Where to start!

[Doggit]

Not sure about that, but you would then need to rebuild it as it was if that were the case.

 

[DaveNewbie]

Sorry i think my ignorance is confusing things here... No I'm not thinking of city at all... I want a rural site.
That's why I said rural 'brownfield'? plot. I think 'brownfield' normally means urban.
What I mean is an old farm building (not a shed, but proper house) that needs demolishing. I've been told I can use it's PP. In fact I know someone who has done just that.
Used the footprint of an old building and didn't need to start from scratch with PP because the old original building had PP. They just needed to make sure they kept within the footprint of the original.

 

[Doggit]

Brownfield site: It is a term used in urban planning to describe land within certain legal exclusions and additions, which was previously used for industrial or commercial purposes, where its expansion, redevelopment or reuse may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant.

 

[DaveNewbie]

I think then Doggit, maybe some councils are different to others? Or maybe if you build on the footprint of a demolished previous building, you still need DPP, but you are 'likely' to get it and the fact that there was a building there previously is the same as already having OPP?
The house I went to see is a modern eco-kit-building building that was made in Poland and transported over here and erected on the footprint of an old building that they had demolished.
They told me the whole point of buying the land with the old building was because the PP was already there.

 

[Doggit]

If there was already a building on the land, then another house can be built there, so in that respect you're right, but I suspect they've played safe by building within the original footprint. It very much comes down to each planning authority as to what sort of changes to the original property that they'll allow, so don't restrict yourself unnesesarily. Obviously the caveat is that they wouldn't let you build right to the boundary, but the guidance rules change all the time - although not always for the better.

 

[garyo]

but I suspect they've played safe by building within the original footprint. It very much comes down to each planning authority ...

Indeed. A place just next to me was a detached 4 bed house in around one acre, approx 100 years old. It'd been maxed out permitted development wise and was a bit of a mish-mash of extensions both visually and and in terms of layout. They submitted an application to knock the whole thing down and build a replacement with the same square footage, including the existing PD extensions. (It was greenbelt, and permission granted, by the way)

Depending on your authority, I imaging you could make a similar argument even if the PD extensions hadn't been built yet - i.e. rather than building an eyesore of ground floor flat roof extensions, a well designed new build with similar square footage.

 

[charliegolf]

From the Planning Portal:

Planning Permission

In most cases you will not need to apply for planning permission to knock down a building, unless the council has made an article 4 direction restricting the permitted development rights that apply to demolition.

If you decide to demolish a building, even one which has suffered fire or storm damage, it does not automatically follow that you will get planning permission to build any replacement structure or to change the use of the site.

My bold.

CG