RECAP 2019 Jonathan Jenkin Managing Director Planning & Design Practice Ltd Class Q & Class R
Introduction • Class Q – One of the most contentious elements of the Government’s raft of changes since 2010 • Introduced April 2014 • Allows Change of Use and conversion of agricultural buildings to dwellings • Less contentious - Class R Allows Change of Use from agriculture to a flexible business use
Presentation 1) Recap on Class Q & Class R 2) Evolving interpretations of Class Q 3) Case studies and statistics 4) The Impact of Class Q and Class R
What does Class Q allow? Permit itted development Q. . De Development con onsistin ing of of — • (a) a ch change of of use se of a building and any land within its curtilage from a use as an agricultural building to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses) of the Schedule to the Use Classes Order; and • (b) build ildin ing op operations reasonably necessary to convert the building referred to in paragraph (a) to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses) of that schedule
Class Q criteria • The building must be in sole agricultural use and part of a registered agricultural holding Must be in active agricultural use on 20 th March 2013 or when last in use with • no other intervening uses* • Can create up to 5 dwellings on each holding , with up to 3 larger dwellings (over 100sq. m) to a maximum of 465 sq. m and two smaller dwelling of up to 100sq.m each • Maximum floor space for one large dwelling is 465 sq. m and maximum amount of changed space 865 sq. m (1x 465sq. m + 4x 100sq. m) • No extensions beyond the existing envelope - walls, roof, roof slope and floor • The building must be strong enough to take the loading caused by the external alterations
Class Q criteria • The Building works must be completed and the property occupied within 3 years • The permitted residential curtilage is small – anything larger than the footprint of the building requires planning permission • The installation of septic tanks and Sewage Treatment Plants can be included within the application under Class Q(b) • Planning Practice Guidance Paragraph 105 states: Internal works are not generally development. For the building to function as a dwelling it may be appropriate to undertake internal structural works, including to allow for a floor, the insertion of a mezzanine or upper floors within the overall residential floor space permitted, or internal walls, which are not prohibited by Class Q Paragraph: 105 Reference ID: 13-105-20180615 Revision date: 15 06 2018
Class Q Exclusions • Cannot use Class Q if other works were carried out using Part 6 Permitted Development Rights since March 2013 • Class Q rights do not apply to listed buildings or buildings within their curtilage • Class Q rights do not apply in Conservation Areas, AONBs, World Heritage Sites or in National Parks • Any new agricultural buildings constructed on a holding with planning permission cannot be converted into a dwelling(s) for 10 years • A dwelling created under Class Q has no Permitted Development Rights to alter or extend
Class Q Prior Notification process 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 (dwelling houses) of the Schedule to the Use Classes Order, and (f) the design or external appearance of the building
Class Q Prior Notification process • Impractical or undesirable: • 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 (Planning Practice Guidance P109) • Whilst the principle of development is accepted a Class Q application must be submitted with detailed drawings based on a full survey
Class Q Prior Notification process • Design and External Appearance : • ‘ building operations reasonably necessary to convert the building ’ • and the extent reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwelling house
Class Q Four distinct eras Legislation has not changed since April 2014 but its interpretation has……… 1) April 2014-March 2015 (lack of guidance) 2) March 2015-Nov 2016 (new guidance) 3) Nov 2016- June 2018 (post Hibbitt case) 4) June 2018 to Present - extended rights and new guidance
Class Q 1 st era (April 2014-March 2015) • Widespread head scratching • LPAs refusing where possible, particularly due to locational sustainability test • Lack of guidance to accompany ambiguous legislation • Only 21% of appeals were allowed (unsustainable location)
1 st era (April 2014-March 2015)
1 st era (April 2014-March 2015)
1 st era (April 2014-March 2015) Some innovative solutions……..
2nd era March 2015-Nov 2016 May be ‘impractical’ New Planning Practice Guidance, March 2015. Helped to clarify: 1) Sustainability of location – the permitted development right does not apply a test in relation to sustainability of location….Instead, the local planning authority can consider whether the location and siting of the building would make it impractical or undesirable to change use to a house
2nd era March 2015-Nov 2016 New Planning Practice Guidance. Helped to clarify: 2) Structural integrity – “it is not the intention of the permitted development right to include the construction of new structural elements for the building. Therefore it is only where the existing building is structurally strong enough to take the loading which comes with the external works to provide for residential use that the building would be considered to have the permitted development right.”
2nd era March 2015-Nov 2016 Impact on appeals Less proposals refused on sustainability of location • Percentage of appeals in which the "location or siting of the building" was found to be acceptable increased (from 35% to 83%) More refused on proposed building operations • percentage of appeals in which the proposed building operations were found to be acceptable dropped from 37% to 23% So the Planning Practice Guidance gave with one hand but took away with the other (Source: Planning Jungle)
2nd era March 2015-Nov 2016 Refused due to: Farm building 1. Sustainability 2. Proximity to farm building Dwelling
2nd era March 2015-Nov 2016
2nd era March 2015-Nov 2016 What about internal works? Under S55(2) of the TCPA 1990 “ The following operations or uses of land shall not be taken for the purposes of this Act to involve development of the land — (a) the carrying out for the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of any building of works which — (i) affect only the interior of the building, or (ii) do not materially affect the external appearance of the building ” This is now explicit in Planning Practice Guidance paragraph 105
3rd era (Nov 16-June 2018 ) High Court decision, early November 2016 - Hibbitt v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government • 30 metre, steel-framed barn, largely open on three sides • LPA refused conversion, Inspector dismissed appeal • Mr & Mrs Hibbitt sought to quash the Inspector’s decision
3rd era (Nov 16-June 18) Hibbitt case details • Judge upheld the decision of the Inspector • Has clarified that a “conversion” of an agricultural building can constitute permitted development under Class Q, but a “rebuild” or ‘fresh build’ cannot • The distinction is a matter of planning judgment, but it is far from clear where the dividing line falls • Much of the existing external fabric must now be retained • The building must be enclosed on at least 3 sides
3rd era (Nov 16-June 18) • LPA refused due to extent of building operations. • Inspector commented “ The existing building would be stripped down to the frame only. In my view, if comparing what would remain of the original building with what would be constructed, it would be reasonable to conclude that the works carried out would, as a matter of fact and degree, be more than conversion. As such, I consider the nature and extent of the works to be such that the development would amount to a ‘fresh build’ as set out in Hibbitt .” • Hibbitt case mentioned 3 times
4 th era (June 18 to Present ) • Number of units increase from 3 to 5 • Floor space increase from 450sq.m to 465 sq.m – 865sq.m • Guidance on using Section 55 (internal works) • Retention of the Hibbitt legal judgement • Acceptance and understanding by most LPAs • Conversion of Farm Building in Derbyshire Dales to Dwelling - Allowed June 2019
Recommend
More recommend
