Guidance Note for CLA members

Transcription

1 Guidance Note for CLA members Heritage and other farm buildings: The conversion of farm buildings to new uses (in England 1, including under General Permitted Development Order Classes Q, R, and S) Date: 20 May 2016 CLA Guidance Note Reference: GN08-16 (This Guidance Note replaces GN32-15 which should be deleted from your files) A. Preface A1. Introduction This Guidance Note gives strategic and design advice on the conversion of farm buildings to: residential use (including conversion under Class Q 2 of the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) 2015 see below). commercial uses (including conversion under Class R of the GPDO see below). other uses (including nursery/educational use in Class S of the GPDO), though these are not discussed specifically because they are probably not relevant to many CLA members. As explained in section B below, many members are concerned that the traditional farm buildings they own are redundant, that planning policy has usually prevented their conversion to new uses which might give them a secure future, and that they therefore have had little option (given the very high repair costs) other than to watch them decay. This concern of course goes well beyond CLA members, because it means that hundreds of thousands of farm buildings of heritage or landscape value are at high risk of loss. The CLA has fought a long battle to secure (i) more rational national planning policy on rural building conversion, which is now built into the (2012) National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and (ii) permitted development rights/prior approval schemes for farm building conversion, set out from in what are now called Classes Q, R, and S 3 in the General Permitted Development Order 2015 (GPDO). There was strong opposition to these changes from change-averse planning authorities and others, and both are real steps forward. The CLA is disappointed that Class Q irrationally excludes National Parks and other designated areas, and that Q/R/S all irrationally exclude listed buildings (irrationally because these are the very buildings for which it is most important to find a sustainable future, and they are well-protected by other planning tools). Even Class Q however does cover two-thirds of England, and Q/R/S should have some relevance even where they do not apply (see section E below). 1 This Guidance Note does not apply to Wales, though the underlying principles may be relevant. 2 Before April 2015, Class Q was called Class MB. Class R was called M, and Class S was called MA. 3 See previous footnote. Page 1 of 13

2 Now that these better policies and permitted development arrangements are available, many members who want to give new lives to their decaying farm buildings are making use of them. The CLA is therefore keen to give support to members via these Guidance Notes and otherwise. That does not mean, of course, that the CLA is keen to see poor-quality conversions which could damage the appeal of the buildings and harm their surroundings, and if there were significant numbers of poor conversions that could start to bring the prior approval schemes into disrepute. Good conversions, in contrast, should have multiple benefits, rescuing buildings from almost-inevitable loss, improving their surroundings, creating new housing and economic activity, and improving the sustainability of rural communities. Above all, good conversions have the potential to change the attitudes of local planning authorities (LPAs) which, when they discover that good farm building conversions lead to widespread benefits rather than damage, may begin to accept and encourage them instead of resisting them. Importantly, the logic of extending Classes Q/R/S to cover listed buildings, and Class Q to cover National Parks and other designated land, would then be even clearer. A2. Guidance Notes and other links The purpose of this Guidance Note is therefore to: explain the background (see section B) help members consider whether conversion is viable in financial and estate management terms (see section C) help members to get the required approvals where the Class Q/R/S arrangements do apply (see section D) help members to get planning permission in cases where the Class Q/R/S arrangements do not apply (see section E) in all cases, by helping members to devise proposals which will improve the buildings themselves and their settings, to help them secure consent (see section F). This Guidance Note focuses on cases where buildings are in what LPAs call open countryside (in bigger existing settlements, getting consent for conversion might be easier). It does not cover other kinds of consents, like Building Regulations approvals. Members should also take site-specific advice. If you are considering converting farm buildings under Classes Q/R/S of the GPDO, it is essential to read this Guidance Note in conjunction with the specific CLA Guidance Notes on these, which outline their technical details. These can be found at (make sure you identify the correct Guidance Note). For further detail on Classes Q/R/S, you also need to look at: the details of Class Q/R/S in Schedule 2, part 3 of the GPDO, ie the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (GPDO) (at and Page 2 of 13

3 the guidance in the national Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) (at see paragraphs , under the headings When is permission required? and permitted development). Where the buildings are of heritage significance, members should look also at the CLA Guidance Notes Heritage: Getting heritage consents and heritage-relevant planning consents, and Dealing with problem heritage, which can be found at B. Background: the problems There are a number of important problems: 1. Up to a million traditional farm buildings at least half of the total have been lost since 1919, about three buildings a day. Most of those that remain are important both as heritage and as significant features in rural landscapes. But because of changes in agricultural practice and law, few traditional farm buildings have a genuine economic use, in the sense of generating (directly or indirectly) enough income to cover their maintenance costs. While some CLA members cross-subsidise them from other income, few can afford their full long-term costs (it may well cost 50,000 to 100,000, often more, to put them into full repair, and another 5,000-plus a year to maintain them thereafter). A small proportion have been subsidised by Agri-Environment Schemes, but funding for this is tending to reduce. If not converted to new economic uses, or subsidised through the CAP or otherwise, almost all these buildings are at high long-term risk. Collectively they form by far the largest single category of heritage buildings at risk. 2. Redundant buildings at risk are usually saved by converting them to viable new uses. 3. In some cases conversion of farm buildings to commercial uses is workable, if consent can be obtained, but its financial viability is sometimes questionable. Some farm buildings already converted to commercial use sit empty, not generating the income needed to pay maintenance and insurance costs, and (except listed buildings) empty business rates, which can be substantial. In these cases, commercial conversion has clearly failed to secure the building s future. 4. Residential conversion is often more likely to provide a solution, giving the building a sustainable future, not least because if well converted they are likely to be valued highly by their owners and well-maintained in the long term. Residential conversion can of course also have other benefits, reducing the shortage of rural housing, providing housing for other family members on farms, and increasing economic and social sustainability, not least by providing customers for rural shops and pubs, and children for local schools. 5. A core problem however is that about 90 per cent of unconverted farm buildings are outside existing settlements. Rural local authorities are almost universally hugely opposed to development, especially new housing, outside existing settlements, giving little consideration to arguments based on heritage, or housing need, and arguing that any new housing or other development must by definition be unsustainable. Page 3 of 13

4 6. Importantly, local authorities have built these policies into their Local Plans over many years, making it easy for them to refuse planning permission for conversion. This has equally made it difficult to overturn these refusals at appeal, because planning inspectors must take account of local plan policy. 7. It has therefore been difficult to get consent for conversion outside settlements, and almost impossible to get consent for residential conversion. A high proportion of buikldings which could have been saved by conversion are instead becoming derelict. 8. Lobbying by the CLA and others has led to new national policy (see section E below) which questions the routine assumption that rural development must by definition be unsustainable, but so far this seems to have had limited impact on LPA policy-making and decision-making. 9. Lobbying by the CLA and others has also prompted the new prior approval schemes in GPDO Classes Q/R/S. These should, in principle, have a transformational effect, because they should again in principle make it impossible for local authorities to refuse consent for conversion to residential or commercial uses per se. Provided the owner produces a sympathetic design, and any issues with noise, flooding, etc can be overcome, consent should be granted (but see D4 below). C. Should I be considering conversion? Before spending time and money seeking consents, you should obviously consider whether conversion makes sense. The relevant considerations are likely to include: C1. Does conversion make financial sense? Some conversions will have low end values, or high costs. A first step is to carry out a preliminary appraisal. You need to assess (probably with the help of an estate agent) the approximate end value of the dwelling(s) or commercial premises you might create (this might involve several valuations, for different commercial uses, or 1, 2, or 3 dwellings, or different quality specifications). This needs to take account of the characteristics of converted farm buildings, which may include unconventional layouts, and an inability to make later alterations. In some cases they command premium values, but in others value may be depressed. Having established potential values, you need to work out the costs, which are likely to include: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) the approximate repair and conversion costs. You need to factor in the costs of a design good enough to get prior approval or planning permission as appropriate, and, especially if this is a heritage building, of using appropriate materials. the costs of the application, including architects and surveyors fees. bat and wildlife surveys and mitigation costs. access costs. the cost of providing or connecting services. The supplier tends to be in a monopoly position, and costs may be very high, especially if the building is a long way from existing services. An off-grid approach is becoming more possible, but is likely to reduce the end value of the dwellings. Page 4 of 13

5 (vi) any Housing Levy and/or Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). These are set by the LPA. Some make no such charges; others charge tens of thousands of pounds per dwelling. (vii) selling or letting costs. (viii) borrowing costs. (ix) VAT, which should in most cases be payable at 5 per cent on building work and materials, and at 20 per cent on fees (for further detail see (x) other costs. Having worked out the likely costs, you should be able to assess whether the conversion will be financially viable. C2. Estate management considerations Finding solutions to the problem of decaying farm buildings is often an important strategic objective (covered in more detail in the CLA Guidance Note Heritage: Dealing with problem heritage), but it is important not to ignore other estate management considerations. A building with direct access from a public road and well away from other buildings you own may not raise any estate management issues, but a building in the middle of farmland or a farmyard might, especially if it is sold to new owners who may not be sympathetic to farming or other businesses. You also need to consider whether you will sell or let the building. Letting will give you more control, but may not produce enough net income to provide an adequate return on capital or cover borrowing costs. Selling will usually produce a higher return, but you may have little or no control, it may devalue your remaining land, and is potentially irreversible. GPDO Classes Q/R/S limit the extent of conversion permitted per agricultural unit, so if you have several potentially-eligible buildings it is important to decide which to pursue. It is important to note also that conversion under Classes Q/R/S withdraws your prior approval rights to build new agricultural buildings under GPDO Part 6 (presumably to prevent you from building new buildings to free up existing buildings for conversion). Moreover, conversion under Classes Q/R/S removes some or all subsequent permitted development rights from the building, so any subsequent changes are likely to require a planning application. You should also consider Capital Gains or Inheritance Tax or other tax or rates issues. C3. The suitability of the building Most commercial uses and all residential use need daylight, and some farm buildings may be unsuited to conversion. But most, including most of heritage value, can be sympathetically converted: good architects have devised many ways of getting daylight, privacy, and services into farm buildings which put them to new use while increasing, not damaging, their aesthetic value and heritage significance. Some do not have (or have lost) aesthetic value or heritage significance, and conversion can make them more attractive than they were before. These design issues are considered further in sections D, E, and F below. Page 5 of 13

6 D. Seeking consent for conversion where GPDO Classes Q/R/S do apply D1. Do these apply? Whether these apply to your building(s) and proposal(s) is discussed in Section A2 above. If the site and your proposals fit the criteria set out in Classes Q/R/S, you can use them. If they do not, you cannot. In outline, Classes Q/R/S allow the residential or commercial or educational conversion of unconverted farm buildings on an agricultural unit. There are size limits (like the 450m 2 maximum size under Q) which apply before and/or after conversion, and extension is not allowed. Listed buildings (but see footnote 4 ) and scheduled monuments are excluded. Class Q does not apply in Article 2(3) land (essentially National Parks, AONBs, the Broads, World Heritage Sites, and Conservation Areas). D2. Where these schemes do not apply, can I make them apply? You are unlikely to be able to remove your land from a National Park or a Conservation Area, or get a listed building delisted, but in some cases you may be able to plan your proposals so that they do fit, for example by not extending the building, or choosing a smaller building. D3. What consents do I need? The detail again is set out in the specific CLA Guidance Notes. Under Class R, if the area created is less than 150m 2 and no significant external physical work is needed, Class R simply grants consent and no applications are required (though you do need to notify the LPA). In all other Class R and in all Class Q and S cases, however, you will need to make an application for prior approval of design, siting, highways, noise, flooding, and contamination issues/impacts. You will often also need to make a planning application alongside the prior approval application. Under Class Q, consent is granted for some defined physical changes reasonably necessary to convert the building to [a dwelling], but any other changes like the construction of new access roads or the creation of any external space or garden are not covered and would definitely need a planning application. Under Classes R/S there are no specific rights to carry out physical change, so any material changes to external elevations, or other external changes, are likely to need planning permission. D4. What is the probability of getting consent(s)? As above, most rural LPAs have had an ingrained distrust (at best) of almost any development outside existing settlements, and an almost-visceral loathing of what they define as new dwellings in open countryside. Most have filled their Local Plans with policies condemning such development. In the past, few people dared to apply, the LPA usually refused applications, quoting its Local Plan policies in support of the refusal, and appeals were usually refused because Inspectors gave great weight to those Local Plan policies. 4 But note that the listing of a farmhouse does not (contrary to widespread belief) automatically list all the farm buildings see the Historic England advice Listed buildings and curtilage (currently at Page 6 of 13

7 Now, with GPDO Classes Q/R/S in place, and with clearer policy in the NPPF, the balance has shifted significantly in favour of well-designed conversions. Where proposals fit the conditions of Classes Q/R/S, the LPA can no longer refuse consent to the change of use as such. It can refuse to grant prior approval, but only on the specific matters which require prior approval. Prior approval can (and should) be refused for clearly poor designs, or where there are genuine flooding or access or noise or siting problems which the applicant has not adequately addressed. But where the applicant has produced a demonstrably well-considered and appropriate design, and has dealt with the other prior approval considerations, the LPA in principle has to grant approval, albeit perhaps through gritted teeth. If it still does not do this, the applicant in these circumstances should have a good chance of getting consent at appeal. The CLA sees Classes Q/R/S as the best opportunity for decades to give a new future to traditional farm buildings, the most threatened of all historic building types. The CLA s hope was and is that design will become the main criterion determining whether consent is obtained or not. Well-designed proposals should (unless there are genuine flooding, noise etc problems) get approval, and badly-designed proposals should not. That would create a virtuous circle in which applicants and LPAs spend much less resource on arguing about spurious notions of unsustainability and much more resource on good design, leading to better and better conversions which in turn inspire better and better conversions elsewhere. Over time, this could solve a large part of the massive problem of traditional farm buildings at risk of loss. In practice, as the CLA expected, many LPAs proved extremely resistant to Class Q applications, rejecting well over half in the first few months, using a variety of grounds. In particular many used a ground added into the scheme just before it was launched (that the siting of the proposal makes it impractical or undesirable for the building to change to [residential] use ) to claim that the proposed use was unsustainable. Dozens of LPAs rejected all Class Q applications, and many refusals were confirmed at appeal. After a renewed lobbying campaign by the CLA, the Government in March 2015 issued new guidance within the national Planning Practice Guidance (PPG; for link see section A2 above). This in particular makes it clear that a LPA cannot refuse simply because the building is in a location where [it] would not normally grant planning permission for a new dwelling, that there is no sustainability test, and that impractical or undesirable simply mean that it is (for example) adjacent to silage storage, or on top of a hill with no access or services. This change has made it more difficult for LPAs to refuse, and approval rates have climbed, but many LPAs are still resistant and are finding other reasons to refuse. In the most fashionable ground for refusal is that the work includes new structural elements (see PPG paragraph 105), and may you need to anticipate this by choosing a building with good structural integrity (like a traditional farm building rather than a pole barn), and getting a report from an accredited building surveyor confirming its structural integrity. A wide variety of other grounds are used for refusal, like unacceptable noise because a tractor is kept in a nearby building, but it may well be possible to overcome some of these at appeal. Given that the LPA will probably be looking for reasons to refuse, it is important that applicants follow the path set out in D5 below, and not doing may invite a refusal. Page 7 of 13

8 The CLA is also seeking to persuade Historic England to improve its advice on traditional farm buildings (see F below) to point out to local authorities the consequences of refusing consent for conversion, but influential factions within Historic England seem to prefer to see farm buildings lost rather than converted, and so far it has proved very slow to rethink its policy. D5. Making applications You need to follow a logical sequence roughly as follows: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) Choose (if you have a choice) a building more likely to get consent, because it best fits the criteria and is less likely to give the LPA plausible grounds for refusal. Check that the proposal makes sense in financial and estate management terms (see section C above). If possible it may make sense to focus initially on a proposal which does generate a significant profit, to reduce the feeling that you are throwing good money after bad if obstacles appear. Consider wildlife. Many farm buildings house bats or owls, and some wildlife surveys may have to be carried out well in advance, so you need to decide whether to do this at an early stage (this reduces the risk of later problems and delays, but has a cost). Read the CLA Guidance Notes on GPDO Classes Q/R/S noted in A2 above, and the GPDO and PPG on each, to ensure that you fully understand the rules. If you do not show that you fit the criteria, and anticipate and deal with the potential grounds for refusal in the GPDO, the LPA may well refuse the application. It is important to use professionals who (a) can design good farm building conversions and (b) fully understand the prior approval schemes (many do not). Decide whether you need to make a planning application alongside the prior approval application (see D3 above). You could obtain prior approval first and incur the costs of applying for the planning permission later, though that would delay the overall project. Consider whether there are any prior approval considerations apart from design (like noise, flooding, or access) which might cause problems, and if so how to address these. (viii) Begin the design process by analysing, including on paper, the landscape value and heritage significance (where relevant) of both the building and its setting. This is important, and you need to understand this before you begin any design work. Advice published by Historic England 5 (see section F1 below) should be helpful. (ix) Devise proposals which are a reaction to this value and significance, conserving significance and enhancing it where appropriate (usually of course repairing the building will enhance significance substantially). 5 Historic England was English Heritage until April Page 8 of 13

9 (x) (xi) Provide enough information on all the matters for which prior approval is required. Otherwise an unsympathetic LPA may demand more and more information until you have furnished much more than would have been in a competent application in the first place. The amount of information should follow NPPF paragraph 128 ( the level of detail should be proportionate to the assets importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance ). In particular you need to show, probably in a Planning and Heritage Statement, that you have properly analysed the heritage and landscape values of the buildings and their setting, and that the design respects these and has a positive net impact. Many rejected applications have failed to do that. If the LPA refuses prior approval, you can appeal. If it claims that your application does not fall within Class Q/R/S without using the word refuse, you should be able to appeal, but the legal position is not entirely clear. You may need to be persistent (see section F). E. Seeking consent for conversion where GPDO Classes Q/R/S do not apply E1. Introduction Where Classes Q/R/S do not apply, you will obviously need to get planning permission. From what has been said above, it might seem that seeking planning permission for farm building conversion outside existing settlements where Classes Q/R/S do not apply would be a waste of time. However, while it is true that many LPAs will be inclined to refuse permission, the rules have changed even in these cases and the outcome may now be different, because: the existence of the prior approval schemes will need to be taken into account to an extent by the LPA even in cases where they do not apply; and LPAs and planning inspectors must take account of national planning policy in the NPPF. E2. The effect of Classes Q/R/S The advent of these new permitted development rights might appear to be irrelevant in cases where (as with listed buildings, or in National Parks for Class Q) it is absolutely clear that they do not apply. However, firstly, in the Government s response to the consultation on what became Class Q, Greater flexibilities for change of use: Report on responses to the consultation (DCLG, March ), the Government said (paragraph 23) While it has decided at this time that Article 2(3) 7 land should be excluded from this permitted development use, the government expects National Parks and other local planning authorities in protected areas to take a positive and proactive approach to sustainable development, balancing the protection of the landscape with the social and economic wellbeing of the area. These areas need access to housing if their communities are to grow and prosper (CLA emphasis). This is likely 6 this can be found at ange_of_use_-_report_on_responses_to_the_con.pdf) 7 This was called Article 1(5) land in the original text, which predated its renaming in the 2015 GPDO. Page 9 of 13

10 to be a material consideration for Article 2(3) land, and also by parallel argument for listed buildings and scheduled monuments. Secondly, in addition to this specific indication, LPAs would probably have to take some account of Classes Q/R/S in planning decisions. There have been few relevant planning appeals, but an appeal decision in Winchester (APP/L1765/A/13/ , 9 Parchment Street, Winchester) illustrates how this may work in practice. This involved a listed building in a conservation area, and a different GPDO permitted development right, the right to convert office buildings to residential use. As with Classes Q/R/S, this excludes listed buildings, so it was clear that the permitted development right did not apply, and the LPA had refused planning permission. At appeal, however, the Inspector took the view that he had to give the Government s intention to relax this kind of change of use very significant weight Assuming heritage concerns would be satisfied (as they appear to be ), then this recent national change in planning should take precedence over the policies in the [Local Plan] [this] is sufficient justification to grant planning permission. He then went on to add that even if I am wrong [about that] the proposed change of use to residential is likely to generate a financial return sufficient to secure the long term economic viability (and preservation) of the listed building and preserve [its] setting and the character of the conservation area this is [also] sufficient reason to grant planning permission. He therefore allowed the appeal and granted planning permission. This decision does not of course mean that planning permission will always be granted for conversion at appeal; this will depend on the facts of each case. But it does suggest that LPAs will need to acknowledge that the existence of Classes Q/R/S has relevance to their ability to refuse planning permission even in cases where Classes Q/R/S do not apply. E3. National planning policy in the NPPF The NPPF, the core statement of national planning policy, is centred around the concept of sustainable development, and a number of its policies encourage the re-use of existing buildings for new purposes generally, and the conservation and re-use of heritage. More specifically, paragraph 55 is directly relevant to farm buildings outside existing settlements. It says that LPAs should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as [inter alia]: where such development would represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset or would be appropriate enabling development to secure the future of heritage assets; or where the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting. It is clear that the LPA must take this into account in its decision-taking: it cannot just ignore the NPPF and point to Local Plan policies which discourage uses outside settlements. NPPF paragraph 2 says that Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The National Planning Policy Framework must be taken into account in the preparation of local and neighbourhood plans, and is a material consideration in planning decisions. (CLA emphases). This is especially true where Local Plan policies are old and/or inconsistent with NPPF policies. Page 10 of 13

11 E4. Making planning applications for conversions where Classes Q/R/S do not apply In general, you should follow the sequence already set out in section D5 above. The key differences are: (a) (b) (c) (d) You cannot assume that even the principle of residential or commercial use will be accepted; indeed in most cases outside existing settlements you should probably assume the opposite. You need to propose a strong design, and (as importantly) a strong case for conversion, so that the LPA will decide that it needs to grant permission (or that if it did not, you would win at appeal). You need to get across to the LPA the points covered in E2 above. If the buildings have any heritage or landscape significance, as is probably the case, you can and should make strong heritage arguments for conversion, based on the NPPF (especially paragraphs 55, 126, and 131), and on the NPPF s accompanying Planning Practice Guidance (see especially paragraphs 003, 004, 013, 015, 019, and 020). Even before the NPPF and Classes Q/R/S, it was possible to persuade some LPAs to make exceptions to their usual policies against development outside settlements to save at-risk heritage assets, and the changes should have made these arguments more effective. This applies not only to listed buildings and scheduled monuments (which by definition have high heritage significance), but also to undesignated heritage like unlisted farm buildings, though logically a lower weighting may be given to the conservation of lowersignificance buildings. See also the CLA Guidance Note Dealing with problem heritage. You may need to be even more persistent (see section F2 below). F. Key points: good design, persistence, and further lobbying F1. Good design Design is likely to be of importance in any application within the scope of this Guidance Note. Once you have dealt with any site-related issues, you need to focus strongly on design. That means, as noted above, first understanding what is there, and then using a good architect or surveyor to draw up a design that reacts well to what is there, conserves it as appropriate, and creates an attractive converted building with a financially-viable future. Your architect or surveyor needs to be experienced in the conversion of rural farm buildings (you should inspect previous conversions he/she has been responsible for), and needs the ability as above to read the building and its setting and react to these, rather than imposing pre-determined solutions. In addition to what has been said in D5 and E4 above, there is guidance as follows: Assessing the significance of buildings and landscapes Historic England has published a Farmstead Assessment Framework (2015), at (or putting its title into an internet search engine should find it). Page 11 of 13

12 Physical conversion of farm buildings The Historic England (English Heritage) publication Conversion of traditional farm buildings: a guide to good practice (2006) gives detailed advice on the design of good conversions. See same link. It may be updated in A book, Farm and rural building conversions, Carole Ryan, Crowood Press, 2013, 30, may be useful on conversion and background though is now out of date on planning. Background information and policy The Historic England (English Heritage) publication Living buildings in a living landscape: finding a future for traditional farm buildings (2006) gives useful background (though it has largely failed as a policy document, failing to point out to LPAs the malign consequences of refusing consent for conversion, and thereby encouraging the problem to continue). It may be updated in Historic England s web pages do take a more positive view ( Without appropriate uses they will not be maintained and may disappear from the landscape. Whilst poor conversion poses a threat, new commercial, residential or other uses which enhance their historic character and significance are to be encouraged which is worth quoting in an application. F2. Persistence Getting approval may require persistence. It makes sense to take an early decision as to whether you can put together a convincing proposal which ought to get consent, or not. If you cannot, it may be sensible to stop there and not spend time and money pursuing it further. If you can put together a convincing and well-justified proposal, which in most cases should be possible, you need to commit to this and may need to persist and persist until you get consent. In this context, it is important to note that the LPA s motivation changes at the moment at which the consent decision is taken. Until then, it is likely to tell you that consent will be refused, and to try to persuade you to withdraw the application (and if you did withdraw a strong application, of course, its tactic would have been successful). At the point of decision, in contrast, LPAs do not like having a high refusal rate, staff who were opposing your application may be over-ruled by others, charges that the LPA is condemning to death a heritage building which is at risk may stick, and (especially if you stress that your proposal is strong, and that you would appeal if necessary) it will not want to issue a refusal that might well be overturned at appeal. If therefore you have the courage of your convictions and do not withdraw, you may find that you get an apparently-surprising approval. Even if you do not, you may well, armed with a strong and welljustified proposal, succeed at appeal. Page 12 of 13

13 F3. Reporting problems to the CLA The planning background is much more favourable than in the past, and approval rates are rising, but the problems outlined in this Guidance Note will not be solved overnight. The CLA was substantially responsible for these changes, and is in touch with the civil servants who implemented them, and with other relevant bodies like Historic England. We are in a good position to lobby for changes if necessary, but we can only do this if members continue to tell us what the problems are. Please fenella.collins@cla.org.uk for planning-related feedback, or jonathan.thompson@cla.org.uk for heritage- or design-related feedback. For further information please contact: Jonathan Thompson Heritage Adviser CLA, 16 Belgrave Square London SW1X 8PQ Tel: Fax: jonathan.thompson@cla.org.uk Important Information. No responsibility for loss occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action in reliance on or as a result of the material included in or omitted from this publication can be or is accepted by the author(s), the CLA or its officers or trustees or employees or any other persons. Jonathan Thompson and Country Land & Business Association All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, or stored in any retrieval system of any nature without prior written permission of the copyright holder except as expressly permitted by law. Page 13 of 13