Hi all

For the last 10 months I have been in the process of applying for PP
to convert the first floor of the barn which is attached to my house
into offices (commercial). The ground floor would remain part fo the
house (attached to the kitchen and access through a door).

Well, finally had the application refused, with the notice stating:

Change of use of first floor of barn adjacent to dwelling from
residential (C3) to offices (A2).

My question now is what do I do. In the 10 months this has been
ongoing, I have decided I would rather just keep it part of the house
- but renovate it (sort the roof out, windows, insulate and heat). I
am assuming the barn is currently 'residential' - so would I be
correct in thinking I can renovate it with no further input from the
council? It will look the same from outside - with no extra windows
or doors - other than the whole side of the barn being rendered - the
same as the main house.

Any thoughts/views would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance

Simon

"Simon Hawthorne" wrote in message
...
Hi all

For the last 10 months I have been in the process of applying for PP
to convert the first floor of the barn which is attached to my house
into offices (commercial). The ground floor would remain part fo the
house (attached to the kitchen and access through a door).

Well, finally had the application refused, with the notice stating:

Change of use of first floor of barn adjacent to dwelling from
residential (C3) to offices (A2).

My question now is what do I do. In the 10 months this has been
ongoing, I have decided I would rather just keep it part of the house
- but renovate it (sort the roof out, windows, insulate and heat). I
am assuming the barn is currently 'residential' - so would I be
correct in thinking I can renovate it with no further input from the
council? It will look the same from outside - with no extra windows
or doors - other than the whole side of the barn being rendered - the
same as the main house.

Any thoughts/views would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance

Simon


The barn isn't listed, or the main building itself, is it? Is the only
objection for the change because you'll be using it for commercial purposes?
You haven't actually given any good reason for the objection here.

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 19:11:28 GMT, "BigWallop"
wrote:

The barn isn't listed, or the main building itself, is it? Is the only
objection for the change because you'll be using it for commercial purposes?
You haven't actually given any good reason for the objection here.


Nope - neither is listed. The rejected it for 3 reasons:

1 The proposed parking would cause loss of amenity to th emain
house (I park my cars at the back of the house!)

2 The proposed parking at the rear of the house (for my cars)
would cause loss of amenity to neighbours (I already park here!!)

3 Proposed parking would cause congestion at the front of the
property - meaing vehicles couldn't leave the drive in a forward gear
(which is rubbish as there is a turning space)

I really can't see what their problem is...

We had already revised the application to accomodate all these points
- and the planning officer handling it said she was happy with them!

Strange...

Simon

"Simon Hawthorne" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 19:11:28 GMT, "BigWallop"
wrote:

The barn isn't listed, or the main building itself, is it? Is the only
objection for the change because you'll be using it for commercial
purposes?
You haven't actually given any good reason for the objection here.


Nope - neither is listed. The rejected it for 3 reasons:

1 The proposed parking would cause loss of amenity to th emain
house (I park my cars at the back of the house!)

2 The proposed parking at the rear of the house (for my cars)
would cause loss of amenity to neighbours (I already park here!!)

3 Proposed parking would cause congestion at the front of the
property - meaing vehicles couldn't leave the drive in a forward gear
(which is rubbish as there is a turning space)

I really can't see what their problem is...

We had already revised the application to accomodate all these points
- and the planning officer handling it said she was happy with them!

Strange...

Simon


That's a better explanation, and sounds as though they haven't consulted
neighbouring properties for their objections on this. Do you already have
organised parking places for each premises? Do you know if any neighbour
has produced an objection to your proposal for change of use? Is there any
'right of way' walkway or walk through place within or around the property
that could be restricted from use by your proposed layout? Does, or has,
your property been, or is being used, for other access to other properties?

Have you greased the right palm(s)? Is your architect dealing with these
plans?

It sounds as though they are more worried about congestion from vehicle
parking because of the objection to loss of amenities issues. But if the
area is wide enough to have permanent parking already, then is their
objection because of the increased use this parking and street area may have
with your business activities. i.e.. customer parking.

"Simon Hawthorne" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 19:11:28 GMT, "BigWallop"
wrote:

The barn isn't listed, or the main building itself, is it? Is the only
objection for the change because you'll be using it for commercial
purposes?
You haven't actually given any good reason for the objection here.

What is the business. If it's "office based" i.e. not manufacturing,
selling or generating other disturbance, talk to your local DTI advisor
about it. They have a team of people to encourage such schemes and sort out
objections.

"Simon Hawthorne" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 19:11:28 GMT, "BigWallop"
wrote:

The barn isn't listed, or the main building itself, is it? Is the only
objection for the change because you'll be using it for commercial
purposes?
You haven't actually given any good reason for the objection here.


Nope - neither is listed. The rejected it for 3 reasons:

1 The proposed parking would cause loss of amenity to th emain
house (I park my cars at the back of the house!)

2 The proposed parking at the rear of the house (for my cars)
would cause loss of amenity to neighbours (I already park here!!)

3 Proposed parking would cause congestion at the front of the
property - meaing vehicles couldn't leave the drive in a forward gear
(which is rubbish as there is a turning space)

I really can't see what their problem is...

We had already revised the application to accomodate all these points
- and the planning officer handling it said she was happy with them!

Planners are filth. Born liars. I would burn the lot of them.

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 20:58:56 +0000, Simon Hawthorne
wrote:


Nope - neither is listed. The rejected it for 3 reasons:

1 The proposed parking would cause loss of amenity to th emain
house (I park my cars at the back of the house!)

2 The proposed parking at the rear of the house (for my cars)
would cause loss of amenity to neighbours (I already park here!!)

3 Proposed parking would cause congestion at the front of the
property - meaing vehicles couldn't leave the drive in a forward gear
(which is rubbish as there is a turning space)

I really can't see what their problem is...

We had already revised the application to accomodate all these points
- and the planning officer handling it said she was happy with them!

Appeal

"Mike" wrote in message
...

"Simon Hawthorne" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 19:11:28 GMT, "BigWallop"
wrote:

The barn isn't listed, or the main building itself, is it? Is the only
objection for the change because you'll be using it for commercial
purposes?
You haven't actually given any good reason for the objection here.

What is the business.

'The' business is irrelevent, he's applying for generic permission.
in this case Type A2 which is professional and financial services
at which the pubic may visit. Once permission is granted it my
be used by any company that fits the category, some of which
could generate hundreds of visitors per day.

tim

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 14:12:03 +0100, "tim"
wrote:

'The' business is irrelevent, he's applying for generic permission.
in this case Type A2 which is professional and financial services
at which the pubic may visit. Once permission is granted it my
be used by any company that fits the category, some of which
could generate hundreds of visitors per day.


Is it really Tim....? One of the things we were very specific about
when we put the application together was that there would be no
visitors to the site. It would only ever be occupied (and cars
parked) by a maximum of 3 people.....? They might be me, and my
business, or it might be let to another business...

I wonder if this is the stumbling block? My structural engineer
handled the detail of the application...

Is there a list anywhere I can look at to see what type of permission
I actually need..?

Thanks

Si

"Simon Hawthorne" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 14:12:03 +0100, "tim"
wrote:

'The' business is irrelevent, he's applying for generic permission.
in this case Type A2 which is professional and financial services
at which the pubic may visit. Once permission is granted it my
be used by any company that fits the category, some of which
could generate hundreds of visitors per day.


Is it really Tim....? One of the things we were very specific about
when we put the application together was that there would be no
visitors to the site. It would only ever be occupied (and cars
parked) by a maximum of 3 people.....? They might be me, and my
business, or it might be let to another business...

I wonder if this is the stumbling block? My structural engineer
handled the detail of the application...

Is there a list anywhere I can look at to see what type of permission
I actually need..?

the classes are he

http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/grou...606148-09.hcsp

It is difficult to see what is actually applicable.
I also note that there is no class for farm buildings which is presumably
what the barn should originally be classed as.

tim

"tim" wrote in message
...

"Simon Hawthorne" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 14:12:03 +0100, "tim"
wrote:

'The' business is irrelevent, he's applying for generic permission.
in this case Type A2 which is professional and financial services
at which the pubic may visit. Once permission is granted it my
be used by any company that fits the category, some of which
could generate hundreds of visitors per day.

Limits can be, and are often, imposed by the planners.


Is it really Tim....? One of the things we were very specific about
when we put the application together was that there would be no
visitors to the site. It would only ever be occupied (and cars
parked) by a maximum of 3 people.....? They might be me, and my
business, or it might be let to another business...

I wonder if this is the stumbling block? My structural engineer
handled the detail of the application...

Is there a list anywhere I can look at to see what type of permission
I actually need..?

the classes are he


http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/grou.../page/odpm_pla
n_606148-09.hcsp

It is difficult to see what is actually applicable.
I also note that there is no class for farm buildings which is presumably
what the barn should originally be classed as.

Farm buildings are on agricultural land so are classified elsewhere. The
land has to be reclassified before conversion of the farm building to it's
new use can begin and this is done as part of the planning approval.

"IMM" wrote in message ...

Planners are filth. Born liars. I would burn the lot of them.

Don't know about that but I know some will continue to find reasons to
refuse whereas others can be completely happy. maybe one of your
neighbours is ont he planning committee or whatever.

"adder" wrote in message
om...
"IMM" wrote in message
...

Planners are filth. Born liars. I would burn the lot of them.

Don't know about that but I know some will continue to find reasons to
refuse whereas others can be completely happy. maybe one of your
neighbours is ont he planning committee or whatever.

I have no neighbours on the committee. If they were they would be burnt
out.