Conversion from barn to holiday let never used as such. 4 or 10?

Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

Open group | Started - July 2012 | Last activity - This week

Lisa Hughes, modified 8 Years ago.

Conversion from barn to holiday let never used as such. 4 or 10?

New Member Posts: 3 Join Date: 20/04/15 Recent Posts

I have it stuck in my head that where planning permisison is granted for a material change of use of barn (or other building which is no a house already) to holiday let (C3) (with restrictive occupancy conditions), if that conversion takes place but the building is never occupied as a holiday let, but goes straight into use a private dwelling, that the four year rule applies. Something to do with the planning permisison not being implemented maybe? and therefore it's material change of use of building to dwellinghouse (4) and not a breach of condition (10).

I have changed Authorities and the research behind this view is lost to me forever! Or I may have dreamt it. The only thing I can find online that aids me in supporting this view now is the final sentence in a the Q&A to 9.7 of DCP "In HV's scenario, where the building accommodating the dwellings had a previous use and the dwellings were never occupied as holiday lets, this would seem to be the case in any event. PM" But I can't find HV's scenario...

Does anyone agree with me? and if so explain to me how this view is supported. I'd also be very grateful if you can tell me I'm mad (with support).

Thanks in advance

Lisa

Mark Lane, modified 8 Years ago.

RE: Conversion from barn to holiday let never used as such. 4 or 10?

New Member Posts: 22 Join Date: 20/03/15 Recent Posts

In your case as the building had been converted to a dwellinghouse section 171B (2) would apply that the change of use of any building for

use as a single dwelling house, no enforcement action may be taken after the end of the period of four years. The lack of implimentation of

the permission has no effect.

The two cases I used to refer to for 4 / 10 year issues are Arrun & Swale

(Arun DC v. FSS [2006] EWCA Civ 1172 & Swale DC v. FSS [2005] EWCA Civ 1568)

If however the permanent use as a dwelling house was considered to be deliberate concealed then you may want to look at sections

(171BA, 171BB, and 171BC) of the act.

Lisa Hughes, modified 8 Years ago.

RE: Conversion from barn to holiday let never used as such. 4 or 10?

New Member Posts: 3 Join Date: 20/04/15 Recent Posts

Thank you Mark.

I get the 4/10 year rule. What I'm not sure about is whether the permission has been implemented (and the unrestricted use as a dwelling is a breach of condition) because it was never used as a holiday let. Both holiday let and dwellinghouse are C3.

Mark Lane, modified 8 Years ago.

RE: Conversion from barn to holiday let never used as such. 4 or 10?

New Member Posts: 22 Join Date: 20/03/15 Recent Posts

Did you resolve this Lisa?

Lisa Hughes, modified 8 Years ago.

RE: Conversion from barn to holiday let never used as such. 4 or 10? (Answer)

New Member Posts: 3 Join Date: 20/04/15 Recent Posts

Hi Mark

Yes, I did, but only with legal advice. I could have fossilised waiting for an answer on here! Whether it's ever been used for the stated purpose (in this case holiday let) doesn't have any bearing on the implementation of the permission, so if it's completed operationally somewhere near in accordance with the permission but goes straight into occupation in breach of the condition it still ten years.

Mike Oakley, modified 8 Years ago.

RE: Conversion from barn to holiday let never used as such. 4 or 10?

New Member Posts: 6 Join Date: 30/04/14 Recent Posts

Hi Lisa,

I am not really sure about it being ten years, FG Whitley & Sons Co Ltd -v- Secretary of State for Wales; CA 1992 would seem to indicate it could still be the four year rule.

"As I understand the effect of the authorities to which I am about to refer, it is only necessary to ask the single question: are the operations (in other situations the question would refer to the development) permitted by the planning permission read together with its conditions? The permission is controlled by and subject to the conditions. If the operations contravene the conditions they cannot be properly described as commencing the development authorised by the permission. If they do not comply with the permission they constitute a breach of planning control and for planning purposes will be unauthorised and thus unlawful".

Presumably the conversion would not have been allowed without the holiday occupancy condition, if the condition has never been complied with the permission has never been implemented and so the four year rule. That is just my feeling and I could be wrong.