fbpx
Skip to main content

No Entry Point for Holiday Lets

Agricultural Buildings - Planning Approval

I’m very commercially minded and can act very impulsively on what I perceive as an economic good deal. I am eager to jump in with both feet, embracing the challenge of learning new skills and making nothing into something that I perceive is achievable.

Auction & Conveyancing

In 2016, an old dilapidated farm building came on the market to be auctioned off to the highest bidder. Of course, I advised my wife fully of my plans (not), and I made my excuses to pop into the neighbouring market town to purchase some wallpaper. In truth, my intentions were to go to the auction and bid for a property I had no finances for and couldn’t afford. To my surprise - subject to a £10,000 deposit - I successfully won the bid.

Money was tight, so I undertook conveyancing myself. I had no option to change any details in the auction and had already committed myself to the deal - I had to have as it stands, there was no room for negotiation, it is as it is when the hammer falls. 

It was a great 12 months, rolling up my sleeves, taking part in building work, digging work, living in a caravan, taking a dip in the sea when work became too exhausting. However, this was a short-lived holiday. The real work began when the final touches of development started to take place, ready for the first guests.

    Click the images to see the full versions

    Enforcement

    One sunny Thursday morning, an enforcement officer turns up and advises me cautiously that it's unlawful for me to operate my new holiday lets, as a condition of them is the customers must enter holiday lets via Entry Point A.

    As Entry Point A wasn’t sold to me at auction, it would be unlawful for the holiday lets to operate as it would be unlawful for my customers to invade someone else’s property to access. Despite saying I have Entry Point B where people can enter the property, the planning consent says customers must enter through Entry Point A.

    This was a bad day.

    This was also bad information and something which I didn’t quite know at this stage how to get around.

    The visit was followed by an email confirming the discussion, and 3-4 months later I received an enforcement notification advising I was in breach of certain conditions of planning consent. Despite the enforcement notice advising I should cease all operations, I did continue development as I believed this could all be worked around, so long as all parties worked together to resolve it.

    To my surprise, all parties were not interested in working together to resolve it.

    Entry Access Point B to our site

    The enforcement notice I received from the council.

    Click the image to see the full notice.

    New Planning Application

    After talking to many different people regarding the situation, it seemed to me the easiest solution with my minimal cash flow was that I should reapply for new planning consent. This planning application was, largely speaking, based on the previous approval in 2012, with the exception of using Point B as an entry point instead of Point A. I was aware there were some minor changes to be made to Point B:

    One arrangement was with the Environment Agency to change their flood risk sign so it didn't cause a visibility hazard when exiting the property;

    The other was convincing our neighbour to move their fence back to the boundary line at the end of the grass line instead of on the highway.

    We achieved both of these and my appeal for a new planning application was submitted… at the cost of roughly £2500 plus consultancy fees.

    Unfortunately, this application was refused due to new policies which now cover the area. No exception was made by local planning officers given that this was an application to solve an existing problem rather than an application for a new development. This was still the same application as the 2012 one that got approval.

    Trying to get advice from planning officers was difficult; the reasons for the refusal seemed illogical and there was no mechanism to add another point of entry to the original application. It was less a case of the officials helping me to run a lawful hotel or holiday home, and more one of me clawing in the dark until I either did it right or hit another enforcement notice.

    Looking back, if they approved the application, I would have also been responsible for the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) which would have cost me roughly an extra £30,000 on top of the £2,500 I had already paid. The planning officer maybe should’ve considered this easy boost in funding, given the fact that approving the application would have brought an extra thirty grand into the local authorities' purse for additional infrastructure. Something that I think the local parishes and county councils should consider more, as additional infrastructure is important for communities, especially the local ones that are lacking so much in services and facilities. 

    The CIL goes towards the improvement and upkeep of infrastructure. This includes schools, roads (which includes potholes), mobile communications, and much, much more.

    Read more

    This report from 2012 proves that the site and its buildings were in agricultural use in 2012

    Read the full document here

    Also looking back, I now know that as the agricultural building was in agricultural use in 2012 and I can’t help questioning myself as to why I submitted a new planning app for £2500.

    For £250, I could’ve submitted a pre-approval and obtained it through permitted development (subject to solving the flood risk factor).

    I found the local authorities wholly unhelpful in resolving the situation or even letting me know what it was they wanted to be done. Because of this was facing the prospect of demolishing the substantial development I’d already finished; returning the holiday homes to dilapidated barns or cowsheds as progression seemed unachievable.

    Addition: New Point of Entry/Exit

    After many months spent in limbo, looking for a way forward, I eventually hit a realisation and frustratingly don’t understand why I didn’t realise this earlier: I could actually apply to Planning Consent for a new entry point, specifically for a holiday let and then Planning Consent could quote that this entry is for a holiday let. With the planning consent being granted for that particular use, I could apply for the condition to be removed as the condition is no longer relevant since permission has already been given for particular access. This was my theory, and my studies seemed to confirm that this was practical and possible as there were not many planning policies that need to be honoured/agreed to in a simple track for vehicles to enter over, park on and turn around in.

    In 2021, I submitted the application.

    18 months, 5 different planning officers, and 1 planning hearing later, I finally got my approval.

    But, of course, they didn’t approve it before first adding an extra condition that this driveway could only be used for my holiday lets.

    Despite the planning officer saying this couldn’t be enforceable, they eventually gave way to limit the access point by adding a condition that this driveway could only be used by residents of the holiday lets. 

    While at the hearing, I felt that the local parish councillor, Terry Parish, didn’t act like a public servant at all. He saw fit to slander my name, quoting that I run an “illegal campsite”, I’m a “rogue developer”, my site is a "joke", and that I am “known to ignore or abuse planning rules”. These are untrue, slanderous comments with the intention of damaging my reputation and the reputation of my business in the eyes of the council. See my comments on the council meeting here:

    I, of course, entered into complaints procedures regarding his conduct. As a parish councillor, it’s his job to act on behalf of both customers and businesses, and he should hear my point of view as well as the residents' point of view. Even in this case where the council was in agreement with the development and there were no public objections to the development.

    And how did the council respond to this complaint?

    They dismissed it out of hand, saying that "Whilst the language used is less than perfect", "it is of little surprise that individuals at the council have expressed their views in this way – they are only human!"

    Now, as a campsite owner, I have to watch what I say intently while interacting with guests, much like a cashier, waiter, or any other customer service worker. If, when faced with a particularly tough customer, I resorted to language like that used against me by Councillor Parish I would, at best, get a poor review that has the chance to damage the business and at worst, get a complaint sent straight to the council. If a customer service worker did the same, they would get reprimanded or even fired for their misconduct.

    So I ask, why are Customer Service staff, minimum wage workers who assist the public, and anyone else who interfaces with people in any capacity held to a higher standard than the Councillors who are meant to have the public's best interests at heart?

    The Local Government Association's Councillor's Code of Conduct 2020 outlines how a Councillor ought to act. Calling me a "rogue developer" and a "joke" is clearly a lack of respect in breach of point 1.1, and all the comments are attempts to undermine and humiliate me, which is a breach of point 2.

    Appeal for Point of Entry/Exit

    So, I finally received the approval with the relevant conditions, however now have to appeal the condition that it can only be used for the Holiday Lets.

    The development was a retrospective application, which means the road gate with the correct access width was already in place and all development had already been undertaken. With the appeal, Norfolk Highways put in a condition for a standard width to be implemented, high visibility splays at the exit, water on the cars disposed of before hitting the highway, and other standards. They gave us 3 months to complete this work. After 3 months, to my surprise, an enforcement officer was back on my doorstep to enforce against conditions of Norfolk Highways not being completed.

    They seemed to believe the entrance was not at least 5 metres wide as confirmed as a condition, and as such are chasing us regarding a failure to undertake work on it.

    The thing is, it’s over 6 metres wide.

    That’s the first order of the conditions but there was no work to undertake as we were already compliant. It was a retrospective application as the work was already done before submitting the application. The enforcement officer failed to explain what it is I failed to do and progressed to enforce against me. By enforcing against me, they potentially stand to make this access unusable and therefore my holiday lets unlawful. I have, of course, appealed against this. See images for full details of the appeal.

    Request of & Appeal for Minor Amendment

    Meanwhile, under another enforcement, the officers come and inspect the final Holiday Let I completed and state that the windows and doors aren’t as expected or say on plans. As such, I need to change them and apply for a planning application on that change. At this point, thanks to the barrage of planning applications I’ve had to fill out, I’m becoming quite knowledgeable and know that the full planning process isn’t needed, I just need a minor amendment to the original plan. The minor amendment needed to show the windows and doors in a slightly different location. I just needed to apply under a minor amendment, and so I did.

     For some reason, the LPA then decided not to evaluate the minor amendment but instead evaluated the application as a new residential use with the potential for having more guests than the planning consent allowed for. This, unsurprisingly, left me completely dumbstruck; you ask the local planning authorities to judge on one issue and instead of that, they decide to judge on a different question you haven’t raised, wasn’t expected or asked to raise, and as such wasn’t in the application form and you haven’t submitted details on. That's like if I entered my young female labrador Bramble into Crufts and find out she was rejected because they judged her on being a Bulldog!


    This cannot be right.

    Bramble is a good girl, but it'd be unfair to judge her as anything other than a Labrador!

    As a result of bringing in an entirely separate and heretofore unmentioned issue, they refused the application and as such I, once again, had to appeal the application. See appeal overview here: