The Grainstore

22/06/2023

What else would I use a grainstore for?

I thought the government wants to encourage agricultural buildings to be used for other uses in particular turned into business residential tourist facilities. I own an agricultural building stuck in the middle of my campsite and holiday site. It’s no longer viable to keep a herd of cattle. I don't need a shed of chicken feed, and I haven't got a tractor, so why not utilise the 2015 general permitted development order act which gives permitted development for such a building to be changed and utilised for several uses under Class R?

As I understand it, and as I've been advised of it, under 150 square metres change of use can be done without anybody's consent, if I got an agricultural building and want to put a shop in there, then so long as it's under 150 sq/m I can do so without having to go through forms, applications, consent, or any other bureaucracy before implementation. If it's over 150 sq/m but under 500 sq/m, I need to go to the local authorities for their consent or approval where they have 56 days to yay or nay.

Conditions of approval have nothing to do with what the local parish council or local documents say, we just need to tick the boxes of The General Permitted Development Order Act of 2015 with these conditions:

transport and highways impacts of the development are mitigated;
noise impacts of the development are mitigated;
There are no contamination risks on the site; and
There are no flooding risks on the site,

If these boxes are ticked, the council HAVE TO approve. For it NOT to be approved would be unlawful, and the council would be acting unlawfully, unreasonably, and restricting my legal rights of using my building as per the law allows.

Now I ask, would the council act unlawfully?

And I answer: too right they would.

Because they have.

Do I have evidence of this?

Yes, I do.

Who can be held responsible? It seems nobody. It seems that, regardless of whether there is a rogue planning officer or a rogue controlling influencer telling planning officers what decisions they should make, none of these can be held responsible. Our only option is to spend more money on appeals to argue our point and get the decision we're lawfully entitled to. And yet, none of these individuals are held responsible for their errors! Surely it can't be an error if done intentionally, either they're appallingly ill-informed or they are manipulating lawful rights with the aim of creating confusion to justify an unlawful decision.

The grainstore and toilet block in 2016: old, dilapidated, and not in use

The grainstore and toilet block as they stand today. They look much better, don't they?

2018 - Application for Holiday Homes

Once I had purchased the site and its buildings in 2016, I then made the decision to run a tourist destination considering its prime location and prior agricultural use. I first started looking into how to convert the Grainstore into a building for holiday home usage.

I submitted an application in 2018 for a proposed change of use to existing agricultural buildings to holiday home use at Beach Farm on Beach Road in Heacham. However, this application didn't go far as, at the time, I was inexperienced and not as knowledgeable as I am now regarding my options in change of use. Combine this with a cavalcade of more pressing legal matters and not knowing how to move forward with the idea, I decided to withdraw the application and focus my efforts elsewhere.

This draft application from 2016 shows how early I wanted to adapt the Grainstore

Read the draft here

2020 - Application for Class R use

By this point, I had become quite knowledgeable about the General Permitted Development Order Act of 2015, and so submitted for prior approval for the Grainstore to be used as a dwelling house under Class R. The submission for this kept to an area over 40 sq/m and under 150 sq/m that was used for Agricultural use 10 years prior. According to the fourth edition of Martin Goodall's A Practical Guide to Permitted Change of Use, this makes it eligible to be changed to Class R usage which, among other things, includes Hotels.

So, I submitted the application, believing that the Grainstore more than fit the requirements of Class R usage.

You learn quite a lot when you actually read the rules

The application was refused on 3 points.

1. The use of the building does not comply with Class Q.1 (a) Part 3 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) insofar as the site is not used solely for an agricultural use as part of an established agricultural unit.

2. Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the works to achieve the conversion satisfy the requirements of Class Q.1 (i) Part 3 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) in regard to structural changes

3. Insufficient information has been provided to determine whether, as a result of the proposed change of use, taking into account any proposed mitigation, the site will be contaminated land as described in Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990(9), and in doing so have regard to the Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance issued by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in April 2012(10). This does not meet the procedural requirements of W(10)(c) of Class Q, Part 3 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended).

2021 - Toilets & Showers

Based on the findings of the 2020 prior approval application and subsequent refusal, I looked to use 40 sq/m of the Grainstore as toilets and showers for my lawful caravan and camping site. I submitted an application to the council for their acknowledgement and approval, knowing my usage was 100% lawful under The General Permitted Development Order Act of 2015 - by utilising 40 sq/m of the Grainstore for leisure.

The leisure use was showering and toileting facilities after a day at the beach. In the planning officer's report after the decision, Chris Fry (Planning Officer) quite rightly asked the council’s internal legal department for the rights to the legal use of this building as described. The internal legal department replied to Mr Fry that the usage as described IS lawful and as long as the Grainstore in question was used for agricultural use in 2012, it doesn't matter what the building was used for between 2012 to 2021 - the use as described in the application would be lawful use:

"For the purposes of the GPDO I do not believe that it matters whether the use of any adjoining planning units is lawful or not. The principal determining issue is whether the building was used solely for an agricultural use as part of an established agricultural unit on 3 July 2012. If so, then its use can change in accordance with the Class R criteria."

Despite this advice, Mr Fry entered into a decision on the application as refused, alleging its connection with an enforcement order of 2019 regarding a permanent campsite restricted this application for approval. This is despite any context or explanation in detail as to this alleged connection.

The legal opinion is that the priority of this application is whether the building was in agricultural use in 2012 - an opinion haughtily ignored by Mr. Fry

2022 - Entire Grainstore for Residential Usage

Following this refusal, I further applied on 4 different occasions regarding the change of the entire Grainstore to Residential use. Since it is over 150 sq/m but under 500 sq/m, I did need to apply for planning permission, but it is still permitted under Class R. I've obtained items back for rejection and admittedly need to do more research, since these refusal letters often need a spyglass and fine tooth comb to understand what the council thinks you did wrong.

Throughout the discussions on these applications, I have:

Supplied a contamination report to show there's no contamination on site
Supplied a Habitat Regulation Assessment and Shadow Habitat Regulation Assessment that was amended based on Natural England's required updates
Requested a permit for a septic tank system as per Natural England's request
Undertaken an ecology report to ensure there are no endangered habitats on-site
Made a payment to the GIRAMS to mitigate any potential damage to wildlife

2023 - Contesting 2022 Refusal and Shifting Goalposts

The final application 2023 settled without any doubt the fact that we are in a flood risk 1 zone, not in a 2 or 3 zone. The Environment Agency updated their info based on the topographical evidence I supplied and confirmed that we are not in a flood risk zone. In fact, they changed their modelling and showed that we are not in a high-risk overtopping site.

This time after lots of confusion and email back and forth, the refusal arrived to state that because the Grainstore was used for something other than agricultural use in 2021, I now need to wait a further 10 years before reapplying. This is now completely contradictory to the legislation documented in the General Permitted Development Order Act of 2015 and entirely in opposition to Chris Fry's statement seen in the image to the right as well as the legal advice shown in this image.

Now, of course, back in 2021 we removed the toilets as they were refused to be used in conjunction with the Grainstore. However, they're now saying that the Grainstore wasn't a Grainstore in 2021. So, I ask, what on earth is it, then? If you put a disabled toilet into a train station, does the entire station become a toilet that trains pass through? Does putting toilet stalls in a restaurant make it one giant bathroom that serves food? How is the council allowed to call things on my site different things to achieve their goals?

The reason ignored in their decision is such a basic cornerstone of the agricultural building pre-approval scheme that the average schoolboy with an interest in structural planning is aware of the condition that if a building was in agricultural use in 2012, its usage can be transferred to any number of uses under Class R.

According to Mr Fry's report, the Grainstore is permitted by Class R and complies with all the relevant points.

Read the full report here

This leads me to believe one of three things.

Either planning officers are woefully ill-informed and untrained;
the council is so understaffed because they've failed every recruitment drive that they have had to resort to getting work experience from the local primary school; or
a decision is made from above (The Muppet Master) to refuse, leaving the so-called planning officer to dream up the reasons that allow for the decision to be made public.

Is this any way for local government to operate?

Their priority should be in serving their community, both business and consumers. The tourist industry is an important one for Norfolk and one that needs development. Of course, it should be developed carefully to ensure the delicate balance of beauty in nature is undisturbed.

But commerce, creating jobs, and contributions to local taxation are important needs that tourism provides and we could provide far more effectively if we weren’t hindered at every half-step. In fact, it would all progress far more smoothly if the council actually helped us understand what we need to do and how to do it instead of leaving us to stab in the dark until we get it wrong.

As far as the planning legislation dictates, every planning app should be looked at positively from an unbiased viewpoint.

"Holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias"

“Planning issues must be assessed fairly and on their planning merits, even when there is a predisposition in favour of one side of the argument or the other. Avoiding predetermination and the impression of it is essential. The decision making process must be seen to be fair and impartial from the perspective of an external observer.”
- Probity in Planning, December 2019

A late decision

Of course, there's more to the refusal than the foolish decision above.

See, this application for a change to Class R use was received on the 22nd of March 2023. The refusal came on the 8th of June.

Under the 2015 General Permitted Development Order Act, authorities must notify an applicant of their decision within 56 days of receiving the application. Given the timescale laid out above, the council didn't respond for 78 days, far beyond the permitted time zone of 56 days, which effectively defaults the application and gives me development permission.

Moreover, the council charged me more than double what they should have for an application for Class R usage. The standard fee for this application is £96, however after I handed the application in, I was told I needed to pay an extra £110 on March 27th. I wasn't told why I had to pay this extra at the time, and it doesn't change the fact that I submitted the application and paid the correct fee on the 22nd of March. In later research, I learned that a fee of £206 is when building operations are proposed alongside change of use, however I didn't propose any building operations, so this was an error on the authority's part.

And, thanks to all the council's errors, I see no reason that I cannot start development, and as such will be starting work on it now.

Of course, in the interest of being fair and lawful, I have still submitted an appeal for this condition. You can read the full appeal and appendices to the side, as well as a Shadow Habitat Regulation report carried out in May of this year to show the mitigated impact on the local ecology below:

Chasing for a refund

So, the season of 2023 passed; the busy summer period where tourists are looking for places to stay and I try to provide a good one. Once it did, I could re-focus and look into chasing the refund for the money the council requested for no reason. I applied for a refund for the £110 that was wrongfully charged for "operational development", looking back through documents to support my case that I didn't apply for any extra development work that would incur the extra expenses I was charged of. refusal

And in going through the documents, I found the initial refusal, and in it found something very interesting:

Prior Approval is sought for the change of use from an agricultural building to a hotel.
No operational development is permitted by such an approval.

This begs a very pertinent question: if operational development isn't permitted by this prior approval, why was I charged for it? Both the council and I know that operational development is not permitted by a change of use to a hotel, so why would they expect an extra charge that wasn't applied for and wouldn't be allowed anyway?

This only further damns the council, not just in me being entitled to a refund, but also in their late reply, 78 days after I paid the correct amount. Their defence is that the application didn't really start until I paid the full amount, but if I didn't apply for operational development, and operational development isn't permitted regardless, why did they expect me to pay this amount in the first place?