The Green Belt, the NPPF and para 89, exception 6.. - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)
The Green Belt, the NPPF and para 89, exception 6..
Think i posted this in the wrong place initially, apologies..
Specifically, I have an issue with the interpretation of exception 6 of paragrapgh 89 of the NPPF
I'm relatively comfortable with the concept of being able to consider positively 'the limited infilling or partial or complete redevelopment of previoulsy developed sites in the Green Belt on the basis that they would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt. So far so good, the arguments around what constitutes an impact on openness are fairly well rehearsed.
The bit I find less than clear is the caveat which 'excludes temporary buildings'. What specifically constitues a temporary building? By way of some context I have a scheme where the applicant is looking to redevelop a brown field site in the Green Belt containing a fair bit of hard standing and a relatively large Nissen Hut (last used as a waste transfer station and the lawfuless of which is not in question) with a couple of dwellings. They argue that 'volume for volume' there would be no greater impact on openess and consequently the development is not inappopropriate. I follow the logic and to a degree accept it. However, I would define the building very much as a 'temporary one' given its materials of construction, allbeit a temporary one that has stood for the last 30 years or so. If it is held to be temporary then the provisions of para 89, exception 6 do not apply. The development becomes inappropriate. Or have i misinterpreted what amounts to a temporary building?
Thinking about why exception 6 might have been drafted to exclude temporary buildings, my thoughts lean towards the prevention of the replacement of buildings which were originally 'thrown up' to serve an appropriate green belt use, (I'm thinking mainly agricultural sheds here). Indeed, it would seem somewhat perverse to allow the replacement of such portal framed buildings when their conversion is prohibited by NPPF para 90 (
I'd be interested in your thoughts on this.
Many thanks
Paul
Hi Paul
I think you are right that there is no legal definition of a temporary structure in regards to paragraph 89 bulet point 6. As such its a case of fact and degree.
Your concern is about the construction materials, however, polytunnels have been held to be permanent structures so I think if you refused the application on the grounds that its Nissen Hut and is erected of ( for want of a better phrase) crinckly tin sheeting, it would in my opinion be on very thin ground. The materials have to be balenced by the length of time that the building has been in situ (30 years) . In addition it has established use rights. That suggests to me permanence.
The other question I ask myself is why would you want to refuse it. The overridding purpose of Green Belt is its openness and the building exists , as you have acknowledged. Therefore any scheme that increases openness would be in accordance with the aims of the NPPF. Even if its like for like I also presume that the replacement would have less environmental issues associated with it having regard to the fact thats its last legal use was as a waste transfer station and that the use would have occured outside the building within the confines of the wider planning unit.
With regad to openness i would refer you to Timmons/Gedling BC Court case para 67 onwards (11/032014) for the best ( i have seen) interpretation of openness handed down from the courts.
Approval has to be a win win situation unless there is something i'm missing here?
Hi Chris,
Thanks for your reply. Much appreciated. In simple terms, I agree, approval is likely to be a 'win win' as you say.
Things are never that simple though! My concern regarding the interpretation of the exclusion of temporary buildings is borne out of a desire to ensure we're making robust decisions correctly aligned with the intenton of the NPPF. This decision will also have implications for a number of other applciations which this authority is currently considering and to be frank er're nervous about the prospect of every shed, shack and other such structure in the Green Belt replaced with an exceutive home..
I note your comments regarding poly tunnels and that some, depending on their method of fixation have been held to be 'permenant' in so far as they need planning permission. I'm not sure that's the context in which 'temporary' is used here though. Paragraph 90 talks about permitting the conversion of buildings in the Green Belt only where they are of permenant and substantial construction. There are plenty of buildings which have the benefit of planning permission (and which are therefore 'permenant') but if, faced with potential conversion would not pass the permenant and substantial test because the works required to carry out the conversion would be so comprehensive as to amount to an entirely new building. Indeed, I think you might raise an eyebrow if faced with the task of justifying the replacement of an otherwise 'permenant' polytunnel with a dwelling? If such buildings are not permenant and substantial, it follows that you might describe them as temporary, certainly as far as their construction method is concerned.
Like I said, if the government really is that relaxed about the replacement of any building in the green belt, why stipulate that buildings to be converted must be of permenant and substantial construction? Why bother even having that exception? The only reason I can think of is that they do not wish to see what would essentially amount to new buildings in the Green Belt (where they are not for the same use) where presently there might be just a light weight utilitarian type structure. To me it seems perverse to take such a hard line on ensuring conversions are permenant and substantial if you're simply going to allow their replacement when that test is failed.
I'd be interested in any appeal decisions where this issue has been tackled head on by an Inspector. DCP is so far silent on the matter.
Many thanks
Paul