As a result of the Government consultation in 2013 on greater flexibility for changes of use, on the 6th April 2014 amendments to the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order came into force enabling agricultural buildings to be converted into residential properties via Class MB of the Permitted Development system, rather than having to go through the full planning procedure as has previously been the case.
The amending regulation excludes agricultural buildings within; National Parks, AONBs, some designated conservation areas, the Broads, SSSIs, or where the site is a scheduled monument or a listed building. The notification period for Class MB conversions will be the extended period of 56 days, rather than for Class A & B development which is 28 days.
The area of a building that can be converted under these amended Regulations is substantial, extending to a maximum of 450m2, which can encompass a single dwelling or be split into a maximum of three. Although the footprint of the completed development must not exceed that of the original building, “partial demolition” is allowed, to the extent reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwellinghouse and to complete the building operations necessary for conversion. The building operations allowed as permitted development to facilitate this change of use are limited, however these limitations are not particularly restrictive, allowing the installation or replacement of windows, doors, roofs, exterior walls, or water, drainage, electricity, gas or other services, again provided the operations are reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwellinghouse. It was expected that the final regulation would be more restrictive than the draft proposals set out in the original consultation, however it seems that if anything they are more relaxed.
Although the use of Class MB is available to any landowner, farmer, developer, private individual etc., the building must have been used for agriculture, as part of an “established agricultural unit”, on the 20th March 2013. Where it was not in use on this date, the building must satisfy this criteria when it was last in use. This suggests that where buildings have been sold off from an agricultural unit prior to the 20th March 2013, conversion under Class MB may not be available, unless the building was sold to another agricultural unit of which it then formed part on the relevant date.
Where there is an agricultural tenancy, or one has been terminated within the past year, and the purpose of the termination was to carry out development under Class MB, unless both the landlord and tenant have agreed in writing that the site is no longer required for agricultural use, development will not be permitted under this Class. This restriction will have interesting consequences during tenancy negotiations, both prior to exchange and during a termination of part for this purpose, and could be said to give a tenant additional negotiating power if a landlord wishes to take a building back in hand to benefit from Class MB in a short time frame, without the cost of a full application.
There are consequences of implementing a conversion under Class MB, particularly to one’s permitted development rights, which will be removed for an agricultural unit, both in respect to the erection and extension of agricultural buildings under Part 6, Classes A & B, for the ten years following a development under Class MB. Similarly where permitted development under Classes A or B has been carried out either since the 20th March 2013 or within the ten years before the date development under Class MB begins, whichever is the lesser, development under Class MB will not be permitted.
Only time will tell as to the more detailed intricacies of Class MB and how Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) will interpret this new amendment. There is some scope for LPAs to reject an application for prior approval, required before beginning the conversion, on grounds that the location or siting of the building makes it impractical or undesirable for the change of use to a dwellinghouse, and they would still have to consider any objections received. These are quite broad grounds for rejection and it will be interesting to see how these are interpreted by LPAs, particularly those which have historically had ‘stricter’ policies. One thing is for certain; as the policy is so new, if you have any barns, old or new, that you think might be worth developing it is worth investigating a little further and even submitting for prior approval in order to fully test the limits of the policy and how it is interpreted.
