Its taken a year for me to gain permission to extend my postage size barn. It will gain an 82% increase in size which sounds a lot but in actuality when you double the size of a stamp you just have a slightly bigger stamp. However it will mean I have a much more useable and saleable home.
The barn had some problems with the planners in the past and in particular one very biased planning officer in my opinion. During this application I asked for the planner to be changed due to a complaint in relation to her past decision making. That was refused so much for fresh eyes or impartiality.
I enlisted the help of a planning specialist and we went to war.
History I presented to the planning committee :-• This is the LPA argument for refusal
http://idox.monmouthshire.gov.uk/WAM/doc/Report-615855.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=615855&appid=1001&location=VOLUME5&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=1&sid=This was my counter argument
The barn conversion was originally granted under the provisions of the 2006 Monmouthshire UDP (Policy H7). It clearly states in that policy, that the criteria of the policy must have been “strictly applied”. One of the requirements of policy H7 (f) of the UDP, states that the building “must be capable of providing adequate living space”.
• There was no definition within UDP at that time to detail what would be deemed as “adequate living space”. However, under current policy H6, (Extension of rural dwellings), of the current Monmouthshire Local Development Plan (‘LDP’), there is an indication that the acceptable internal volume for modern living standards would be considered to be 250 cubic metres. As it currently stands, Beaulieu Barn stands at approximately 187 cubic metres.
• The argument of the LPA is that they do not accept the argument that the building is not of adequate living standards due to volume, but they give no indication as to what would be an acceptable volume apart from one particular case involving the development of a one bedroom flat in Monmouth town (as detailed in the planning officer committee papers), which in my view is not a comparable case.
• It should be noted at a preplanning site visit Mr Craig O’Connor stated that in his view “ The property should never have been given full planning but rather granted planning as a holiday home” He went further to say that if the matter went to appeal he would have difficulty in advancing the argument that the property was in fact of a reasonable size and not too small for modern living standards. His view is the opposite view being advanced by Jo Draper.
• The LPA argue that policy H6 of the existing LDP is aimed at ‘rural dwellings and new builds’, not ‘rural barn conversions’… With that being the case, MCC’s argument is that policy H6 does not apply. However, on several occasions throughout the permission history of the barn, the conversion is described as tantamount to a new build. As such, with this being the case, because the building effectively has been a new build, it should fall within the parameters of policy H6 as a new dwelling, and not be disregarded. The argument cannot be put forward by the LPA to say that the barn is now unlawful because it should not have been a new build, because the building has been in place since 2008. Therefore the building would have protection and be deemed lawful by virtue of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 S.171(B)(1).
• Without wanting to be embroiled further into a long argument on planning policy, the key point is that the barn was too small for conversion at the time it was permitted. The decision made as a departure from planning policy.
The original extension of the agricultural building was in place for well over 20 years, and therefore the argument that it shouldn’t have been included on the proposals at that time is in our view, without merit. The agricultural extension should have been allowed to be included in the conversion at that time. If it had been included, the conversion would have fallen within an acceptable living volume limit. Subsequently, as it stands, it would seem to make sense to allow for the extension to bring the building up to the adequate standard.
It would seem that because the LPA removed the permitted development rights from property, (standard for barn conversions in an AONB), they know the applicant has no fall-back position if full planning is refused. The purpose of this condition is to allow the LPA to consider planning application more rigorously, rather than a householder being able to erect any extension within the parameters of the permitted development legislation which may be inappropriate within an AONB.
Therefore, their stance should not be to bluntly refuse any extension whatsoever even under full planning permission, which does not appear to be a fair way to apply the policy or the law.
The fair and reasonable approach would be to allow the consideration of an extension on a case by case basis taking into consideration all relevant material planning considerations. In this scenario, the LPA appear to have taken the approach of precluding the applicant from any possibility of an extension through full planning permission. They have not considered/mentioned the possibility of negotiating an appropriate design.
• The solution would be to allow the extension which would bring the building up to the acceptable living standards (acceptable volume) under full planning. Therefore, there would no longer be an argument to extend it further.
• Providing the LPA only grant planning permission on barns which can demonstrate an adequate size volume of at least 250 cubic metres, the permission wouldn’t set any precedent case.
• Pre application advice was taken from Monmouthshire County Council under reference MC/2015/ENQ/00827 prior to applying for the proposed extension. Within that advice, the delegated officer indicated, to quote;
“The original consent to convert the building to a residential use, was given consent as an exception to the rule”.
This shows that there was an acknowledged departure from the UDP policy at that time in granting permission for the re-development of a building, which was too small for full residential use.
Therefore, based on the other information set out herein, it reaffirms the point that because the development was permitted as a departure from LPA policy in 2006, a rectification to correct this issue should be granted now by permitting this current application.
This picture shows the extension coming out the side all matching and in keeping. They made the previous owner rip down the side extension and replace it with a poxy rendered lean-to.
This is what the smallholding looks like now.
https://youtu.be/xYnHRAUMNssFor those that are interested the case pictures are located here
http://idox.monmouthshire.gov.uk/WAM/showCaseFile.do;jsessionid=2AFE3C40CF604B729F198F8A3163C915?action=show&appType=Planning&appNumber=DC/2016/00287This is the video to the committee hearing. Interestingly the head planner lied / mislead the committee as the original extension was never illegal. I have now asked them to supply documentation that showed it was illegal and any informant notices to remove it as I know there are non.
https://youtu.be/rAHO5nlVpRw
Topic: Barn extension successfully beat the planners :-) (Read 10480 times)
