Now eight months on following the implementation of the April 2014 amendments to the Town & County Planning (General Permitted Development) Order (GPDO), there have been a number of appeals in relation to Class MB, which considers the conversion of agricultural buildings to dwellinghouses as permitted development.
Here we look at some recent appeal cases, which illustrate that Class MB is not the ‘free for all’ that many had anticipated. Many Class MB applications for prior approval have fallen at the first hurdle because applicants failed to meet the criteria set out in the GPDO. Some of these omissions have included proposals where the curtilage (i.e. the garden and parking) exceeds the footprint of the original building, where the agricultural tenant has not provided consent, or proposals that increase the size of the existing building or exceed the 450m2 floor space restriction. All proposals must comply with these basic requirements and many have failed to deal with these practical issues.
Turning to the more complex appeal cases however one of the more interesting developments is inspectors’ interpretations of paragraph MB.2(e), which requires prior approval where the location of the building makes it otherwise impractical or undesirable for it to change use. MB.2(e) provides a wide scope for refusal of Class MB applications, some other factors that have been seen at appeal include the associated residential paraphernalia that accompany residential conversions which, if it is possible, should be limited in the design proposals. Similarly proposals including lengthy, hard surfaced driveways in the countryside have not been favoured by inspectors, particularly where they do not enhance the immediate setting and cause significant harm to the character of the area, as this would also be supported by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This illustrates the importance of design when submitting these applications. The onus should be to enhance the immediate area of the proposal which would seem easier for traditional agricultural buildings than modern ones, however with careful design the conversion of modern buildings should not be ruled out.
The GPDO also requires that the NPPF be taken into account when determining applications under Class MB, which to some extent means that prior notification under Class MB is treated like a full planning application. Of particular relevance are Paragraphs 17 and 55 of the NPPF, which respectively relate to recognising the character and beauty of the countryside and avoiding new isolated homes in the countryside without special circumstances. This has led to applications being dismissed due to the remote countryside location of barns, where inevitably many agricultural barns are, and the requirement of Paragraph 55 that new isolated homes in the countryside should be avoided unless there are special circumstances.
One then must look at these special reasons, which include the need for an essential worker (agriculture or forestry etc.) and, perhaps more relevant in this instance, where the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting. This creates a requirement for Local Authorities to consider the impact of a proposal, and in particular whether the proposed design has a beneficial or detrimental impact on the locality. Planning inspectors at appeal have found it difficult to make this assessment where an application is for only Class MB(a) and not MB(b). MB(a) relates to the change of use aspect, and MB(b) to the building operations. This suggests that it might be prudent to include Part b in applications, on the basis that without this it is difficult for planning officers and inspectors to gauge the impact of the final proposal.
There have also been some successful appeals in respect to more traditional or red brick agricultural buildings, which by their nature have a greater character value than modern portal framed barns. An inspector in such an appeal stated that “this pleasant building is therefore on the cusp of becoming an eyesore”, subsequently allowing the appeal. Care should however be taken as appeals on traditional buildings, which are significantly dilapidated, have been dismissed on the basis that the extent of the work required for the conversion would go beyond that reasonably necessary for the building to function as a dwelling. These matters are likely to be a matter of fact and degree in each case, making it difficult to gauge the likelihood of success in individual cases without further guidance or indeed as more appeals are decided.
Another factor that has been held in high regard by inspectors is the building’s distance from public transport and local services. A recent appeal in Devon was dismissed despite the barn in question being approximately 0.88 miles from a small village and 1.88 miles from a larger village with good public transport links. It seems that more appeal cases will be required in order to determine the extent to which remote buildings are considered so remote that they do not comply with Paragraph 55, unless there are special circumstances.
Overall we now have further insight into how Local Authorities are interpreting this legislation. However the site specific nature of this type of application is such that one can never be certain of the outcome, and those with barns that may be suitable are encouraged to contact advisors with experience of this type of application sooner rather than later, as the restrictive approach some authorities are taking could develop into prohibition in the future.
