Planning Permission Advice needed.

[Wayne]

I will not bore you all with the rather long back story but the museum that I use for my craft courses has decided that in its infinite wisdom that the Greenwood Village now requires planning permission. Each of the structures are temporary buildings no foundations etc. Wood construction with tin roofs. They have evolved over the years but have the footprints have been there for the last 10 years.

Our planning authority is the local national park.

Nobody has complained and we actually teach National park rangers craft skills in the shelters.

Any advice on how I should prepare our retrospective planning application?

 

[Dogoak]

A LOT of reading required Wayne, it's all about interpretation.
I would imagine it's an advantage that its been established for a number of years?
Big up the sustainability and environmental advantages as well as the fact that's it's used as an educational facility.
It's probably worth having a meeting with the planning officer, if it's similar to round here, there's one for the park authority and one for the council. (I won't go into what a farce it is here!)
The other way is to get some advice from a planning consultant, I expect the issue would be cost unless you, or anyone there has a contact.
Good luck with it.

 

[MrEd]

Whose land is it built on? The museum?

What was the terms of the original permission?

Your might not need planning permission retrospectively but rather ‘lawful consent’ (I think).

If it’s the museums land push back on them to make them do it?

 

[Tengu]

Yes, you are providing a service to the public.

Thats important

 

[John Fenna]

I now work for another nat park - if I can help with anything let me know... always willing to go out of my way for a fellow scrafter!

 

[Dave Budd]

I seem to recall from my last dealings with the local planning orifice that it's actually 12 years not 10 (havin have mine up for 10 and they said it wasn't enough!). I suspect that your biggest problem will be the fact that it's a national park. I think they would be your best first port of call since they will have their own whims that need to be met aside from any local government PA.

 

[petrochemicals]

Put in things like the services you provide

1. Benefit the community by allowing access enjoyment
2. Local economy through visitors
3. Provide skills and craft awareness keeping heritage alive
4. Educating young people
5. Community binding
6. Help with the national park
7. History of the area and tradition

Its no good naving national parks if they are off limits to all. Then apply for a grant.

 

[Corso]

Sounds like the museum has a game plan...

 

[Nice65]

I seem to recall from my last dealings with the local planning orifice that it's actually 12 years not 10 (havin have mine up for 10 and they said it wasn't enough!). I suspect that your biggest problem will be the fact that it's a national park. I think they would be your best first port of call since they will have their own whims that need to be met aside from any local government PA.

The recent South Downs National park status seems to have become a licence to print money by felling woodland and chucking up new housing. Up in Midhurst where the King Edward VII Hospital was are now hundreds of houses. Your space could line greedy pockets with cash Wayne, I’d guess it’ll be questioned. Cynic? Me? Damn right I am.

 

[Corso]

The recent South Downs National park status seems to have become a licence to print money by felling woodland and chucking up new housing. Up in Midhurst where the King Edward VII Hospital was are now hundreds of houses. Your space could line greedy pockets with cash Wayne, I’d guess it’ll be questioned. Cynic? Me? Damn right I am.

What he said...

 

[Nice65]

What he said...

Thanks Lee, it’s the truth. The greed for ripping the planet apart for personal gain is akin to leaving one sheet of toilet paper on the roll for the next visitor and thinking it’s ok. Housing developers have massive financial sway and can affect council decisions. Who doesn’t want to live in a National Park? It has prestige but it’s just a sales technique, well funded by lunching the right people to create the park. The South Downs National Park wasn’t created with the very best intentions, many country dwelling people thought it had to do with the protection of their lifestyle. It isn’t, it’s so developers can drop little ‘hamlets’ into the middle of the woodlands and commons, the buyers seriously believing they’ve bought into a lifestyle choice. It’s exactly why you’re being asked to explain yourself Wayne, kipping in the woods, and making fires, using knives etc. There are ‘managers’ afoot, paid to justify themselves, not your woodland spot.

It really annoys the hell out of me that we’re born into our inherited land and we can’t (legally) even stick a tent up for a night, let alone pull a fish out of a river.

I’d be interested to hear the back story Wayne, to hear who is leaning on the museum. The Weald and Downland (West Dean Estate) has suddenly sprouted a bushcraft school. It’s not part of the museum, I looked them up, they have 9 UK sites. I’d imagine the Edward James Foundation accepted a large backhander as they’ve put in a tarmac drive, toilet/shower blocks, kitchen and eating area, high spot lighting, massive wheelie bins. Definitely financially invested in the uninterested mums and dads spending money on getting their kids countrified in what was a rural environment before they bought their house.

(Reference to cash backhanders, councils being swayed financially, shmoozing individuals to influence decisions etc is entirely my fantastical view, nowt to do with BCUK, and could be interpreted as paranoia and lunatic ramblings from a natural born cynic with at least some observational powers.)

 

[gra_farmer]

Having worked for Natural England and adviced on planning before. The first thing I would ask is, 1. What was the original agreement or ask for the site, 2. What has or is going to change, 3. If nothing has changed why ask? 4. And finally is the land owned and greater than 25 acres (agricultural planning law might come into action here)

Permanent footings, and stone/brick structures placed in the environment can reserve retrospective planning, 12 years is the magic number for business operations, national parks have slightly different planning consents, and interpretation is always key.

My advice is don't kick the hornet's nest here, unless there is going to be major change in the business operations, it sounds that the operation here is classed as temporary structures, and permitted development/planning is difficult and only really geared up for permanent structures that have been there >20 years.

If you start down this root you may find that the business will be rejected and have to stop.

 

[Alan De Enfield]

Having worked for Natural England and adviced on planning before. The first thing I would ask is, 1. What was the original agreement or ask for the site, 2. What has or is going to change, 3. If nothing has changed why ask? 4. And finally is the land owned and greater than 25 acres (agricultural planning law might come into action here)

Permanent footings, and stone/brick structures placed in the environment can reserve retrospective planning, 12 years is the magic number for business operations, national parks have slightly different planning consents, and interpretation is always key.

My advice is don't kick the hornet's nest here, unless there is going to be major change in the business operations, it sounds that the operation here is classed as temporary structures, and permitted development/planning is difficult and only really geared up for permanent structures that have been there >20 years.

If you start down this root you may find that the business will be rejected and have to stop.

I have recently been thru a similar situation and It is actually 5 hectares (12.35 acres) that is the 'break point'.

AGRICULTURAL PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (GPDO) grants general planning permission (known as permitted development rights) for certain types of development. This means that specific planning application/consent is not needed if the project falls within one of the categories set out in the GPDO and meets all the conditions laid down. However, in some cases application may need to be made to the Planning Authority for a “determination” as to whether prior approval is needed for details such as siting, design and external appearance.
In respect of agriculture, permitted development rights depend on the size of the agricultural unit, i.e. whether or not the holding is smaller or greater than five hectares (12.35 acres).
Units of 5 Hectares or More
On agricultural units of five hectares or more, specific planning permission is not needed for building, excavation or engineering operations designed for agricultural purposes which are reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within the unit provided that:
the development is not carried out on a separate parcel of land less than one hectare in area,
the ground area of any building, structure or works does not exceed 465 m2 (this is a cumulative total with all development within the last two years and within 90 metres of the proposal counted towards this),
the building/structural works is not higher than 12 metres or 3 metres if within 3 kilometres of an aerodrome,
the development is more than 25 metres from a classified road,
the development does not involve the erection, extension or alteration of a dwelling,
if the building structure or excavation is within 400 metres of the curtilage of a “protected building” it is not to be used for the accommodation of livestock (including farmed fish) or for the storage of slurry or sewage sludge (“protected building” means a permanent building normally occupied by people but does not include buildings within the agricultural unit in question or any dwelling or building in agricultural use on any other agricultural unit),
if the building is to be extended or altered provided there has not been a previous “significant” extension or alteration to it (significant means where the cubic content of the original will be exceed by more than 10% or the height of the original building would be increased).

There are however fairly strict definitions as to what is agriculture.
Planning permission is currently not needed for the use of land for the purposes of 'agriculture'. The definition of agriculture in section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/8/contents

After LA refusal (even tho' we were correct) I involved our Local MP and a QC, who (long story short) told the Chief Exec of the LA that I was correct and to issue an apology, allow the 'development' and provide monetary compensation for the incorrect advice.

We actually 'won' using section 55 of the above act,

“the use of land for the purpose of agriculture or forestry and the use for any of those purposes of any building occupied together with the land does not constitute development”

 

[Nice65]

Much better advice than my rant.

 

[Dave Budd]

just an addendum to the 5 hectares thing. It is only for agricultural land, not forestry or woodland. There is NO minimum size requirement when it comes to woodland, though many planning officers won't tell you that (if they even realise themselves). If the land is solely wooded and not include fields, then it'll be fine; I've no idea how they would deal with a site of both land types though I suspect it depends on the person dealing with it

 

[Tengu]

Im baffled by a museum not wanting something that will get footfall.

But they do have agendas...and they might well change. Might do well to try to find out what is going on

(Tengu the Heritage Bird)

 

[Alan De Enfield]

just an addendum to the 5 hectares thing. It is only for agricultural land, not forestry or woodland. There is NO minimum size requirement when it comes to woodland, though many planning officers won't tell you that (if they even realise themselves). If the land is solely wooded and not include fields, then it'll be fine; I've no idea how they would deal with a site of both land types though I suspect it depends on the person dealing with it

But I would point out that there is no need for PP for forestry land 'development', as long as it meets the definitions that are acceptable :

“the use of land for the purpose of agriculture or forestry and the use for any of those purposes of any building occupied together with the land does not constitute development”

We had some 'depressions' in the ground (approx. 2 feet deep x 10 feet diameter) that the LA decided would require planning permission to 'fill in' as they would be deemed as constituting "development" (they were just trying to save face after I had proven that the Planning officer had actually lied and given incorrect information.
The appeal and photographs eventually won the case.


It would be well worth involving a Planning Consultant (who will probably give you a 'free meeting / consultation to review the key issues).

Here is a link to the guy we used (no charge - viewed it as a challenge). He was the Rural Advisor to the government and is very knowledgeable.
He was the one that pointed us to section 55 of the Act. he didn't do all the donkey work, but he 'gave us the tools'.

https://www.ruralurbanplanning.co.uk/about2

 

[Janne]

Sounds to me like they want you ‘out’. What you do is fully in the spirit of the Museum, so they should not want to make your life difficult unless they have an ulterior motive.

I hope I am totally wrong.