Thirty day planning applications

Dick_Turpin99

Some folks in our area who are not connected with agriculture have just bought 15 acres of land, put 6 horses on it & stuck up a huge 80ft x 50ft (???) dutch barn on the plot all approved under a 30 day planning notice.

Bearing in mind the size of the building is grossly oversized for half a dozen horses, it indicates to us that they have 'other' intentions for it. I am truly astounded just how laxed the planning authority have been in approving this construction instead of a stable.

What are the exact conditions of the 30 day planning rule?
I must admit I thought it was restricted to purely agricultural use, seems I am wrong & that anyone who wants to run the gauntlet can do so

googler

Ask your council planning department

ldv400

Hi there, can someone please explain to me in easy terms what the 30day planning rule is ?

Thanks

martindow

i think it is 28 days rather than 30. With over 5ha/12 acres farmers can notify the planning department of their intention to build certain structures. The planning people have 28 days to decide if it needs planning permission. If the farmer hears nothing in this time they can go ahead.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/landmanage/land-use/documents/planning-guide.pdf

The building has to be for agricultural use so it cannot be used in any other way and I believe equestrian use is separated from agricultural by the planners so something like an indoor riding school would not be allowed in this way.

I should speak to the planning people to see what has been permitted and see if it matches what was built. You also need to keep an eye on how it is being used. If the building has contravened the permitted development they still have the option of applying for retrospective PP so it is not automatic that it has to be dismantled.

Dick_Turpin99

Thanks Martin. Much appreciated. So if I understand correctly in short the 28 day notice is exclusively for agricultural purposes, not recreational and certainly not equine?

planning_officer

!!!!!!_Turpin99 wrote: »

Thanks Martin. Much appreciated. So if I understand correctly in short the 28 day notice is exclusively for agricultural purposes, not recreational and certainly not equine?

Correct - it is called a Prior Notification, and submitted under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 - an applicant has to submit certain details of the building to the LPA and they have 28 days in which to in effect approve them and decide that full planning permission is not required. The building has to be for agricultural purposes and has to be reasonably required - a farmer can't just erect any number of buildings, as they have to show they are needed.

Also, this only applies to farms over 5 hectares in area - there are no permitted development rights for new buildings on farms that are unbder 5 hectares.

Dick_Turpin99

Thanks very much for the info P/O :beer:

As I mentioned this crowd strangely enough are not connected to the farming business but got away with it which kind of makes a mockery of the whole planning issue.....esp. as others in the area who followed the rules to the letter and jumped through all the hoops. Almost seems like the Planning Dept. don't have the funds for a legal battle
Wonder if they have thought about what the rateable value of this new building will be?

planning_officer

!!!!!!_Turpin99 wrote: »

As I mentioned this crowd strangely enough are not connected to the farming business but got away with it which kind of makes a mockery of the whole planning issue.....esp. as others in the area who followed the rules to the letter and jumped through all the hoops.

This building is certainly not permitted development if it being used for horses - that's an equestrian use, not agricultural. Bascially, the planning authority make the decision on the info submitted to them - so the applicant may have justified it on agricultural grounds at the time, but that doesn't give them the right to use it for alternative purposes. The prior notification procedure isn't granting planning permission for the building - it is merely confirming that it is permitted development. If the building is then used for something other than agriculture (like your situation), then it clearly isn't permitted development and the building now requires planning permission and is unauthorised. I would complain to the Council and they should be able to take enforcement action over the unauthorised building.

!!!!!!_Turpin99 wrote: »

Almost seems like the Planning Dept. don't have the funds for a legal battle. Wonder if they have thought about what the rateable value of this new building will be?

My authority is currently involved in a very similar situation - someone applied for prior notification and that was agreed, but the building they have now erected is far larger than the building shown on the plans and it is also used for non-agricultural purposes. We are currently taking enforcement action to have it demolished.

Re. your comment about rateable values - I can assure you that does not come into it at all. They are completely separate departments and have no involvement with each other. People assume the Council work as one body and all speak to each other, and whilst this clearly would be a good thing, it just does not happen. If I'm dealing with a bad planning application, the last thing I will think about is rateable value - I'm not interested in that at all, I know very little about it and I have no interest whatsoever in it. My only responsibility for something like this is to protect the countryside from inappropriate development and stop people getting away with blatant things like this!

martindow

I would be interested in planning-officer's view on what happens when agricultural buildings are not within permitted development rules.

My experience of buying a place where a barn had been erected without planning was that although the LA was well aware they seemed reluctant to to take any action. This situation drifted on for several years until it cropped up on a search when I was buying. Retrospective PP was given on my application subject to minor requirement to plant a few trees and shrubs.

Other people in the area gave me endless examples of development (agricultural and domestic) that would never have got PP in a very pretty rural area. These owners had just built their new buildings or added extensions and got retrospective PP when found out. I was prepared to have my barn dismantled if necessary for the sale to go ahead but the LA did not seem to want to be assertive in enforcing the rules.

Dick_Turpin99

martindow wrote: »

Other people in the area gave me endless examples of development (agricultural and domestic) that would never have got PP in a very pretty rural area. These owners had just built their new buildings or added extensions and got retrospective PP when found out. I was prepared to have my barn dismantled if necessary for the sale to go ahead but the LA did not seem to want to be assertive in enforcing the rules.

Absolutely. That's the gauling part about it all.

We have others here who visit the area every summer bought some land to put their caravan on, now a shed has appeared - with a delapidated tractor & mower to cover the ag. qualification and they're storing caravans in the place.

sorry for the rant and jumping in on your post

Dick_Turpin99

planning_officer wrote: »

Re. your comment about rateable values - I can assure you that does not come into it at all. They are completely separate departments and have no involvement with each other. People assume the Council work as one body and all speak to each other, and whilst this clearly would be a good thing, it just does not happen. If I'm dealing with a bad planning application, the last thing I will think about is rateable value - I'm not interested in that at all, I know very little about it and I have no interest whatsoever in it. My only responsibility for something like this is to protect the countryside from inappropriate development and stop people getting away with blatant things like this!

sorry, wasn't implying that the P/A should know about the rateable value, it was those who have built the shed.

But thanks anyway for your words - invaluable reading!!!