Bats have been high on the agenda with a couple of our projects this week, which reminds us that the season for ecology surveys of several species is coming to an end for this year:  bats, dormice, reptiles and even white-clawed crayfish are all getting ready to batten down the hatches for winter.

This can be a problem for Planning, as Local Authorities often aren’t willing to take a decision on applications where ecology might be important, without detailed survey reports.

Sometimes it’s possible to overcome these issues,  either by convincing the Local Authority that there’s no need for a survey in a specific case – as we managed on one of our recent applications – or by arranging something called an ‘Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey’ as part of a ‘Preliminary Ecological Appraisal’ (PEA). The latter (which can be undertaken all year round) can often persuade the Planners that that at least have enough information to take a decision on an application, leaving more detailed survey work and/or assessment of mitigation measures for later, before actual construction work starts on site.

Let us know if you’ve got a project where wee beasties might be a stumbling block!(add pictures of bats and something cuddly – a dormouse, perhaps?)

Important news for Barn Conversions

Permitted Development means that you can build stuff without Planning Permission, right?

WRONG when it’s Prior Approval, such as Class Q, larger domestic extensions, or the Government’s new Class AA for upward extensions (among others). For those unfamiliar, Class Q is the Permitted Development right to convert redundant agricultural buildings into dwellings, much beloved of self-builders who want to undertake barn conversions.

Our Planning Director, Kelly, has drawn my attention to a recent appeal decision that moves the goalposts quite a bit on this: Bradford City Council refused a ‘prior approval’ on a barn in the heart of Bronte country, up on the moors near Keighley, essentially because they felt that the location was ‘undesirable’ for a dwelling, and this decision has been upheld at appeal.

Details can be seen under application ref. 20/01389/PAR on Bradford Council’s website:

https://planning.bradford.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=Q8TJDCDH0CY00

On these sorts of development you still need to make an application to your Local Authority before you start work. In theory, they should be measuring your proposal against fixed criteria, and if you meet those criteria, the go-ahead should be automatic. On Class Q, these criteria are mainly centred around size limits and the practical suitability of the building for conversion.

But among the Prior Approval criteria has always been the condition that the conversion should not be allowed where ‘the location and siting of the building makes it… impractical or undesirable…”.

It’s usually fairly easy to judge ‘impractical’ against technical criteria, but what about ‘undesirable’?

Class Q has always been somewhat at odds with broader Planning Policy, because by its very nature it tends to permit the creation of new dwellings in open countryside, outside settlement boundaries and in locations that the Planning system regards as ‘unsustainable’. For this reason, it’s always been tacitly accepted that Class Q conversions were acceptable even in locations that would be viewed as ‘undesirable’ under the normal scope of national Planning Policy.

In the Bradford City Council case, the appeals inspector has upheld the Authority’s refusal, essentially on the grounds that the light spill and paraphernalia associated with domestic use (parked cars, garden furniture and formal planting) would have an unwelcome ‘urbanising’ effect on the landscape.

This is a disquieting judgement for a number of reasons:

• There are already very strict criteria in place under Class Q to limit the size of the domestic curtilage associated with such buildings.
• In addition, Class Q does not afford normal domestic Permitted Development rights for extensions or outbuildings.
• The whole of Class Q is inapplicable to buildings situated on land protected by article 2(3) designation (ie. national parks, AONB’s, conservation areas, The Broads of a World Heritage site).

Taken together, these criteria in and of themselves should be considered to give adequate protection to constrain landscape impact to acceptable levels: that’s what these specific restrictions are there for.

Beyond that, the fells above Keighley are familiar to me from my youth and ironically one of the things that actually characterises the landscape is the presence of individual, very isolated dwellings. You might, indeed, say that it is precisely what these moors are most famous for: the Keighley applications site lies literally a couple of miles directly North of Haworth, home to both the Bronte Sisters and Top Withens, the farmhouse said to be the inspiration for Wuthering Heights in the novel of the same name.

When one is walking upon these fells – as I did so much when I was younger – it is often the counterpoint of such small and isolated habitations against the surrounding openness that acts to highlight the landscape’s scale and grandeur.

It begs the question how fit for purpose our Planning system is, when it prevents precisely the sort of development that creates the character of a landscape it is seeking to protect.

As if these issues weren’t enough, the actual landscape setting of the Keighley application building is such that the prominence of the development would be rather restricted.

Whilst certainly the building can be seen from the road, Tarn Lane, it is set at the head of a steep valley (known as a ‘Clough’ in this part of Yorkshire), with the proposed curtilage behind and below the building itself and screened from the south by a stand of trees.

Even if landscape impact is accepted as representing a measure by which Class Q can be refused – a dangerous precedent, where the technical criteria can be said to offer sufficient protection already – it is questionable whether this particular application should have been refused on such grounds.

Now that we’re aware of this decision, there are ways we can mitigate the risk of similar judgements in future, however, so if you’re looking at ta Class Q application, contact us to discuss how we can help.

Another week, another Planning success…and another example that you don’t always have to slavishly follow the rules!

Front extensions and raised decking are two more things that ring immediate alarm bells with the Planners, but we’ve received Planning Permission for this one in the pretty Norfolk village of North Creake which has both.

The approval was helped along by Hasviter’s simple (and much cheaper than the photorealistic stuff we can produce when the project demands it) but effective visuals, overlaying the proposed design onto a photo of the existing house, turning these:

Into these:

We’re particularly proud that the client on this job is a very well-known and well-respected local builder, who chose Sensus out of all the possible local architects to handle his project for him – thanks for the vote of confidence, Chalkey! That balcony and the bifold doors give south-facing views out over stunning Norfolk countryside. All that remains now is to get it built in time to enjoy it for next summer.

We’ve not been in the habit of posting every Planning success we have, here at Sensus. You can probably blame me (Martin) for that, ‘cos I find the whole FIG JAM aspect of social media business promotion a bit cringeworthy. But our marketing experts tell me I’ve got to, and there’s hopefully a valid point behind this one for some people, perhaps, so here goes:

Approval today for another extension for us at Gooderstone, near our Norfolk office.

The Planners tend to apply a general principal that extensions need to be ‘subordinate’ to the parent dwelling and on this sort of full-depth side extension will often try to insist that it is stepped back a little from the front of the house, or has a step down in the roof line.

Rules are best used for the guidance of wise men, and the obedience of fools, though, and the sort of ‘token’ steps in the shape of the building that result from slavish adherence to this one often look a bit silly, to be perfectly honest. Common sense prevailed in this case, and Breckland Planning Department had no hesitation in approving our proposal for a continuous ridge line and frontage on the two storey part of the extension.

Existing:

Proposed:

It’s not often that Planning Applications make the local newspapers for positive reasons, but we managed it with one of our Norfolk clients this week:

https://www.lynnnews.co.uk/news/plans-drawn-up-for-new-luxury-glamping-site-in-north-norfolk-9072525/

Caroline Fowler is hoping to open a new glamping business with the unusual distinction that it can cater for those people for whom their horse or pony is part of the family.

Alongside a selection of glamping pods, safari tents and a geodesic ‘stargazer’ dome with transparent roof (and we do get some lovely starlit and moonlit nights, here in deepest, darkest Norfolk) is the facility to cater for visitors equine companions – something quite unique in my experience! With Holkam Hall Bay (holiday destination for Her Majesty’s Household Cavalry each year) just a short hack out from the site, it really ought to offer something special.

We’re well used (sadly) to dealing with knee-jerk objections from NIMBY’s, so it would be nice in this instance to receive a few positive public comments instead. If you think it’s a good idea and would like to support Caroline by saying so, please spend a few moments to offer a supporting comment on the following link to the application:

https://online.west-norfolk.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=makeComment&keyVal=PQL72NIVG7U00

An interesting article on the RIBA’s member’s update email this week: they’ve attempted to get hold of some statistics on Paragraph 55/79 applications across the UK.

Para 55/79 is a favourite ‘loophole’ beloved of self-builders who want to gain Planning Permission for single dwellings in open countryside, but for those who are unfamiliar with it, it basically says that an exception to the usual Planning rules can be made for dwellings of exceptional architectural quality or technical innovation, which enhance their setting.

We always used to advise people that Para 55/79 was not an easy option by any means – that it was likely to be a costly approach, and that success was far from guaranteed. The trouble was, nobody actually had any figures to substantiate this.

The figures the RIBA have now quoted are not reliable (many Authorities didn’t respond to their request for information, and even on those that did, I’ve already spotted at least two Para 55/79 applications that I know about personally that haven’t been recorded), but they are at least better than nothing. They’re saying that of the 2/3rds of LPA’s that responded, they have recorded 115 applications (over 6 years). Crudely extrapolated for the 1/3rd of LPA’s that didn’t respond, that might take the figures to ~173 applications over England as a whole (representing an average of about 29 per year).

Of the 109 recorded applications, 66 were approved, 43 refused, and 6 were withdrawn.

That represent a surprisingly high approval rate of 57%. For reference, this compares to a general approval rate for minor residential applications of around 73%.

So while it still certainly shouldn’t be viewed as an easy option, and the overall figures for such approvals are very low (about a quarter of a percent of even just the self-build market), the percentage success rates for planning approvals are actually quite encouraging.

TL:DR version: Paragraph 55/79 permission may not be as difficult to gain approval for as we thought it was…

Good news for homeowners is that the temporary allowance for larger ground floor extensions as ‘Permitted Development’, which was due to expire at the end of May 2019 has now been made permanent.

‘Normal’ permitted development allows single storey rear extensions of up to 4 metres for a detached house or 3 metres for any other house, subject to other rules.

The ‘neighbour consultation’ scheme allows these limits to be increased to 8 metres or 6 metres respectively, but does require an application for ‘prior approval’ to your Local Authority.

If the idea of having to seek permission for something that is ‘permitted development’ seems a bit strange, then perhaps we should explain the way it works: the Local Authority notifies your immediate neighbours of your intention, and if your neighbours don’t object, then you’re automatically allowed to go ahead. If they’re not happy with the proposal, then it’s up to the Local Authority to take a view on whether it is acceptable.

If you need assistance in making that ‘neighbour notification’ application (or advice on any other aspects of Permitted Development), then we’re here to help!

It’s been a long time coming, but our new website is here at last!

Our old site was cobbled together as a temporary measure, but then other priorities took over and we never seemed to get round to producing something more professional.

Thanks to Redpost media for their patience in helping us get it right, and we hope you like it!

Martn Stuart – Director