Planning Permission

[Anonymous]

Hi,

Please can anyone give us some advice?

We are looking to purchase a grade II listed building in our village. Within the curtilage of the property is an outbuilding which, until 1900, was used as a house. We wish to reinstate this building as a house for my elderly parents.

The outbuilding is in very close proximity to the main house and would share the same access, garden etc etc. The plan only works because the site will be occupied by one family - essentially the outbuilding will be an annex to the main house.

Our local council have advised us that we would not get permission to reinstate the outbuilding as a small house - as the building has been unused for so long it is deemed to be "abandoned", they state that it is considered an application for a "New Dwelling".

Within our village, they state that all new properties must include an element of "affordable housing".

This is just not practical due to the proximity of the outbuilding to the main house and the costs/limitations connected with its listed building status.

Does anyone know if there are any specific exclusions for Listed Buildings within planning guidelines? We are only trying to restore a listed building to its former use.

If the building is not developed, it will fall down and be lost forever. As a listed building, what would happen then? Parts of the building are already unsafe due to age of the property.

Can anyone reccomend a planning consultant with North Warwickshire who may be able to assist us?

If anyone has any suggestions that can help us out, please do.

Many thanks for help,

Matthew

 

[Anonymous]

It was suggested to us by our architect, planning and conservation officer that we apply for the renovation our outbuilding as an annex, as the building was used as a sausage curing house for the last 100 years. Our submitted plans incorporated a bar, living area, study-bedroom and a bath with shower. I believe this annex can be a sustainable extension to our main house. Perhaps working with a conservation architect and the conservation officers would give you the support to approach planning with a more favorable outcome.

 

[Anonymous]

I had a similar situation with an abandoned cottage within the grounds of my house.
What I did was to renovate the cottage without planning permission but making sure I only did things that did not need planning permission. e.g. renew roof, new windows. repair stairs, new kitchen, bathroom, septic tank,, etc. I needed building regs for some things (but not planning permission) Once it started looking like a dwelling again, I used it as a dwelling (in my case a holiday cottage see http://www.oldwynd.co.uk ) I may have been lucky in that I have no neighbours to make a fuss and the fact that I bought the two buildings separately with two sets of deeds and the cottage had a separate address. The cottage still had a rateable value (£11 would you believe) so the council have been quite happy to collect council tax on it for the last ten years.



http://www.oldwynd.co.uk

 

[Anonymous]

You don't need listed building consent to carry out like-for-like repairs to a listed building. How much of the original fabric of the outbuilding still exists? Is there enough for you to restore it to use by simply repairing it? Surely this would be within the letter and the spirit of the law.
I should add that this is not in any way an expert view. Hopefully one of the professionals who contribute to this forum will add his/her views.

 

[Anonymous]

Cheers for all the replies.

Most of the building exists - one of our sets of plans uses all the walls as they are.

The main problem is that the council no longer consider the building to be a dwelling, as it has been "abandoned" for so long. They will not give us "change of use" permission to bring it back to a dwelling - unless we make it into social/affordable housing.

Converting a listed building into affordable housing doesn't make sense due to the costs involved!

If we, or any other potential purchasers of the site, are not allowed to develop it, it will simply fall down, and the listed building would be lost. That just sounds silly to me!

Thanks for the support and ideas. We'll keep going with this one.

 

[Anonymous]

While I agree that the council may well be wrong on this one, especially as 'affordable housing' seems to be being used here in a very odd manner, especially as this isn't a large development but a one off, and there may be ways around this, there are many things to consider.

Firstly, although I appreciate that there are far too many listed buildings at risk because owners do not repair them, the council can take enforcement action to ensure that a building doesn't fall into such a state that it does simply disappear. So I wouldn't try that argument on the council, and I would also consider that owning a piece of this country's heritage and allowing it to become derelict isn't something for which many who post here will have a great deal of sympathy! Also, the council may now, having had the building brought to its attention, place it on an At Risk register.

Making a house out of a building in such close proximity to another may be convenient at the moment, but if selling on it could prove difficult for a number of reasons.

My local authority is currently considering action against someone who has been using a building as a dwelling without the necessary consents - although it is possible in some cases to have this declared lawful after a period of time, it's a bit of a can of worms.

There are added complications also with farm buildings and inappropriate uses - many local authorities have policies regarding re-use which have to be considered.

However, it may be that you have discused this with a jobsworth in the planning dept who doesn't know their *rs* from their elbow, and it may be worth discussing this with the Conservation Officer and putting the rescue and re-use situation to him or her.

You could also put in for planning permission and see what happens - and if it's turned down then you can appeal. But be prepared to pay for a Planning Consultant and also be prepared for the fact that you may still not win even on appeal.

 

[Anonymous]

we successfully applied to have an extension to our grade 2 listed building replacing some outbuildings for a new annexe connected to our house.
We reclaimed all the stone from the outbuildings to clad the extension.

we had problems as we are in greenbelt and there is al imit to the volume you can extend a house in greenbelt.

we needed planning permision and listed building consent.

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks for all the coments Evelyn.

>While I agree that the council may well be wrong >on this one, especially as 'affordable housing' >seems to be being used here in a very odd >manner, especially as this isn't a large >development but a one off, and there may be >ways around this, there are many things to >consider.

It location just won't work for affordable housing. Trying to convert a listed building into affordable housing bemuses me!

The bit that really bemuse me, is that the building used to be a dwelling before it fell derelict. But this doesn't to have any influence with the council!

Hope we can find a way around it - if not we'll simply pull out of the purchase and let someone try!

>Firstly, although I appreciate that there are far >too many listed buildings at risk because owners >do not repair them, the council can take >enforcement action to ensure that a building >doesn't fall into such a state that it does simply >disappear. So I wouldn't try that argument on the >council, and I would also consider that owning a >piece of this country's heritage and allowing it to >become derelict isn't something for which many >who post here will have a great deal of sympathy!

I agree - the previous owner hasn't done ANY work on this part of the property since about 1950! Talking to the vendors, who recently inherited the site, she didn't appreciate that the listing covered the whole site and not just the house! We're interested in the site for its location and history and size - we're not trying to turn it into a get-rich-quick-scheme. Financially it only just makes sense! We'd be financially better off staying where we are now, with none of the problems a period property causes.

>Also, the council may now, having had the >building brought to its attention, place it on an At >Risk register.
>
If they have, I'd love to know what they want the vendors to do with it.

>Making a house out of a building in such close >proximity to another may be convenient at the >moment, but if selling on it could prove difficult >for a number of reasons.

I agree. We've talked to the solicitors about the best way to split the site - I think it can be done without too much problem. The 1/2 acre garden can easily be sensibly divided, we've a scheme to sort the parking and access. The estate agents we've spoken to (not the vendors agents) also think we're doing the right thing.

The properties will probably be both placed in trust to try and ensure they stay in the family. At present we would live in the house and my elderly parents (dad had leukeamia) would live in the outbuildings. This would mean that mum is close to her family when the leukeamia kicks in.

>
>My local authority is currently considering action >against someone who has been using a building >as a dwelling without the necessary consents - >although it is possible in some cases to have this >declared lawful after a period of time, it's a bit of >a can of worms.
>

We wouldn't consider doing anything without full consents.

>There are added complications also with farm >buildings and inappropriate uses - many local >authorities have policies regarding re-use which >have to be considered.
>
>However, it may be that you have discused this >with a jobsworth in the planning dept who doesn't >know their *rs* from their elbow, and it may be >worth discussing this with the Conservation >Officer and putting the rescue and re-use >situation to him or her.
>
We've spent 10 days trying to get hold of the Conservation Officer - we eventually found out that he only works 2 days a week, and that he doesn't deal with the public - its up the case officer to refer the details to him! Our local councillor is very approachable, so he's my next point of contact.

>You could also put in for planning permission and >see what happens - and if it's turned down then >you can appeal. But be prepared to pay for a >Planning Consultant and also be prepared for the >fact that you may still not win even on appeal.
>

At this stage we don't want to consider this approach - it'll cost too much money to loose. If we get the impression that the council won't budge, we'll withdraw our offer.

Many thanks for taking the time to reply.

 

[Anonymous]

Hi John,

Ironically, if we'd applied for an extension to the main house, we've been told we'd probably have got it!

We've looked at making the outbuildings an annex, and connecting them to the main house, but it's just not practical.

Cheers

Matthew

 

[Anonymous]

Affordable housing - not sure that there is actually any set sum for this - it's all very vague! Problems start if they try to make the building comply with modern building regs - and insist it's a new build - although listed buildings really don't have to comply.

Also - no-one can force you to put the house on the market once completed, so 'affordable' isn't an issue for anyone else!

The lack of a CO is a difficulty here. Many listed houses are brought back into use after a long period of abandonment.

I don't see why a listed building shouldn't be able to be made habitable at a similar cost to a new build - and as it has been not lived in, and you are bringing at back into use then there would be zero VAT on the whole work I think!

Local authorities - grrrr.

What age is the building?

 

[Anonymous]

Hi John. How's the cupulo?

 

[Anonymous]

Affordable housing - not sure that there is actually any set sum for this - it's all very vague! Problems start if they try to make the building comply with modern building regs - and insist it's a new build - although listed buildings really don't have to comply.

Also - no-one can force you to put the house on the market once completed, so 'affordable' isn't an issue for anyone else!

The lack of a CO is a difficulty here. Many listed houses are brought back into use after a long period of abandonment.

I don't see why a listed building shouldn't be able to be made habitable at a similar cost to a new build - and as it has been not lived in, and you are bringing at back into use then there would be zero VAT on the whole work I think!

Local authorities - grrrr.

What age is the building?

 

[Anonymous]

>Affordable housing - not sure that there is >actually any set sum for this - it's all very vague!

They got that covered. It needs to assigned to an approved housing association or "social landlord" in perpertuity (sp). They'd make it a condition on the planning consent - so it if wasn't assigned etc planning permission would be revoked!

>Problems start if they try to make the building >comply with modern building regs - and insist it's >a new build - although listed buildings really don't >have to comply.

>Also - no-one can force you to put the house on >the market once completed, so 'affordable' isn't >an issue for anyone else!

See above - they'd revoke planning permission if I didn't!

>The lack of a CO is a difficulty here. Many listed >houses are brought back into use after a long >period of abandonment.

I guess thats part of the reason they are listed in the first place.

>I don't see why a listed building shouldn't be able >to be made habitable at a similar cost to a new >build - and as it has been not lived in, and you >are bringing at back into use then there would be >zero VAT on the whole work I think!

VAT would be reclaimable - but we need the planning permission first. We're budgeting quite a bit for reclaimed bricks and tiles - the building is also quite "compact" in areas so access to work is tricky. Think it might need underping also. If it happens we'll do our best to do it properly.

>Local authorities - grrrr.

>What age is the building?

The oldest part of the main house dates back to late 1600's, and has been built in stages since then. We think the majority of the work was completed by 1734 (from a set of deeds). The outbuildings are thought to have been built between 1750 and 1800, although they may be earlier as some of the brick matches that of the original part of the house.

 

[Anonymous]

Hi Biff
sitting under tarps on my pation waiting for decesion from new co re replacement etc.
It is in alot worse state than the original specialist inferred.
My roof no longer leaks though.
regards john

 

[Anonymous]

Hi..
A difficult and fraught area this.. I did this to a Grade 11 some years ago and was told that there was no permission available or likely for the "annex" part (separated by a curved brick wall and 1 metre distance. Fortunately the "affordable housing " factor did not then apply.I discussed this with the then Conservation officer. the building inspector and a chap from the planning office. We were fortunate that is was a wet day and I kept all of them talking in the rain until they were soaked! When it looked as though we were getting no where and as I could not offer them a coffee because the place was scheduled as unfit for human habitation, I suggested we retired to the local pub. Although they all said that this was'nt allowed they were all so wet and fed up that we had a pleasant lunch and a couple of drinks.. The outcome was a much more positive approach from all. Though it took some time I finally got the CO to agree that the "annex " had been inhabited and is still a "dwelling house" , though derelict. once he had agreed the rest fell into place, I t cost me a lot to comply with their requirements but I always approached the problem with an almost aggressively positive approach asking "hey.. why not, that doesn't make sense, "can you put it in writing", who is your boss?(nicely) who is his boss?
Who are the great and the good in the Conservation field, how do I have a meeting with them? and so on,
I think once they realised that I simply was not going to let go, no matter what , they became more co-operative.We succeeded in the end.
You do need to persist with this though, never take no for an answer, really push.. hard but politely, always assume there is a way round because the last thing the CO and local planners want is for it to be lost for good, or to fall into the street!
Some other sound comments have been posted I see. All in all the CO and Planning Inspectors and Buildings guys are essential and you should copy each to the other and back and keep them involved, Though I could never prove it I have been at Planning Committee meetings in the past where it was almost obvious that one individual either "ran" the commitee or was of such an awkward nature that unless he was "on Side" it was to be a real struggle. Having said that no professional member of the Planning Services or CO should take any offence as every one I have ever dealt with have been more than anxious to co operate if they could.
keep it all open and advise your local press of what is happening get them onside and it is amazing what can be done.
Good Luck, never give up!

 

[Anonymous]

Sounds vey odd to me - I reckon the LA are talking out of their rear ends. The requirement to provide a percentage (usually 10%) of affordable housing usually only kicks in if the development is above a certain number of units. 10 is quite common but in some LA's it is 14.

 

[Anonymous]

It all sounds very suspect to me too - the affordable housing quota is about that in my local authority, not usually for a one-off - and usually there is a requirement for a children's play area etc. too!

However - I do know my own local authority also has some additional adopted policies which are very odd - and which lost them a public inquiry recently.

The difficulty is that well-meaning policies are adopted, without thought to other conflicting policies which may exist.

I also wonder about the Human Rights Act and forcing someone to hand over a house they own to a housing association or social landlord!

I can however see that if there is a policy in the village of only allowing 'new' development to be social housing then heels will be dug in. And maybe there is a government quota which the authority is desperate to meet.

I've come across many who work for local authorities who are prepared to talk sheer bullshit. My own especially. When caught out they simply avoid and evade the truth!

I would ask (very politely!!) to be sent a copy of this policy and study it very, very carefully. I'd also ask to see any policies that the authority has for the re-use of historic buildings, read PPG 15 very carefully, and also if the authority considers the building to be At Risk and ask if there is a local Buildings at Risk register, and if the building is considered At Risk why moves have not been made to put it on the SAVE BaR Register ...

Ask if the authority is sending a delegate to the BaR conference in Bristol...

We now seem to have two threads going on this topic!

 

[Anonymous]

I've just discussed this with Ela at SAVE - we agree that really the suitable re-use of a listed building at risk here is an important factor, and Ela feels that new government initiatives regarding abandoned houses are being possibly misused here. She has more details than I do.

I do urge a call to Ela... she's on her own in the office today and possibly the answering machine may answer while she's on the other line, but keep trying!

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks Evelyn.

Just a long chat with Ela, and sent her some copies of correspondance etc.

Many thanks for making the introduction,

Matthew

 

[Anonymous]

In *planning* terms, conversion of an outbuilding to an annexe "incidental to the enjoyment of the principal dwelling house" (and granny annexes are usually viwed in this light) would normally be permitted development and would not require planning permission. In those terms I think you LA is talking out of its bottom.

Listed building consent is a separate issue but has nothing to do with the land-use planning principle.