20 replies to this topic

[Rachb46]

Does the 465msq allowed to build a barn include area for the road way?

 

ive studies the book several times but it says that you can split your area allowance between more than 1 barn but does not say to save sq meterage for the roadway. 

 

Any advice please?

[Sunnysouthdevon]

I may be wrong but can't imagine it would..... Is the permitted size for the barn footprint?

[billie]

465 sq metres is 5000 sq ft i.e. 100ft x 50ft  quite a large building, not sure if the access track is included, but hardstanding attached to the barn probably would be , depends on the opinion of your LPA.

[Rachb46]

We have submitted a PN for a 20x20m barn and a roadway. The LPA say that the roadway has to be included in the 465msq. Anybody else know the answer please???

[tonydockers]

I put a seperate 28 day in dor my drive as it was very big, both did not need prior

[shepie]

You need to see what gets passed in your area , they are all different
We put a100x 50 barn on a 150x 100 site with a 100 m track and 25 x 25 m car park all on the same app with no problem
Others get serious grief , most of which they bring on themselves
( can't find a smile with a person kicking hornets )

[j and H]

Shepie is right, it seems to be different councils make different rules, i was told to fill in a separate 28 day form for a track

 

its has to be common sense that a track way will form whilst you are building your barn, how else will you get materials there...

[Rachb46]

It cannot possibly be down to the "opinion" of the council surely?!?! I will do some more digging...... If anybody else could clarify, please do

[tottenham]

Rach

This is taken from Martin Goodall blog, it might help but check him out.

 

Everyone is familiar with the prior notification procedure under Part 6 (Class A) of the Second Schedule to the General Permitted Development Order (erection of a building and other operational development on an agricultural unit of 5 ha or more), but it should not be forgotten that, in order to qualify as permitted development under this part of the GPDO, the building in question must also be “reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within that unit”.  

The question as to whether or not a particular building is reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture is not one for determination by the LPA; it is purely a matter of fact and degree – either the test is met or it is not. It is an entirely objective test. However, existing government guidance (in the still extant Annex E to the old PPG7) does encourage LPAs to state their opinion if they believe that the building in respect of which they have received prior notification is not reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture. The important point to be borne in mind is that any such opinion has no binding effect. The mere statement of such an opinion cannot in itself disqualify development from being permitted development within Part 6 (Class A). On the other hand, there will clearly be an onus on the developer, if their right to erect the building as permitted development is challenged, to prove on the balance of probability that the objective test of reasonable necessity is in fact met.

An LPA may easily fall into a trap if it forms the opinion that the building is not reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture and then (as a result of that) fails to respond to the application it has received within the mandatory 28-day period. If the LPA is objectively correct in its view that the building does not meet the qualifying criterion, then it is not under an obligation to respond to the prior notification application within 28 days or at all. However, if it turns out that the LPA was wrong about the test of reasonable necessity, then a failure to respond to the notice within the 28-day time limit will allow the developer to proceed with the erection of the building without any further input from the LPA, and in particular without obtaining the LPA’s approval of its siting or design.

One point which is abundantly clear is that a building will not qualify under Part 6 (Class A) if the agricultural activity has not yet started or is being conducted purely or mainly as a hobby. Paragraph D.1 in Part 6 of the GPDO clearly states that, for the purposes of Part 6, “agricultural land” means land which, before development permitted by this part is carried out, is land in use for agriculture for the purpose of a trade or business (i.e. there must be an existing agricultural use and this must be a business, not a hobby). So a building cannot be erected as permitted development under Part 6 where the agricultural enterprise has not yet started, and it cannot be erected if the agricultural activity amounts to no more than ‘hobby farming’.

Thus the ‘chicken and the egg’ question can be easily answered in relation to this particular issue – the ‘chicken’ (the agricultural enterprise, conducted on a commercial basis) must come first. Only then can the ‘egg’ (a new agricultural building or buildings) follow, and only if the ‘reasonably necessary’ test is met, as well as the other criteria laid down in Class A of Part 6.

The need to meet the objective test of reasonable need for the building does not necessarily imply a requirement to prove that the agricultural unit is commercially viable. However, the issue of the viability of the agricultural unit cannot be entirely ignored, because if there is no viable agricultural business being carried on, then there may be some doubt as to whether the site falls within the definition of “agricultural land” at all, as explained above, and it might reasonably be argued that it shows that the building in question is not reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture. This is not to say that it is essential to be able to demonstrate the commercial viability of the agricultural enterprise, but if the agricultural enterprise is not (currently) viable, it may in those circumstances be difficult to show on an objective basis that the building is reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within that unit.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to lay down any hard and fast rule in relation to these points. All I can say is that the developer does need (if challenged) to be able to demonstrate on the balance of probability that the objective test as to the building’s being reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within that unit was met at the time when it was erected. The commercial viability of the agricultural unit may well be a factor in relation to this question, although viability might not be the determinative factor in the circumstances of a particular case. I suggest, for instance, that whereas the test formerly proposed by the now withdrawn Annex A to PPS7 (in relation to demonstrating a need for a new agricultural dwelling) insisted on existing viability being proved by at least three years’ accounts, the ‘reasonably necessary’ test for other agricultural buildings does not appear to require such a stringent criterion to be applied. Future or potential viability might suffice to satisfy the test, so long as it can be shown that there is a reasonable basis for anticipating this, sufficient at least to demonstrate on the balance of probability that the proposed agricultural building can properly be said to be reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within that unit

[Rachb46]

Shepie your pn and decision could help me greatly

[j and H]

It cannot possibly be down to the "opinion" of the council surely?!?! I will do some more digging...... If anybody else could clarify, please do

This is where you need to know how to answer questions, how to put things…all they are after is ticking the right box, they do not want any comebacks on them

[shepie]

Rachb46 my pn notice won't help you but others on your local planning portal will or get an agent to do it for you it's more convincing
Ok so after reading your earlier posts it sounds like you have a horse rescue on land which is capable of stopping a tractor in May !! With a few chickens and ducks
The grazing of horses is agricultural but the housing of rescued horses in a barn built under pd is not and if you can't drive on the land now in a 4x4 it will be no use for horses in the winter so where are you going to put the horses ?
The tracks do not sound like they will all be used to access the barn but mostly for getting round the site and a bridle way so sound like they need their own pd notice or full planning
These people are not stupid , if you put petting farm / small holding /low lying land / bridle way / specialist feed etc in your application it reads as equine rescue with lots of traffic and a few farm animals to tick boxes
If it's any help loose the horses put them in rented , get sheep etc and put in or for a barn or full planning

[Rachb46]

Thanks shepie. My problem isn't grazing horses, it's the fact that they say that the area of the track must be included within the 465m. I'm keen to know people's experience of this if anybody has any

[Tom Bombadil]

Thanks shepie. My problem isn't grazing horses, it's the fact that they say that the area of the track must be included within the 465m. I'm keen to know people's experience of this if anybody has any

I might simply ask them where they got their information from stating that you have to include your paths and roads within the 465m allotment?

Address the person that signed the papers sent to you and tell them to respond within a set period, and absent a response you will take it for truth that you do not have to include the paths at all!

That is of course if i were talking to them at all at this stage...

[boiow]

Thanks shepie. My problem isn't grazing horses, it's the fact that they say that the area of the track must be included within the 465m. I'm keen to know people's experience of this if anybody has any

 

   It is true that the track is included in the 465m2    i believe.   Does it matter?  you will not need a barn that big anyway.   And if you are thinking of a indoor sand school. The planners will sniff that out fairly quickly.

[Rachb46]

A 20 x 20 barn is not exactly huge. By the time it stores the hay cut from our 10 acre meadow, machinery and an office etc, there isn't much left.

Interesting to know though that the area is that of the track also. Seems that they do not enforce it with everybody though, as my friend built a 20 x 22 barn, a 100m track and a 10 x 20m concrete hard standing all at the same time

[Greenbeast]

We put in a farm notice (PN) for our hardstanding, if that counts, why wouldn't a track?
And if your track goes to an A, B or C road, you'll need full planning, so i would inquire with your highways authority as to whether your road is classified.

[Rachb46]

So its been months since my last post but I thought about time that I updated the situation!

 

Like many people on here I tend to only rely on this forum when things are tough and forget to report when all is well..........

 

 

 

Since starting this topic things have come on in leaps and bounds. Initially our PN for the barn and track was declined due to "it not being reasonably necessary". The proposal fails to demonstrate that the current use of the land is used as agriculture and fails to demonstrate that the proposed works is necessary for the purposes of an agricultural unit. In addition the proposed building is contrary to Part 6, Class A, Criteria (e)(ii) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (General Permitted Development Order) in that the works would exceed the threshold of 465sqm.

 

 

Upon receiving this our dreams were somewhat shattered and in despair we made contact with a planning consultant, to ask for advice. He believed that our PN had been determined incorrectly and that the whole case had been dealt with unfairly. The battle began...........

 

​Following a fantastic letter from our consultant showing the LPA the error of their ways I am extremely pleased to say that we have now received the full go ahead for our plans. Although we are now 6 months behind schedule, we have just received the written confirmation that our PN was wrongly determined and that by default the PN is automatically approved! 

 

​A full site visit was necessary for the LPA to gather enough information to allow us to "demonstrate that the current use of the land is used as agriculture". However, with that now all approved we are finally underway and have made a start on our farm track. 6 months later but never the less we are on our way!!!

 

​The moral of my story is that each planner says something different and some make up their own rules. If we hadn't of known better, or been lucky enough to find the right advice, we wouldn't be where we are now

 

 

 

[elegantstorm]

I would say the road or yard wouldn't be included - from memory PD rights allow you to build a 'building', if you have 5 hectares or more it's a stand alone building, if under 5 hectares you can only extend an existing building.  The concept of putting in two PN's one for a building and one for a track seems ridiculous as one of the requirements is that nothing has been built within 90 metres within 2 years - a track isn't going to be much use if it stops 90m short of the barn...  I spoke with a consultant a couple of years ago regarding a possible PN where we had full planning for another building within 90m which we hadn't yet started building - she said unless we declared that we were not going to build the building then the PN wouldn't be valid as within 90m, and we had no intention not to build the new full planning building.

 

Also when we put in our original planning permission the fee is based on size.  And yet we put in for full planning for a 4000sqft barn on a something like a 20,000 sqft yard (16,000sqft when you take into account the 4,000sqft the barn would stand on) and an access road plus changes to the land around as the yard was levelled onto a slope all for the basic planning permission fee so the fee appears to be based on the size of the building.

 

We happen to have a client whose a planning inspector, though he doesn't specilise in agri appeals here was some useful information he gave us which is as relevant when dealing with the LPA as an appeal:
 

You will have to deal with "need" in your statement to the Inspector.

 

The thing to bear in mind is that the Inspector hearing your appeal makes the decision as if the application had been made to him/her in the first place. So although the Council did not mention in its refusal the issue of agricultural need, you will still have to deal with it. But no harm in first pointing out to the Inspector that this is a new issue that the Council did not previously consider to be a problem!

 

I am not an expert on agricultural need in permitted development cases.  But I have looked it up on various planning web sites.  Below are two of the most helpful. The first is from a specialist development control practice web site (subscription only, I am afraid):

 

"Reasonably necessary for agriculture  -  Lack of need is sometimes cited as an objection to agricultural buildings, but is difficult to sustain if the subject building is stated to be for an agricultural purpose and is clearly designed for such a use. There is no national guidance relating to the assessment of need for agricultural buildings. If, however, it can be shown that an enterprise is of doubtful viability and the results of failure would leave a building in the countryside, which would remain unused or which could realistically be re-utilised for a less suitable purpose, long-term viability may be a matter to be considered."

 

So this means, that there is a difference between "need" and the much stricter test of whether the agricultural enterprise is "financially viable" based on past accounts (usually over 3 years) and future prospects.  But the two can get mixed up.

 

The second web site you can access yourself and is a lot more helpful:

 

http://planninglawbl...reasonably.html

 

I think the most relevant bits from this for you are:

 

"The question as to whether or not a particular building is reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture is not one for determination by the LPA; it is purely a matter of fact and degree – either the test is met or it is not. It is an entirely objective test."

 

and then:

 

"The need to meet the objective test of reasonable need for the building does not necessarily imply a requirement to prove that the agricultural unit is commercially viable. However, the issue of the viability of the agricultural unit cannot be entirely ignored, because if there is no viable agricultural business being carried on, then there may be some doubt as to whether the site falls within the definition of “agricultural land” at all, as explained above, and it might reasonably be argued that it shows that the building in question is not reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture. This is not to say that it is essential to be able to demonstrate the commercial viability of the agricultural enterprise, but if the agricultural enterprise is not (currently) viable, it may in those circumstances be difficult to show on an objective basis that the building is reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within that unit."

 

From what you told me I don't think the Council is challenging that your business is not financially viable (or is it?).  Be prepared to answer that question at the hearing, however - have some copies of relevant figures available just in case.  What I understood you to say is that the Council's concerns on need focus on the amount of space that you presently have, and that it is alleged that this existing space is adequate for your present  needs (and reasonable future needs?).  You will have to fully answer this as we discussed by explaining the space needed for your rare breeds and your plans for the future.

[elegantstorm]

I put a seperate 28 day in dor my drive as it was very big, both did not need prior

I was just thinking about this Tony and my comment above.  It's only a PN if nothing has been built within 90m within 2 years...  The consultant I spoke to at the time was adament that despite having not yet started building a barn within 90m we had full planning for, because we had planning and intended to build it we wouldn't be able to PN within 90m for a separate building...  I wonder if she was correct....  If she was then if you build both one I would assume would be unlawful.  If she's wrong no problem

 

Unlike full planning permission if a PN doesn't meet the requirements it makes it unlawful, even if the LPA failed to pick up on it (ref Martin Goodalls Planning Blog)...