planning application

[pithillquarry]

Hello All. I am new to this site, and hoping to get advice on my recent planning troubles with the Dartmoor National Park. I got a small (3 acres) land (mix disused quarry &small woodland) off a private road at the edge of the DNP. It was neglected for many years with evidence of fly -tipping. I have installed gates+fence to the property to stop the illegal dumping and i intend plant vegetables, have a few chickens but also to carry out maintenance work (scrub cutting, pruning, removing dead/decomposing material etc). I applied for planning permission for a wooden shed, following a promising pre-application meeting with an officer who thought it was reasonable to have a shed for recreational use. Forestry building was not an option, as the size of the land does not justify. The 21 days notice resulted in all supportive comments with no objection from any of the parties (neighbours, SWW, parish council, Highways). Despite this I was surprised to receive a phone call to say that the then officer in charge had left the DNP. The new officer informed me that they do not support my application and suggest withdrawal. They do not want “domestic paraphernalia” on the site (!) and they think the tools need not be kept in a shed but can be taken there seasonally with a vehicle and removed after use. Any advice/comment is welcome. Thank you, Robert.

[tracy]

Hi Robert

This is a continuing problem that many of us have. Personally I think that the eco impact of driving tools around is worse than having a small shed!
I am no expert, we can put you in touch with one if you wish, but it would obviously cost for his advice. I hope someone here can offer some thoughts...

[pithillquarry]

hi,thanks for your replies....to tracey, if you have details of someone who could help, please let me know, and yes i agree with your comment of "driving tools around"! seems they have double standards when it comes to things like this. thanks "oldclaypaws" and again thanks and i agree with your comments....the things that amazes me are that my neighbors next door have permission for "workers cottage" and its more like a ranch! with loads of out-builds and stables,also the barn conversion(5 cottages with 1acre each) also have sheds and all sorts on their land....then there is the farmer....only he know the buildings on his land!i feel i made a mistake by buying this and wanting to look after it...i would have been better off with a council allotment.

thanks rob

[splodger]

when my dad first bought his little patch - he too was initially turned down for permissions to build tool shed etc - but he is a determined character and very persistant so got his way in the end - his main aim was to keep chickens up the woods (and nobody was going to stop him from doing that) he argued his case well and eventually got the nod

his initial arguemenmt was that to keep chickens safe, well and healthy - they needed a suitable chichen coup (that'll be a shed then )

also - to keep the chickens well fed - he would need to have a safe and secure feed station (that'll be a shed then )

initially he built the grain store - then two substantial chicken houses (both coups had a "dead area" (secret) at one end - which could be accessed from outside the coup - he used these areas in the begining - to store a few essential tools etc

as the number of chickens has grown, so has the number of coups

the main thing with the planners - is complaints from neighbours - if they don't get complaints, then they are less likely to get shirty - and neighbours can't really complain about anything that they can't see - so a well positioned shed out of eyeshot is a very useful shed indeed

forgot to add - all of the early chicken houses that my dad built - were on wheels - so could in theory be moved from one position to another - and this type of construction is often used when planning consent "might be" a problem

[pithillquarry]

hi,thank you guys for your input....i am in touch with a Chartered Town Planner who is going over my case....its going to cost me but im prepared to pay as i feel its not right! i will keep you all posted, all comments/advise welcome,thank you rob

[pithillquarry]

haha very good..i will see if there is an old bus going cheap on ebay!as a last resort i will look into something along these lines(mabe not a bad idea)....thanks rob

[Stephen1]

It's not about the nature of the building in these cases - it doesn't make a difference if it's a caravan or even a tatty bus - it's all about what you use it for. The planning process regarding leisure accomodation in woodland is essentially a two part process - what you are going to do there and then the physical structure itself. The bit that's the problem for you is "change of use" - getting planning permission for a change of use to leisure/ammenity is very difficult.

You can put a caravan on the site and use it to store equipment - but if you put the very same caravan on the site (in the exact same spot)and use it for either temporary accomodation (beyond the 28 day rule) or primarily leisure use then you will have an enforcement notice served. However you are not breaking any laws by putting the caravan there and using it for leisure unless you are served with an enforcement notice which you don't comply with. You can use the same caravan that is there permanently storing tools for your permitted 28 nights accomodation as this is considered ancilliary use to the permitted development right of sticking a caravan there for storage.

It is important to note that vehicles are not exempt from planning laws - it's nothing to do with whether they are mobile or not. You could park a caravanette on your land to store it long term, but if you stayed in it for more than 28 days then it would constitute a change of use on your land to leisure and planning permission would be required. Same vehicle parked in same place - it's all about what you're using it for. Planning in this context is primarily about use.

I would strongy advise against anything that could be construed as threatening your planning department with a worse alternative. As things stand they have no obligation to go looking for situations where planning permission shoud have been sought - they only respond to compaints they receive from third parties - antagonise them and they may well keep an eye on your site.

On three acres lets be honest you have no need for permanent facilities just a desire for it - you are very unlikely to get permission. What you could do is to divide up your property in to 4 separate parcels each on its own land registry document. You could then 'give' these to family members or trusted friends. The same land would now have 4 x 28 days permitted occupation of a caravan, but as that rule also specifies not more than 2 consecutive nights you would have to move it every couple of days- but if you had a central point where each property converged this might involve moving it no more than a few metres. 4 x 28 days =112 days a year - enough to love and manage your land to death. (Yes I know permitted development rights allow caravans to be used for seasonal accomodation for forest workers, and legal precedent has deemed that a season is a period of time "less than a year" - but remember all permitted development rights that require prior notification have to be deemed to be "reasonably necessary" by your planning department- and on only 3 acres what is reasonably necessary in the context of a forest worker will be very short!)

Obviously what I describe above is farcical - but the rules were drawn up long before the idea of woods being bought and cut up to sell on in small lots was. As such this is being looked at at the moment by several bodies...

With planning permission the key point is to discard the idea that planning permission is about structures i.e. the building or structure you want - most people think of planning permission this way because usually their experience of it is in terms of buildings, either extensions for their house or a whole new house, but it is first and foremost about what an area of land is used for, and only after a class of use is agreed is it about the structure itself. In woodland the same structure/caravan will be allowed for one use but not another - on three acres you need to find a way to make best use of the 28 day rule.

[tracy]

Contact Nicholas, [email protected]

Tell him I sent you - he will charge as it is his job but he has been helping swog out with general woodland planning things and is lovely
Tracy

[pithillquarry]

thank you for all your replies.... keep them coming!

[docsquid]

The issue of permission to build sheds for tool storage is something I have raised with the RFS, the Forestry Commission and others in the past, and am hoping the the light of the Independent Forestry Panel report to see some consistency regarding planning decisions. I think inconsistency is the main problem - some people get permission to build a shed and some don't. We had no problem for a barn/shed for our tractor and a replacement wood drying shed (because the old one was falling down - and we need and can show we need a larger one). BUT, you have to be realistic about what you want, and things such as not using a concrete floor, so it is essentially a temporary building, do help. Planners are VERY worried that a simple building could morph into a dwelling, and people can be deceitful in this regard, but...there should be consistency for simple, small sheds without any comforts that can be used to store tools that are required for work on the site.

We put in a detailed application for our tractor shed, showing why commuting in our tractor was a road safety hazard (not due to the tractor, but the configuration of the road around our wood). We were lucky in that there was already a concrete base in place from an old agricultural building, but if you can be clear that this is not, and never could be, even a temporary dwelling, then they are more sympathetic. But there is a lot of inconsistency, even with a simple shed, and we do need a consistent approach by planning authorities.

Be careful about permitted development rights too - if your land area is too small, you won't have them, as they only relate to land that is clearly used for agriculture or forestry, and the planners may have a tight view about that. We are NOT allowed any permitted development because 20 acres is considered too small to be a viable agriculture/forestry business. This is despite the fact that we have woodland management plans, various WIG's, a woodland creation grant and do run commercial things on site, including photography and bushcraft courses, and sell products made from our own wood. The planning authority are quite clear that we are not an agri business and don't have any permitted development rights.