The Dreaded Class MB

Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

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

Former Member, modified 9 Years ago.

The Dreaded Class MB

Hi All,

Class MB, what a treat it's proving to be. Anyway, the query I have relates primarily to criteria (f) of MB.1.

Development not permitted by Class MB where,

development under Class A(a) or Class B(a) of Part 6 of this Schedule (agricultural buildings and operations) has been carried out on the established agricultural unit since 20th March 2013, or within 10 years before the date development under Class Class MB begins, whichever is the lesser.

The building in question was the subbject of an agricultural prior notification application at the end of 2010. It was determined that prior approval was not required in Jan 2011. It is now proposed that this building be converted to a dwellinghouse under Class MB. Naturally, there are no Building Control records relating to it but it seems more than likely it was built before the magical 20th March 2013. Accordingly, as this timeframe is clearly 'the lesser' of the two, it would seem compliant with this criteria. Furthermore, I'm satisfied(ish) that it meets all the others (a-m). More on that in a moment.

The complication relates to the fact that the building in question, although bearing more than a passing resemblance to that which was the subject of the prior notification applciation in 2010, is actually a full three metres narrower and perhaps more significantly is sited some 14 metres to the south of the 'approved' location.

My understanding is that under Part 6, you must build entirely in accordance with the plans which are submitted to the LPA. There is a material deviation in this case and I am inclined to conclude that the given that 4 years have not yet passed since it was substantially completed, the building in question actually represents an unlawful form of development. My tentative conclusion therefore, is that even if it has been used for agricultural purposes in the intervening period it would fail to comply with MB.1 (a) in so far as insufficeint time has passed for this building to establish a lawful agricultural use and as such, the site was not used solely for an agricultural use on 20th March 2013.

Have I got this right? Love to hear your thoughts.

Many thanks

Paul

Former Member, modified 9 Years ago.

RE: The Dreaded Class MB

Hi Paul,

I agree that a different building seems to have been constructed and that it would be open to enforcement action if felt to be expedient.

The wording of ClassMB is, in my opinion, in part at least, not very well written!

MB(a) does not say that the erection of the building itself has to be authorised or lawful. Surely the intention was that it should be.

MB.1(f) is intended, I think, to apply to any development carried out on the agricultural unit and not just to the building subject to the intended change of use. The term "the site" used in the class seems to be intended to mean the building itself (and its curtilage if any) whereas "established agricultural unit" presumably means the farm, smallholding etc on which the building sits. Therefore any type of the specified Part 6 development on the wider unit within the specified time limits would negate the MB PD.

Any more thoughts from anybody.

Former Member, modified 9 Years ago.

RE: The Dreaded Class MB

Hello Tony,

Thanks for your reply. I agree, the wording is dreadful. Double negatives all over the shop.

Yes, it's tricky one, I'm relatively comfortable that the building is unlawful and open to enforecment action. The problem, as you note, is that this Class of the GPDO doesn't specifcally exclude unlawful buildings and we can only assume that it is intended to relate to lawful ones.

It seems wholly wrong that an unlawful building could be changed into a dwelling house and I suppose in simple terms, this is the common sense stance. Common sense however, rarley seems to be relevant especially where the GPDO is concerned.

The relevant test as far as Class MB goes would seem to come back to whether the use of the building in question is agricultural and this is where I'm unsure. Can the building fit the definition of being an agricultural building if it is unlawful? Part O, which offers some interpretation of Part 3 in general, states that ''agricultural building' means a building used for agriculture and which is so used for the purposes of a trade or business, and excludes any dwelling house, and agricultural use refers to such uses' .

I would suggest that the building does meet this critera..but it's still unlawful..and now my head hurts.

Any further thoughts gratefully received.

Many thanks

Paul

Nick Rogers, modified 9 Years ago.

RE: The Dreaded Class MB

New Member Posts: 9 Join Date: 12/08/13 Recent Posts

Hello

Have a look at Article 3(5) of the GDPO. Schedule 2 PD rights don't appy to unlawful buildings which appears to be the case in the example you give.

Former Member, modified 9 Years ago.

RE: The Dreaded Class MB

Nick,

That is most helpful, thank you very much. That clears it up nicley. It seems there is some common sense in the GPDO after all.

Best wishes

Paul