The madness of planning
Andrea Lightwood and her family started what could have been a dream barn conversion earlier in this year. Getting planning permission for barn conversions is, by all accounts, rather tricky, but the Lightwoods managed, and they broke ground on Feb 20th. Things seemed to be going fairly well until winds were forecast on March 10th, and at 3am on March 12th, a gust of wind blew down the barn despite it having been supported with scaffolding to protect it from the heavy weather. Just one gable was left standing.
This would be a set-back for anyone. It would mean either rebuilding with the original materials or rethinking the entire conversion and starting again with a new build. But the UK’s planning policies don’t work like that. Because the structure was damaged, the planning permission for the conversion was automatically revoked. In one gust of wind, Andrea Lightwood’s entire build was destroyed, not just the old barn’s walls. She says:
Just as I originally thought our planning has now disintergrated along with the mortar that was holding the bricks in place.
After a meeting with Building control officers and Building inspectors, Building control returned to their offices and we awaited the decision …….can we continue’building’ under the original planning application? Of course not…the reason? we had not supported the barn using the most appropriate best methods. !!!!!!!!!!!!
We had sought advice and tried, I resent garage dwelling and spending un necessary money the barn was my dream, why would we not have protected it properly?
Despite the fact that the weather across the UK has been unusually violent this year, and despite the fact that the Lightwoods had put scaffolding up to brace the structure, the planning officers decided to revoke permission, just like that.
On May 21st, Andrea submitted new plans, but on July 2nd, planning permission was refused:
Due to various local planning polices the application has been refused as it is classed as a ‘new dwelling in the country side’ and is therefore harm full to the environment.
Erm, so let’s get this straight now, shall we? There was a building on this site that had stood for quite a while. The majority of that building blew down, thus returning the site immediately to something akin to ‘green field’ status which means that rebuilding the barn would actually be building a new structure which means it contravenes the green field policy?
That is insanity. If it was ok for there to be a barn there, and it was ok for that barn to be converted into a house, then what possible reason could there be for not continuing with that build? It entirely defies logic and reason.
Matt Sims of the Wrexham Leader has covered Andrea’s plea to councillors to let her rebuild:
The council’s planning policy forbids the building of any new dwellings in the countryside and officers recommended Mrs Lightwood’s application be refused.
At a meeting this week, however, councillors agreed to pay a visit to the site of the proposed development to assess what kind of impact it would have on the surrounding area following an appeal by Mrs Lightwood.
[...]
Planning control manager Bob Dewey said that because it contradicted council policy, officers had no choice but to refuse.
“The applicants made a very passionate plea on behalf of the proposal,” he said.
“It is something that was approved as a conversion, has now substantially gone and clearly would be in breach of our policy. With regret, our recommendation has to be to refuse.”
Planning chief Lawrence Isted said: “It’s a fundamental policy of principle and it wouldn’t be a small matter to put it to one side.”
“No choice”? Absurd. If there was a building there before which was approved for conversion into a dwelling, what is the harm in allowing that build to go ahead? Materially, what has changed? Not the environment. Not the quality of the land - it hasn’t suddenly returned to pasture. Not access to the land. Not the distance of the plot from the nearest village. All that has changed is that some bricks that were vertical are now horizontal.
There’s no doubt that planning policy at a national and a local level are out of step, but this is taking local planning pedantry to a new level of absurdity. I can only hope that sense prevails and that Andrea gets to build her house.
July 14th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
[...] The Madness of Planning - Suw Charman-Anderson points to a local municipal planning decision that follows policy, but not common sense. [...]
July 21st, 2008 at 11:16 am
I agree, it’s not a very commonsense decision, but there’s logic behind it. For years developers have been ‘accidentally’ allowing buildings to fall or burn down (or become so dangerously damanged they must be demolished), thereby helfully circumventing tedious requirements to preserve original features, and giving them a nice flat bit of land for their new development.
Clearly if the barn-converters here commit to building a new structure with the same or similar materials and similar dimensions and design, there’s no real cause for complaint. But it’s not unreasonable to revoke the permission until such time as they can prove that they will indeed do that. If their budget for converting the old building does not run to building a new on with a similar appearance, that’s their bad luck.
July 21st, 2008 at 11:34 am
Jon, usually planning permission for a conversion comes with restrictions, such as replacing like with like, not adding new openings except those specified by the planning consent. I don’t see why these normal restrictions can’t just be applied to the rebuilt barn. “Rebuild it as it was, and do your conversation as planned at the same time”. So long as the character of the building is in keeping, what’s the big deal?
Their budget has nothing to do with this - this isn’t about whether or not they can afford to do the work, but the principle that they should be allowed to continue with their project. I don’t think there’s any need to prove that they will do it, but more to ensure that they do do it by having a clear set of permissions about what is acceptable.
I agree that we need to prevent developers burning down or otherwise removing old buildings. But if the planning permission contained the right restrictions in the first place, would it be necessary to revoke it? And, even if you believe it is necessary to revoke and reassess, builders should be given the opportunity to continue if they promise to rebuild the old building the same way as it was. Coming up with some “oh, this is now a greenfield site” excuse for turning them down is just nonsense.
July 25th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
It is refreshing that other people share my view- that if I was to re-build the barn with the same bricks, plans, wood everything apart from the mortar! then what really is the harm to the environment? I could understand the ‘council officers’ point of view ‘it is policy’ but for a group of ‘normal off the street individuals’ (the planning committee) to not differentiate us from a developer…well i am left very puzzled as to wheresenseless policy begins and ends. Thanks for your Support Suw and good luck with the eco house. Andrea