Repurpose old barn?

user1977

Section62 said:

ThisIsWeird said:

Damn! I was about to knock up a barn out t'garden, and convert it into a house in 10 years time :-(

House?  Why not go for something with greater potential for profit.... like a nuclear power station, coal mine, shopping centre, storage units etc?

I'm fitting mine out with a meth lab.

babyblade41

Just one more thing to consider if it's a bit off grid, we have no mains gas or sewers so a  water treatment plant , air source heat pumps,  EV charging points, structural engineers, architects costs & then the build 

Councils are so insistent on green energy we had to fall in line with everything they wanted to make sure we got the planning 

ThisIsWeird

Section62 said:

ThisIsWeird said:

Damn! I was about to knock up a barn out t'garden, and convert it into a house in 10 years time :-(

House?  Why not go for something with greater potential for profit.... like a nuclear power station, coal mine, shopping centre, storage units etc?

Unfortunately you'd also need to apply for planning consent for the barn to start with - unless the eventual house will be a very small bungalow - and that consent is likely to come with conditions to stop you doing whatever you want with it after 10 years.

Rats. I knew there was a flaw in my plan

Dustyevsky

My barn comes with a condition that I must demolish it if it ceases to have an agricultural use. Given its size, 20m x 8m, that would equal a lot of landfill and considerable energy consumption not in line with the net-zero agenda, so I'm not sure if that still applies. It was built in 2004 and, so far as I'm aware, has never had an agricultural use.

Section62

Dustyevsky said:

My barn comes with a condition that I must demolish it if it ceases to have an agricultural use. Given its size, 20m x 8m, that would equal a lot of landfill and considerable energy consumption not in line with the net-zero agenda, so I'm not sure if that still applies. It was built in 2004 and, so far as I'm aware, has never had an agricultural use.

When the time comes, you apply for the condition to be varied or removed so the barn can be used for another purpose without having to be demolished.

The LPA then have to consider whether the new use is appropriate, and as part of that there will be a need to balance the impact of wasted resources resulting from demolition against any harms from the alternative use of the building.

The net-zero agenda itself doesn't override the condition automatically, but is something which would have to be taken into account in a future decision to keep or remove the condition.

Skiddaw1

Sarahspangles said:

Yellowsub2000 said:

Clark sons farm season 2 at the end he actually says that if a barn is more than ten years old and less than150 square M then the farmer can do what he wants with it?

so you are sure Clarkson is wrong?

I wouldn’t take Clarkson’s word on planning matters! 

https://www.thrings.com/blog/how-clarksons-farm-highlights-the-planning-issues-around-farm-diversification  

Personally, I wouldn't take Clarkson's word on any matter!!

Dustyevsky

Section62 said:

Dustyevsky said:

My barn comes with a condition that I must demolish it if it ceases to have an agricultural use. Given its size, 20m x 8m, that would equal a lot of landfill and considerable energy consumption not in line with the net-zero agenda, so I'm not sure if that still applies. It was built in 2004 and, so far as I'm aware, has never had an agricultural use.

When the time comes, you apply for the condition to be varied or removed so the barn can be used for another purpose without having to be demolished.

The LPA then have to consider whether the new use is appropriate, and as part of that there will be a need to balance the impact of wasted resources resulting from demolition against any harms from the alternative use of the building.

The net-zero agenda itself doesn't override the condition automatically, but is something which would have to be taken into account in a future decision to keep or remove the condition.

Thanks, that's very helpful. Being close to and between existing housing, I think the alternative use is fairly obvious. I would be hoping to keep much of the material it's constructed from on site and re-purpose it, but I'm not the architect!

Yellowsub2000

If you get away with 5 years no problems then you can keep
it under lawful development 

Section62

Yellowsub2000 said:

If you get away with 5 years no problems then you can keep
it under lawful development 

That isn't the same as doing whatever you want with it though.

And it isn't as simple as that.  Lawful development only applies in some situations, in others the development will never be lawful.

The law/rules have also been updated/amended in recent years, which means if there is an element of concealment involved in the "get[ting] away with" it then you won't get away with it.

In practical terms, converting a barn and living in it for five four years without the local authority becoming aware of it isn't as easy as it might appear at first.  Many services are unobtainable unless you are on the Royal Mail address database, getting a UPRN involves input from the local authority, and authorities typically cross reference the UPRN database with other records such as council tax.

And you will run the risk of investing a lot of money into a building which you may not be allowed to keep, as well as possibly picking up a criminal conviction. Many people have believed they are smart enough to "get away with" it... not all managed it though.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-36445848

Sarahspangles

Yellowsub2000 said:

If you get away with 5 years no problems then you can keep
it under lawful development 

This sometimes happens but I think it’s less common than you might imagine. From talking to former colleagues who are Planners, in a majority of cases someone ‘dobs in’ the building owner within the four years. They’re then left making a retrospective planning application which in the end may not be granted.

Meanwhile the owner has spent money at risk on conversion and possibly paid more for the land, if this was priced on the basis that there was a chance that planning permission might be granted for residential use. As it’s hard to get a mortgage where you don’t have planning permission, this was their own money/time, not the bank’s.

I have sympathy for families in farming areas who want their extended family or farm workers to live locally. But the fact that’s it’s normally the neighbours/community who bring in the Planners and subsequently object to the application suggests I’m the minority.  While properties are often on the Planner’s and other interested parties’ radar due to enquiries about planning status or local gossip about a property sale, enforcement officers don’t drive round looking for unauthorised development - they don’t need to (see ‘dobbing in’). If the Council does find out they have to act or they’re colluding.

So, in some case neighbours are sympathetic, the owner is lucky, and permission is retrospectively granted.  But this may still include conditions that mean work has to be redone - e.g. roof tiles the wrong colour. And I’m told that ironically when permission is given, it’s usually for a development that was a significant compromise so that the applicant could ‘get away with it’.  Whereas if they’d just acted in an above board way they could have had permission straight away for the further work they need to apply to do to make the place less like a cowshed with an indoor toilet. 

If permission isn’t granted, then you get to pay to reverse all your hard work.

In the minority of cases where people do get away with it, and may even end up with a house a bit better than a cowshed with an indoor toilet, they still need a certificate of lawful development to sell it, and evidence of building regs compliance.  Which may not be granted if there was intention to conceal.

I think for every bloke down the pub boasting he put one over on the Planners, there must be a lot more who spent four years of sleepless nights in a cowshed with an indoor toilet, and another bunch who wasted a lot of their own time and money.

https://www.attwatersjamesonhill.co.uk/ive-heard-10-4-year-rule-planning-mean/