AM Planning Consultants: Example of a barn conversion appraisal</tit= le>  <style>  </style>  </head> <body lang=3DEN-US style=3D'tab-interval:36.0pt'> <div class=3DSection1> <o:p> </o:p> <div align=3Dcenter> <table class=3DMsoTableGrid border=3D1 cellspacing=3D0 cellpadding=3D0 widt= h=3D"90%" style=3D'width:90.0%;border-collapse:collapse;border:none;mso-border-alt:s= olid windowtext .5pt; mso-yfti-tbllook:191;mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;mso-border-inside= h: .5pt solid windowtext;mso-border-insidev:.5pt solid windowtext'> <tr style=3D'mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes'> <td valign=3Dtop style=3D'border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;mso-border-alt:so= lid windowtext .5pt; padding:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt'> 29th July = 2005<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Mr Smith,<o:p></o:p> &nbs= p; &= nbsp; ,<o:p></o:p> &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; ,<o:p></o:p> &nbs= p; ,<o:p></o:p> …………= …..<o:p></o:p> …………= .<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p>= Dear Mr Smith,<o:p></o:p> Re= : <= span style=3D'background:black;mso-highlight:black'>………̷= 0;…………………………= 230;…………………………&= #8230;………..<o:p></o:p> Following your le= tter dated 18th July 2005 I have now had the opportunity to visit the above site, inspect the Councils records and assess the relevant planning policies.<s= pan style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> I would comment upon the chances= of gaining planning permission to convert the barn into a dwelling as follow= s.<o:p></o:p> Planning History<o:p></o:p> As you are aware = a number of planning applications were submitted on the site in the mid 90’s. Of most relevan= ce are applications for the barns conversion to a dwelling (93/00171/FULL) and t= o a light industrial use (94/00159/FULL). Both of these applications were r= efused by the Council and an appeal dismissed.&= nbsp; Comments made within the Inspectors appeal decision in 1995 are particularly relevant.<o:p></o:p> The Inspector con= cluded that the barn and stables ‘fall far below the standard necessary to provide residential or business accommodation…would require major reconstruction if a suitable standard of accommodation is to be provided’ and that ‘the extent of reconstruction associated w= ith the proposals would be such that it would be tantamount to a replacement = of the buildings’. The Inspector also considered that the open nature of this part of the Green = Belt would be adversely affected by the Barn’s conversion and that the introduction of a light industrial use to the Barn would generate a level= of traffic noise and disturbance that would have a detrimental effect on the rural character of the Green Belt.<o:p></o:p> Basically the Pla= nning Inspector dismissed the Appeals in quite a comprehensive fashion and it is not a great surprise that no one has attempted to apply for any further conversions during the last 10 years.<o:p></o:p> The Inspectors de= cision and reasoning behind it will be one of the first things to be considered = by the Council if a future application for the barn conversion is to be submitted. The question tha= t will then be asked by the Council is whether there have been any material chan= ges in circumstances since that decision that might warrant a different outco= me now. Most commonly the chan= ge in circumstance will relate to a change in planning policies, as these are o= ften being reviewed.<o:p></o:p> Planning Policy<o:p></o:p> At a national lev= el, Planning Policy Guidance 2 provides advice upon development in Green Belts. This was produced in= 1995 and as a result would have been taken account of by the previous Inspecto= r when he made his decision. <o:p>= </o:p> At a local level = policies will have changed. The Coun= cils Local Plan was adopted in 2003 and contains a number of policies that wou= ld not have been in place in the mid 90’s. The most relevant Local Plan pol= icy is GB8. This provides guidance= upon the re-use of buildings in the Green Belt and includes the following requirements :<o:p></o:p> <![if !supportLists]>i) &n= bsp; <![endif]>The use proposed and associated works, including boundary walls and fencing, or external activities would not have a greater impact than the present or l= ast use on the openness of the GB<o:p></o:p> <![if !supportLists]>ii) &= nbsp; <![endif]>The build= ing is of permanent and substantial construction and in sound condition and is o= f a form, bulk and general design, which is in keeping with its surroundings<= o:p></o:p> <![if !supportLists]>iii) = <![endif]>The propo= sal would not require extensive reconstruction of the building or a material increase in its size or scale<o:p></o:p> Whilst the Inspec= tor concluded that the previous applications would have a greater impact upon= the openness of the GB and therefore be in conflict with requirement (i) above, I consider that the site is now reasonabl= y well enclosed and if designed appropriately could be argued to have no greater impact on the openness of the area.<o:p></o:p> It will be notabl= y harder to argue that any future application for a conversion can comply with requirements (ii) and (iii) above. The Inspector was quite clear in his findings that any conversion would require extensive reconstruction and I would tend to concur with th= is view having seen the buildings. Whilst the roof appears largely sound, a number of the walls would require considerable work and Surveys undertaken at the time of the previ= ous applications said foundations would need to be introduced to support the barn. If anything the condi= tion of the barn over the last 10 years is likely to have deteriorated.<o:p></= o:p> I would be very s= urprised if the Council consider that the barn conversi= on would not require ‘extensive reconstruction’ and as a result = they are likely to conclude that it is in conflict with Policy GB8. In the vast majority of cases if= the Council conclude that a scheme is in conflict = with planning policy then planning permission will be refused.<o:p></o:p></spa= n> Other Issues<o:p></o:p> When visiting the= site I was aware that it is located in close proximity to a bend in the road.<sp= an style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> This will have the effect of lim= iting visibility when cars are leaving the site and as a result the Councils Highway Offic= ers could raise concerns form a highway safety viewpoint. <o:p></o:p><= /p> Conclusion<o:p></o:p> The planning hist= ory combined with the current Local Plan policy lead me to believe that the Council will be likely to refuse planning permission to convert the exist= ing barn to a dwelling. If take= n to appeal I believe an Inspector would be likely to reach the same conclusio= n.<o:p></o:p> If an application is to be successful it will be likely to need the support = of a building survey that suggests only minor works are required to convert the building. If you can obtain= such a survey and have a Planning Officer dealing with the application who does not give much weight to the previous Officers and Inspectors views, you m= ight be successful. In my opinio= n both of the above will be unlikely.<o:p></o:p> I would suggest that the chances of success are in the region of 25 %. If you do decide to progress wit= h the site I would be more than happy to assist you with a planning application= and in particular the production of a planning statement to ensure it has the best chance of success possible. Whilst, for the reasons set out above, I do think success would be unlikely, this does not mean it is impossible.<o:p></o:p> I hope the above information is of help and if you have any queries please = do not hesitate to contact me. </span= ><o:p></o:p> Yours Sincerely, <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Andy Meader BSc</= span>(Hons) Dip TP MRTPI <o:p> </o:p> Encl. <o:p> </o:p> </td> </tr> </table> </div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> </body> </html>

MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Location: file:///C:/CFA40E83/Web1c.htm Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" AM Planning Consultants: Example of a barn conversion appraisal</tit= le>  <style>  </style>  </head> <body lang=3DEN-US style=3D'tab-interval:36.0pt'> <div class=3DSection1> <o:p> </o:p> <div align=3Dcenter> <table class=3DMsoTableGrid border=3D1 cellspacing=3D0 cellpadding=3D0 widt= h=3D"90%" style=3D'width:90.0%;border-collapse:collapse;border:none;mso-border-alt:s= olid windowtext .5pt; mso-yfti-tbllook:191;mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;mso-border-inside= h: .5pt solid windowtext;mso-border-insidev:.5pt solid windowtext'> <tr style=3D'mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes'> <td valign=3Dtop style=3D'border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;mso-border-alt:so= lid windowtext .5pt; padding:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt'> 29th July = 2005<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Mr Smith,<o:p></o:p> &nbs= p; &= nbsp; ,<o:p></o:p> &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; ,<o:p></o:p> &nbs= p; ,<o:p></o:p> …………= …..<o:p></o:p> …………= .<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p>= Dear Mr Smith,<o:p></o:p> Re= : <= span style=3D'background:black;mso-highlight:black'>………̷= 0;…………………………= 230;…………………………&= #8230;………..<o:p></o:p> Following your le= tter dated 18th July 2005 I have now had the opportunity to visit the above site, inspect the Councils records and assess the relevant planning policies.<s= pan style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> I would comment upon the chances= of gaining planning permission to convert the barn into a dwelling as follow= s.<o:p></o:p> Planning History<o:p></o:p> As you are aware = a number of planning applications were submitted on the site in the mid 90’s. Of most relevan= ce are applications for the barns conversion to a dwelling (93/00171/FULL) and t= o a light industrial use (94/00159/FULL). Both of these applications were r= efused by the Council and an appeal dismissed.&= nbsp; Comments made within the Inspectors appeal decision in 1995 are particularly relevant.<o:p></o:p> The Inspector con= cluded that the barn and stables ‘fall far below the standard necessary to provide residential or business accommodation…would require major reconstruction if a suitable standard of accommodation is to be provided’ and that ‘the extent of reconstruction associated w= ith the proposals would be such that it would be tantamount to a replacement = of the buildings’. The Inspector also considered that the open nature of this part of the Green = Belt would be adversely affected by the Barn’s conversion and that the introduction of a light industrial use to the Barn would generate a level= of traffic noise and disturbance that would have a detrimental effect on the rural character of the Green Belt.<o:p></o:p> Basically the Pla= nning Inspector dismissed the Appeals in quite a comprehensive fashion and it is not a great surprise that no one has attempted to apply for any further conversions during the last 10 years.<o:p></o:p> The Inspectors de= cision and reasoning behind it will be one of the first things to be considered = by the Council if a future application for the barn conversion is to be submitted. The question tha= t will then be asked by the Council is whether there have been any material chan= ges in circumstances since that decision that might warrant a different outco= me now. Most commonly the chan= ge in circumstance will relate to a change in planning policies, as these are o= ften being reviewed.<o:p></o:p> Planning Policy<o:p></o:p> At a national lev= el, Planning Policy Guidance 2 provides advice upon development in Green Belts. This was produced in= 1995 and as a result would have been taken account of by the previous Inspecto= r when he made his decision. <o:p>= </o:p> At a local level = policies will have changed. The Coun= cils Local Plan was adopted in 2003 and contains a number of policies that wou= ld not have been in place in the mid 90’s. The most relevant Local Plan pol= icy is GB8. This provides guidance= upon the re-use of buildings in the Green Belt and includes the following requirements :<o:p></o:p> <![if !supportLists]>i) &n= bsp; <![endif]>The use proposed and associated works, including boundary walls and fencing, or external activities would not have a greater impact than the present or l= ast use on the openness of the GB<o:p></o:p> <![if !supportLists]>ii) &= nbsp; <![endif]>The build= ing is of permanent and substantial construction and in sound condition and is o= f a form, bulk and general design, which is in keeping with its surroundings<= o:p></o:p> <![if !supportLists]>iii) = <![endif]>The propo= sal would not require extensive reconstruction of the building or a material increase in its size or scale<o:p></o:p> Whilst the Inspec= tor concluded that the previous applications would have a greater impact upon= the openness of the GB and therefore be in conflict with requirement (i) above, I consider that the site is now reasonabl= y well enclosed and if designed appropriately could be argued to have no greater impact on the openness of the area.<o:p></o:p> It will be notabl= y harder to argue that any future application for a conversion can comply with requirements (ii) and (iii) above. The Inspector was quite clear in his findings that any conversion would require extensive reconstruction and I would tend to concur with th= is view having seen the buildings. Whilst the roof appears largely sound, a number of the walls would require considerable work and Surveys undertaken at the time of the previ= ous applications said foundations would need to be introduced to support the barn. If anything the condi= tion of the barn over the last 10 years is likely to have deteriorated.<o:p></= o:p> I would be very s= urprised if the Council consider that the barn conversi= on would not require ‘extensive reconstruction’ and as a result = they are likely to conclude that it is in conflict with Policy GB8. In the vast majority of cases if= the Council conclude that a scheme is in conflict = with planning policy then planning permission will be refused.<o:p></o:p></spa= n> Other Issues<o:p></o:p> When visiting the= site I was aware that it is located in close proximity to a bend in the road.<sp= an style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> This will have the effect of lim= iting visibility when cars are leaving the site and as a result the Councils Highway Offic= ers could raise concerns form a highway safety viewpoint. <o:p></o:p><= /p> Conclusion<o:p></o:p> The planning hist= ory combined with the current Local Plan policy lead me to believe that the Council will be likely to refuse planning permission to convert the exist= ing barn to a dwelling. If take= n to appeal I believe an Inspector would be likely to reach the same conclusio= n.<o:p></o:p> If an application is to be successful it will be likely to need the support = of a building survey that suggests only minor works are required to convert the building. If you can obtain= such a survey and have a Planning Officer dealing with the application who does not give much weight to the previous Officers and Inspectors views, you m= ight be successful. In my opinio= n both of the above will be unlikely.<o:p></o:p> I would suggest that the chances of success are in the region of 25 %. If you do decide to progress wit= h the site I would be more than happy to assist you with a planning application= and in particular the production of a planning statement to ensure it has the best chance of success possible. Whilst, for the reasons set out above, I do think success would be unlikely, this does not mean it is impossible.<o:p></o:p> I hope the above information is of help and if you have any queries please = do not hesitate to contact me. </span= ><o:p></o:p> Yours Sincerely, <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Andy Meader BSc</= span>(Hons) Dip TP MRTPI <o:p> </o:p> Encl. <o:p> </o:p> </td> </tr> </table> </div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> </body> </html>