New English Policy
Permitted development rights for the conversion of agricultural buildings to dwellings in England have been extended to allow more converted space and up to five new homes to be built from a single conversion.
Conversion project in Weston, Northamptonshire by Clare Nash Architecture; the project arrived with prior approval, but then became a full planning application. Sketch by Julia Healey, Clare Nash Architecture.
Potential Space Doubled
Four years after the original permitted development rights were introduced, a revised order came into effect on 6 April 2018 that almost doubles the potential dwelling space that can be created, prompting instant warnings from the Local Government Association that there could be a dramatic increase in the number of conversions, all taking place without the need for planning permission.
Other observers, such as RIBA Planning Group Chair Philip Waddy, think a jump in activity is unlikely in the short term because many farmers and land owners keen to convert will have already taken advantage of four years of permitted development. Nevertheless, the new limits will clearly change the financial arithmetic for those still weighing up the benefits of conversion.
Making 3 = 5
Under the old permitted rights, barn owners could apply to convert buildings into three new homes with a combined floor space of up to 450 square metres. Under the new order, conversions can comprise three larger homes of up to 465 square metres in total, or five smaller homes, each no larger than 100 square metres, within the same 465 square metres limit.
But, crucially, developers can now also mix and match larger and smaller homes, building up to three larger homes within the 465 square metre limit and up to four of the smaller homes, as long as the total does not exceed five. By building one large home at 465 square metres plus four 100 square metre smaller homes, for example, the permitted limit can be extended to 865 square metres.
Unpopular with LPA’s
The policy is unpopular with many local planning authorities, who are opposed to permitted development rights for barn conversions on principle, arguing that the conversions are outside of normal development control and make no contribution to affordable housing and local infrastructure.
Initial Refusals High
Rates of refusal were so high for the first year of the development rights policy that the government decided to update guidance so that location, the most common objection given by planners, was no longer allowed to be a sufficient reason for refusing prior approval.
And still are
This did improve the situation for applicants, but figures show that refusals for barn conversions are still running at twice the average rate for prior approval applications generally. RIBA Past President Ruth Reed, director of Shropshire based Green Planning Studio, says they receive about one inquiry a week about a barn conversion, but generally approach them with caution.
‘They remain unpopular with local authorities for a variety of reasons, so we will look at the project and the local authority stance together. Some local authorities are generous, some will do everything they can to resist,’ says Reed.
Small Developer Interest
‘The larger numbers [of units permitted by the revised policy] will make conversions a lot more interesting to small developers, but the same concerns still apply.’
What is a Conversion?
One of the main areas of contention is whether a project is a conversion or not. The permitted development order allows for the replacement of external walls as well as roofs, doors and windows, plus additional building works judged to be reasonable for the building to function as a dwelling. This offers great scope, in theory, for the transformation of workaday barns and other basic structures.
‘There has to be a building there to convert. A brick building with a tile roof may be okay, but when you have a steel-framed Dutch barn, for instance, are you really converting or just building? The decision can turn out to be a subjective judgement by the planner,’ warns Reed.
Changing PD Rights to Full PP’s
It is also common for projects to start out as permitted development prior approval applications, but to evolve into full planning applications once the principle of a dwelling on the site has been established and potential grounds for refusal, such as contaminated land issues, have been addressed.
Full PP’s for “… that bit extra.”
Clare Nash, author of Contemporary Vernacular Design, says her Northamptonshire practice has projects that started out this way, but she regularly decides to go for full planning permission instead to give the project a bit extra. Most of these conversions would not be possible at all, she says, without the permitted development right in the background, as this has become the door opener to consideration of full applications.
RIBA Thanks to
Philip Waddy, Partner, West Waddy ADP; Ruth Reed, Director, Green Planning Studio;
Clare Nash, Director, Clare Nash Architecture. Text by Neal Morris.
This is a Professional Feature edited by the RIBA
Barns Need Timber
… it is Traditional Material and also needs Traditional Features, like lofts and trusses and big doors and cathedral frames. As Design & Timber Engineers we enjoy the challenges that such work provides and enjoy working with other professionals to produce both workable and attractive solutions. Specifying any system is an important step for engineers, architects and all who strive for improved, lower cost, more environmentally sustainable construction, but timber still seems to offer all the benefits with few of the disadvantages.
In our drive to turn concepts into factory built components for on-site assembly, we focus on timber. In this respect we believe we are at the forefront of making DfMA (Design for Manufacture & Assembly) a reality. It begins with the way we design, specify and incorporate ‘appropriate’ technology into all buildings. It also draws together concepts from over 50 years interest in sustainable development.
DfMA at the forefront
As Off-Site construction matures into Design for Manufacture and Assembly (DfMA) it is clearly at the forefront as an enabler for such delivery. New homes will very soon be ‘Smart’ in numerous ways, including full incorporation of energy saving and TIoT (the internet of things) to deliver major components. This is something that ‘Off-Site’. DfMA (Design for Manufacture & Assembly) will need to seriously consider as the industry moves forward.
Greater collaborative ‘partnering’ between architects, builders and manufacturers is needed to accomplish this The greater speed, accuracy and quality that can result from manufacturing components in a dry, controlled factory environment, together with the ability tom incorporate (yet to be invented) ‘Smart Ware’ gives home builders perhaps the only way of achieving this, together with improved on-site build quality AND controlling costs.
While resistance to the change to DfMA has been the norm, the wish of most UK Builders to deliver excellent customer service and top notch homes is now driving an increasing number to choose Off-Site for their developments. Also, as ‘OffSite Hub” note, architects and designers are moving toward DfMA, something we have been encouraging for over 20 years. The emergence of LA Developers will only speed up this process.
Easy Timber Frame
To assist them in doing so our “Easy Timber Frame “ now offers standard size modular timber frame elements for them to use as a design base, cutting down on technical design and engineering to produce win-win results.