Storage building.

[Bogart]

I would like to erect a steel building of some 12ft wide by 20 ft deep in a meadow which forms part of the property. It will be used for storage of the ride on mower, rotovator etc. When the property was listed this parcel of land was
owned by someone else and was purchased post listing. It would be situated in a meadow some 30m away from the original boundary of the listed property. Would I need planning permission?

Regards

 

[Cubist]

Hi Bogart,

Almost certainly I would say - but there may be some wiggle room if the land is not directly associated with the 'curtilage' of the listed property. I would check with the planning office first before consulting the CO.

The previous owner here had a battle with the local authority, and the CO, when he tried to get a three bay garage and integrated workshop built about 10 years back. The story goes that he suffered a number of rejections before coming up with the wheeze to leave the doors off and call it an animal shelter and also settling for a separate shed for the workshop. That proposal sailed through.

Cheers,
Cubist

 

[Flyfisher]

Good news?
According to this: https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200130/common_projects/43/outbuildings, 'outbuildings' fall within permitted development, subject to certain height and positioning restrictions.

Bad news?
Also on that webpage it states that "Within the curtilage of listed buildings any outbuilding will require planning permission" (do they mean LBC?).

So the real issue is whether the proposed site for the proposed shed falls within the curtilage of the listed house, which according to this: https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/listed-buildings-and-curtilage-advice-note-10/, is not always easy.

I would guess that because the proposed site was owned by someone else when the property was listed, there's a pretty good chance that it doesn't fall within the curtilage. Unfortunately, I don't think that's a guarantee though and I've read of instances where curtilage has extended to a neighbouring property, though it usually involves existing structures such as walls. But in this case, since the proposed site is, literally, a green field site with no existing structures, then it would seem unlikely that it would form part of the curtilage.

The only way to be really sure is to ask your CO.

 

[MikeG]

Has the land it is proposed that this new building stands on been changed from agricultural to residential? Because if it hasn't, and remains as agricultural, not only will you need planning permission, but you are unlikely to get it (development in the countryside). If the status of the land has been changed (via Planning Permission), then I have never seen such land accrue Permitted Development rights, and so you would need permission anyway. In summary, if the land was at any time (post 1948) agricultural land, then you will need to apply for planning permission.

When it comes to any such application, the Planners still won't want to see an isolated building stuck in a field. They seek realistic "clumps" of development. Think of a farmhouse with adjacent barns and outbuildings, all grouped together in a yard. If you look at the local vernacular, you won't see many, if any, isolated buildings just stuck in a field. Different in the Peak District, and the Lakes, for example, but not here in Eastern England.

 

[Owain]

Do you need a steel building (permanent structure) or could you drop a shipping container on the site?

I think if planning enforcement action were taken against a shipping container you can restart the clock by moving it a few yards.

 

[Flyfisher]

Do you need a steel building (permanent structure) or could you drop a shipping container on the site?

Fit some steel wheels to the container and call it a shepherds hut :lol:

 

[skier-hughes]

Permitted development is within the curtilage of the building and the field in question is not within the curtilage, as it has been bought separately.
A shipping container needs planning the same as any other building and is not counted as being mobile.

Been there, done all of that.

We bought another 2 acres of agricultural land, I couldn't get planning for a stable, so I built it on the boundary of the original 2 acre garden under permitted development and then opened it up onto the new field.
I also have a 40' container for storage, great for all of those things like lawnmower, rotivator etc.

 

[MikeG]

Do you need a steel building (permanent structure) or could you drop a shipping container on the site?

Fit some steel wheels to the container and call it a shepherds hut :lol:

The fact that a building could be mobile is an irrelevance in Planning terms. What counts is that it is actually mobile. It has to move a certain minimum distance in a certain maximum time to fall under that criteria for avoiding Planning Permission. Unfortunately, off the top of my head I don't know the 2 figures, and I also don't know if they are a nationwide thing, or vary from council to council. This is one of those things that everyone thinks they know, but it in fact wrong.......or, at least, undermined by the detail.

 

[Flyfisher]

So you’re saying I would need LBC or PP to have a genuine shepherds hut in the grounds of my listed house?

 

[MikeG]

If it is within the curtilage, (rather than the grounds) and remained un-moved for a certain duration, then in theory, you probably should. You should probably check with the council.

If you want an idea of how complex the law is in this area, have a look at this:

https://planninglawblog.blogspot.com/2012/07/buildings-or-structures-woolley.html

 

[Bogart]

I knew before I asked the question that it can be a bit of a minefield. Will contact the various bodies and wait for them to disagree.

On anothertotally different point the listing states

"Doorway to cell 2 now blocked; doorway to cell 3 with boarded door c.1985 having small rondel to left with Boileau crest and date 1848" Now this crest is missing and was when we arrived some 2 years ago. Now a local historian
says she has seen the rondel/plaque in place whilst the previous owner was in residence. She apparently asked him numerous times as to its whereabouts but to no avail. Could I pursue this matter ie tell Historic England of the
disappearance.

 

[Flyfisher]

If it is within the curtilage, (rather than the grounds) and remained un-moved for a certain duration, then in theory, you probably should. You should probably check with the council.

If you want an idea of how complex the law is in this area, have a look at this:

https://planninglawblog.blogspot.com/2012/07/buildings-or-structures-woolley.html

Interesting link - thanks for that. Seems to be a complete legal minefield! The blog comments make interesting reading too, particularly the dichotomy between the Measor ruling that caravans lack the permanence to be considered a building and the ‘Woolley Chickens’ case that has put this ruling in some doubt, as described in the blog: ". . . the ramifications of the “Woolley Chickens” judgment have not yet been fully worked out. There is still a widely held view (not least among planning inspectors) that caravans are not to be regarded as structures. However, it seems to me that this view is now open to question in light of the “Woolley Chickens” judgment. I suspect that this point may not be finally resolved until or unless this issue returns to the High Court in a future case. "

And the icing on the cake is that these apparently conflicting case rulings were both made by the same judge!

So it seems quite possible to pay a large sum of money for a barrister's opinion with no guarantee it would stand up in court. :shock:

My own layman's opinion (which also comes with no guarantee but is immensely cheaper :wink: ) is that the 'Wooly Chickens' case, as described in that link, seems hardly representative of a typical domestic situation and as such should not be relevant to a shepherds hut used for private, personal use in the grounds of a private house. Indeed, a shepherds hut is pretty much identical to a caravan - i.e. a temporary living space on wheels - for which no planning permission is generally required for personal use on a private property.

Sounds simple emough, but has clearly excercised finer legal minds than mine (not difficult!) without coming to an absolutely firm conclusion!

 

[CliffordPope]

It seems to be accepted, judging from the literature, that a "field shelter" in an agricultural field is OK without permision, but it needs to be capable of being moved, and depending on the vigilance of your local authority, may actually have to be moved, I think at least twice a year.

If you look up field shelter, they usually have skids, either wooden or steel, so can be towed around with a tractor.
They must not be be attached to the ground, and can't be on a hard-standing base - just plain field earth.
Also they can't have doors, because makes them a stable, not a temporary shelter for livestock in bad weather.

We started with one of those, didn't move it at all, and no one noticed or did anything about it. Now it's been there more than 4 years I understand it's out of time for enforcement, and it's becoming a storage shed with tarpaulin flaps. I'm thinking of fitting wooden doors.