Re-use of Existing Buildings (capable of Conversion ) in the Countryside/Gr - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

>>> However, it has been put to me that any proposed residential conversion of a building outside of a settlement is not sustainable and therefore, as the overridding theme of the NPPF is sustainability such conversions should be resisited. Thoughts welcome! This is clearly nonsense. Sustainability as used in the NPPF is a semi-quantitative 'score'. If the new building can be shown to reduce fossil fuel use then it is likely to be sustainable. If the commercial building is an outdated fuel hog pointlessly located in a rural location with many commuting staff then replacing it with say homes for non-commuting pensioners could lead to greatly increased sustainability. Sustainability is not a simple concept and anyone trying to win arguments through simplistic "self evident" arguments is misguided.

Chris a blanket approach to reject all residential conversions outside a settlement would seem unduly simplistic however laudable in conventional planning terms...more traffic and fuel emissions, less scope for public transport opportunities and limited access to services and community facilities etc. But conversely NPPF does not say is that conversion is appropriate anywhere. Its clear steer in paragraph 55 is that sustainable development in rural areas means housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities and should avoid new isolated homes unless there are special circumstances. One specific exception listed is where development would use re-use redundant or disused buildings AND lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting. This would clearly be a matter of judgement. Not sure that filling rural buildings miles from anywhere with old people is necessarily sustainable, clearly staff need to get there and suppliers and not sure how it could promote healthy communities and opportunities for social interaction also required under the NPPF. But there again it could provide jobs and investment. So it is about balancing all aspects of sustainable development and as ever applications should be determined in the light of the development plan and then other material considerations including NPPF. It may be that the existing development plan takes a very strong line on new residential development in rural areas and the response has been made in that light.

>> It may be that the existing development plan takes a very strong line on new residential development in rural areas and the response has been made in that light. Probably spot on. However it would be more helpful/honest if a real reason was given for refusal, rather than a glib & probably unjustifiable one-liner. (If you go to a planning committee meeting you can sometimes see the officers plucking an ostensibly valid refusal reason out of the air. This is for the files where in reality the councillors simply don't like a proposal.)

THe existing development plan is however, based on PPS 7 and the preference for re-use for commerncial and on the 28th March 2013 can have no material weight because its outdated- a full year after the NPPF came into force. I think the key issue is how `isolated` is the building, and in this case it is immediately opposite three other dwellings and adjacent to a farm. Enhancement? Well its a breeze block construction with pebble dash render panels over and a crinkkly tin roof and is of no aesthetic merit, so the re-skimmming the outside and re-roofing etc will definately enhance the setting as will the relocated access to the highway as the current one is dangerous!

>> I think the key issue is how `isolated` is the building, I have discussed this point with the NPPF team in London. Apparently 'isolated' is down to the LPA to define, on a case-by-case basis. I'm not sure what can be done if a site which is clearly NOT 'isolated' in any physical sense is deemed 'isolated' by the LPA in order to block an application. Personally I would fight tooth and nail to overturn such a viewpoint - but that's mainly because I don't like regulations being misused. If an LPA really wants to block an application, fine ... but they should state their grounds in plain English and not hide behind a rule that they can conveniently bend out of shape.