Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We use cookies to personalise your experience; learn more in our Privacy and Cookie Policy. You can opt out of some cookies by adjusting your browser settings; see the cookie policy for details. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies.

Report this comment to a moderator

Please fill in the form below if you think a comment is unsuitable. Your comments will be sent to our moderator for review.
By submitting your information you agree to our Privacy & Cookie Policy.

Report comment to moderator

Required fields.


Barn-conversion rule change prompts design-quality warning


Having done a number of part Q conversions we as a practice feel that they differ little from a standard development or conversion in terms of the landowners willingness to engage an Architectural practice over, say, plans drawn or a planning consultant. Some will go ahead without any professional input, just as they always have, and others will recognise that the potential for a stunning conversion is something that they can't achieve without help. Increase in unit numbers can surely only mean an increase in complexity and spacial awareness when dealing with 465 sqm of existing built form, perhaps requiring professional input more than ever? Regardless of unit numbers, the changes that need to come into play are clear policy parameters and definitions. I have had brick barns turned down, other brick barns approved, steel portal units passed and failed by the same LPA mere fields apart and timber framed '10 year' structures approved without question. What does 'suitable for conversion' mean? To a professional chartered architectural practice, the possibilities for even the crudest steel portal form are endless!

Posted date

27 March, 2018

Posted time

9:53 am