping station on an acre of land... a tiny brick building which resembles a public convenience, but which has B1 business use... It is not in a conservation area, and the land is criss crossed with huge pylons and telegraph poles and there is a huge solar energy farm opposite, yet they have put a restriction on PD stating it's to preserve the open aspect of the green belt . There has been a building on the land for the past 100 years and the old steam pumping station before automation was originally THREE times the size of the current building. I'm currently in trouble with the planning dept for erecting a grain silo on the land... 

[Dookie]

Fabulous news!!! This has given me some hope... Thank you!