Drellingore

Sorry @Countryfile - I haven't checked in here for ages. Our initial proposal to make pretty drastic changes to the barn was rejected at committee on heritage grounds. The latest structural survey we've had done (third one now?) is more optimistic, and we've gone through every single timber assessing its heritage and structural value. We're hoping to get a new application submitted in the next month or two, but we've got a drainage challenge now.

Thanks - tried that (inadvertently when the LTE modem lost connection) and it doesn't work.

Aye, it probably would. I was hoping to avoid homebrewing all the solar power stuff, as I need about three or four to cover the whole site, and they're in exposed places. This might be the only option though!

DM's sent!

I think I'm looking for the impossible - CCTV cameras that are not made by shady Chinese companies, that have intergrated solar panels and batteries, and can work without internet access. I want to provide site security for my barn conversion. I've got internet access there via the mobile phone network (a MikroTik LHGG LTE6 kit, for the curious), a wifi LAN, and a Raspberry Pi running a Tailscale VPN server. I reluctantly bought a Reolink solar CCTV camera, but only discovered after climbing ladders and drilling holes that the damned thing only works via a Reolink server. You can't connect to it directly via LAN. It's constantly polling Reolink servers to see if your phone app wants to view the stream, at which point it (I think) starts relaying the feed via their servers. This is fairly ridiculous from a security standpoint, even if you trust Chinese companies. If you add in the fact that I'd rather not add to a potential botnet and surveillance network made by companies who enable the monitoring of ethnic minorities, it's untenable. I'm struggling to find an alternative. Any thoughts? If you could save us both a bit of time and emotional energy by not replying with "why do you care, what have you got to hide, lose your tinfoil hat," that'd be great

The senior planning officer certainly thought so, and said as much in response to one of the councillor's questions.

Thanks for the consideration of my position, it was kind of you to defer posting. If only more people on the internet thought about the impact on the reader before posting You're absolutely correct about the massing, and that was something we were conscious of. From the road it appears 19% larger, which I'm not sure whether they'd consider significant or not. The planning committee didn't comment on that; they were more focused on the shape. The report did mention the greater visual impact, although it wasn't their leading argument. In my head the decision was "So it'll be more eco-friendly, cheaper, and give us more house? Worth a try!" Paragraph 197 of the NPPF basically says that any harm to an NDHA needs to be a balanced judgement. We were hoping that the BNG and eco credentials would be enough to tilt that balance in our favour. There have been examples of NDHAs in conservations areas being approved for demolition, so my line of thinking was "if there's nothing explicitly saying that this is unpossible, let's push the issue to find out for sure, rather than just accepting 'no chance, mate'." I wanted to prove empirically that it wasn't possible, rather than take someone else's word for it. It was a calculated gamble in which I staked money and time, and always knew it was a long shot. Gotta try with 100% effort to find out for sure, though. I used to do some martial arts, and I was told about some likely mistranslated apocryphal Japanese concepts: issen and mushin. The first can mean "single strike of lightning:" you act with 100% conviction, committing utterly to what you're doing. The latter means "empty/remaining mind", meaning that you're open to whatever happens without expectations. Combining the two is complementary but contradictory, and means going at everything full tilt, but rolling with the punches when things don't go your way. So this was a bit like that Again, thanks for the thoughts, and hopefully this journey and everyone's comments can be a useful learning for others thinking along similar lines.

Thanks for the thoughts @Ferdinand! Good - hopefully they can consider how outstandingly beautiful nature will be when it's wrecked through climate change. At least all those natural barns that grow in Kent will have the 'right' tiles on though

Beginning of our item on the agenda: Beginning of a fool with a moustache stumbling over his words:

The threshing barn is a non-designated heritage asset. We proposed changing the external appearance, basically wrapping the core timber frame (the 'goal posts' that are characteristic of threshing barns) in curved crucks so we can use straw bales in the walls and roof, kinda like the stone arch in a bridge. We pledged to retain those core, historic members of the timber frame, but we weren't specific enough on what exactly would be kept. If we had been more specific, they probably would have still rejected it. We didn't provide an engineer's report, for a few reasons. First, we actually forgot to submit the one we'd paid for! It was however quite vague, and not terribly optimistic. The second reason is that the prior structural survey from the previously-approved scheme was tediously detailed, and we kinda thought it might not be necessary to supersede it (it did however accuse the rafters and purlins of being worthy of retention, when they're all modern softwood). Finally, our preferred oak framer basically said "you can say that you'll retain this, that and the other, but until we actually get in there we just won't know." I know it sounds a bit daft not supplying it, but we did provide around 40 documents, and I triple-checked my document submissions. Only problem is that I didn't double-check that the checklist was correct 🙄 We'd need to modify the entire scheme, not changing the roof or shape, which in turn precludes the Huff Puff straw bale construction method. Hence the next application will be radically different. We've received pre-app advice on the next scheme, and it's not been great - the Ministry Of No were on full power that day. The danged AONB seemed insistent on getting us to put Kent Peg clay tiles on, despite the building not having had them for decades. Meanwhile, we're not allowed to reinstate the hipped wagon porch because it's been absent for decades 🤷‍♂️ TBH, it's all getting a bit awkward with the fact that if we ever get to build anything, the kids will soon be too old to live with us. We've not discussed what we want our lives to be once the kids move out. We've been putting off spending on holidays and stuff to save for the build, so the kids have been missing out for the sake of a building that they might never get to live in ☹️

It was rejected, but on the criterion that I wanted to test (whether they valued heritage over eco-goodness). We had one chap on our side, and I managed to not make a total dog's dinner of the speech, so that was something. On the whole the committee were pretty reasonable, and whilst I think the "emotional sell" definitely helped, there were fundamental issues that our proposal had which they couldn't ignore. It was a good experience, and we also got a bit more insight into the thinking of the planning officers, ready for the next scheme. It'll go up on YouTube for a limited time, so I'll post the link here in case you want to watch me fluff my lines.

Sadly I've already sent that email out. We've only got one 3D render that was a bit cheap, and looks it. I did try using various AI doobreys to try taking the 3D render and make it appear more intentionally lo-fi, but the AI took too many artistic liberties I do agree with your point though!

I'll send a highlight email out to all the committee members. Here's a first draft: Hi, My name is Daniel Jones and I'm the applicant for planning proposal 22/01353. It's an eco self-build barn conversion in Drellingore, near Alkham, that's due to be discussed at this week's planning committee. I wanted to take the opportunity to present some highlights of the scheme ahead of the hearing. I can imagine that wading through all those reports must be quite time-consuming! High-end design eco self-build family home by Kent residents, converting a dis-used and dilapidated pair of barns Residential conversion and holiday let principle already established in 2018 Annexe for eco-tourism holiday let/accommodation for elderly grandparents Built using carbon-negative, super-insulating, fire-resistant, locally-sourced straw bales Generates more energy than it will use Biodiversity net gain triple that required even of larger sites - wildflower areas, replanted heritage orchard, wildlife ponds, bat and bird boxes, reptile shelters All public commenters support the scheme, including county councillor Martin Scherer, and the farmer who was born and lived on the site Described in public comments as "unexpectedly sensitive," "aesthetically pleasing," and "wonderful design [...] that will enhance its immediate area and the valley" Plans commit to retain the core, historic timber frame Historic fabric will be retained, salvaged and re-used wherever possible Previous building outlines will be preserved through design features We're pretty excited by the scheme, and have been waiting a full year for this hearing. If approved, we intend to reach out to the folks at Grand Designs to see if they'll cover it. I gather that having a great local pub is key factor in their decision-making, so it's lucky that we have the Marquis Of Granby up the road!

Thanks for the thoughts. A holiday let was part of the application in 2018 by the previous owners that established the principle of residential conversion, and some of the commenters mentioned that they'd welcome the economic activity. What I could do is add in a bit about "in line with the 2018 application..." In other news, it turns out that the PEA wasn't invalid, it was that the 2018 one suggested evidence of bats and the 2021 and 2022 ones didn't. They want further evidence that there are no bats. Presumably the 2023 emergence survey that shows no bats will suffice, but I do wonder if they're trying to get me to disprove Russell's Teapot. On the up side, the planning officer has been lovely. She's happy to call me and talk through the issue, rather than keeping cards close to her chest and being adversarial. It's nice just being able to focus on the issue, and not having a planning officer who is 'out to get us'.

Version four, being as salesy as possible:

Spoke to the planning consultant (who is an ex planning officer) and his advice was quite contrary to the stuff on here. His take was to be as positive as possible, and spend no time refuting any objections. His reasoning was that the planning officer will likely be giving a dry talk for an unbounded amount of time; any objector will be deep-ranting about their one pet peeve for three minutes; therefore the only airtime 'selling' the scheme is going to be my speech. He suggested that the ward members are unlikely to have read the report, and will have only received 45 minutes' training on planning concerns. His take was "they're basically going to vote on it based on whether they like it or not," and also suggested that their political instincts would come into play at the suggestion of having something snazzy that might end up on Grand Designs in their area. So, to work on version four of the speech...

So, a over a full year after making our planning application, it's finally going to committee on Thursday 14th December. My request to speak has been accepted. Firstly - any advice that's general to all planning hearings? I'm watching YouTube videos of my local council's hearings to swot up on the characters and opinions of people involved. Is there a published list of rules or processes that councillors need to adhere to? My prior experience of watching recorded meetings gave me the impression that not all councillors are terribly familiar with planning policies. Secondly - what should I do when the planning officer's report contains inaccuracies? Of four arguments they've proposed against our scheme, one is that we didn't provide a valid Preliminary Ecological Appraisal. This is patently false, as the PEA is listed on the planning portal! It was valid when we made the application a year ago, and we have since had an updated one sorted that they've never asked for. Third - any thoughts or opinions (I might live to regret this) would be appreciated on the arguments of the planning officer and my draft speech. I've got an appointment with a planning consultant tomorrow to see if I'm barking up completely the wrong tree, and a county councillor is also in favour of the scheme and so might be a good source of advice. Here's the report's recommendation: Here's the first draft of my speech, which I can get through in 2m 50s, before getting any professional feedback:

Ta for all the insights, folks. Apparently ash needs to be thermally modified in order to be suitable for external use. I could only find one company in the UK that does this, and they don't deal with other people's timber. So that, combined with all the reasons you folks have provided, rules out using it for cladding. Maybe it could be used for some internal joinery. I'll ask our ecologists (who did the tree survey and are hooking us up with a tree surgeon) about how trees with ADB need to be handled. If we find a use for it, I'll update this 'ere thread! Also, @ToughButterCup - that is a very pretty house.

Has anyone here got experience of having timber cladding manufactured from felled trees? Failing that, does anyone have any insight into the stages of and costs of producing timber cladding? We've got a multi-trunked ash tree (actually two, but one is quite small) that needs felling due to ash dieback and its proximity to a road. The main trunks are 6m and 8m tall, and 80cm/60cm diameter at breast height each. It'd be great if we can find a way to get the timber used in the building - local materials, historic connectivity, lower carbon emissions, and all that. There are two options I'm looking into: cladding use in general joinery Coming up with ideas for the latter is definitely the wife's department, so I'm looking into the cladding. I'll need to get it felled in large chunks, get it transported somewhere, get it sawn, get it dried (maybe not in that order?) and then get it transported back. We're not likely to start soon, so the drying could happen in the barn we're trying to convert to reduce costs and the carbon emissions of a kiln. Things it'd be great to know, if anyone is able to share: Is this a totally unrealistic plan? How much might each of these things cost? What loss of volume can we expect in the drying process? What losses can we expect in processing? How much should we be looking at for the felling and transport? As always, thanks in advance.

Oops, forgot this. It states the location, the volume of treated effluent, the amount of ammoniacal nitrogen (interestingly not any other metric), the sampling points, the infiltration mechanism and dimensions, the depth, and a few restrictions (ie no surface water run-off to go through it). There's a non-binding introductory note, a site plan, notification process in case of deviation/failure, and three pages of conditions that basically form the 'contract'.

Sure. A Solido Smart 10PE (we actually need 12PE, but the standards vary between Germany and the UK, so 10 Germans emit the same amount of effluent as 12 Brits - must be all the currywurst) is all that's required for treatment in groundwater source protection zone 1. The EA encouraged (but chose not to force) us to use the tertiary system that we specified, which was 4x Tricel PuraFlo modules. Our infiltration rate was 19.8vP (I did all the tests myself, so I can advise on this as well if that is of use). For a BS6297 infiltration field, that required an infiltration area of 47.52sqm, which in turn translated into a minimum total infiltration field size of 110sqm. This is because the runs of pipe need space between them, and there's an external margin required all the way around the field. Graf helped us spec up an infiltration system using their tunnels that only needed to be three tunnels long, but they apply a "safety factor" of two, so they recommended six tunnels in total. We chose to arrange these in two runs, rather than one long one. The total size of the tunnel infiltration system is 14sqm, which is a huge difference. The whole thing will be cheaper and more sustainable than the default in groundwater source protection zone 1, which is a cess pool. We have other challenges to overcome in getting this approved by the local planning authority, but those are particular to our circumstances and probably best left undocumented in public until we've got it sorted; I'm sure my other posts give the game away if you're really bored. I hope that helps, please let me know if I can answer any other questions.

'ello! I've done something almost the same as you describe, in Groundwater Source Protection Zone 1. So the short answer is: yes. The Environment Agency don't like the use of infiltration tunnels, as they allow treated effluent to infiltrate over a smaller area in plan view, even if the surface area in three dimensions is the same. As you've probably discovered the infiltration isn't part of BS6297, although I believe Graf are working with the BSI to have it added as an acceptable option in future. The EA will allow their use if it can be demonstrated that a standard infiltration field or mound isn't practical, and that there is no possibility of discharging to surface water (ie a ditch, stream, or surface water sewer). In my case we couldn't fit an infiltration field in the space available unless it was to be outside the planning redline, uphill, and involving pipe runs going back under the house after having been through the treatment plant. The space that we had was limited owing to root protection areas, the required margins around habitable buildings, and the fact that a right of access was granted by title, over which a farmer needed to drive 50t machinery. Our infiltration tests came out favourably (vp 19.8). I haven't looked up the One2Clean PTP, but we specified a Solido Smart and tertiary treatment via Tricel Puraflo modules. Once we had an assigned officer for our permit application at the EA, they suggested that they'd grant the permit without the tertiary system being necessary because whatever levels the Solido Smart emitted were clean enough. Of course, they encouraged use to use the tertiary system and were trying to give us flexibility, and we intend to install the tertiary system even if it is overkill. The folks at Graf were very helpful in providing documentation and detailed sizing calculations that the EA appreciated receiving. Graf know that their customers face a bit of hurdle using the product, and have experience in helping people negotiate permit application. Given that we're in Groundwater Source Protection Zone 1, there is no higher level of treatment required unless you're within 50m of drinking water borehole. So if you're anywhere other than that, it is indeed possible to get a permit to discharge to ground. If you can demonstrate that infiltration tunnels are the only viable option, it is realistic to be granted a permit to use some. FWIW I phoned about five different drainage consultancies, and every single one of them said "Groundwater source protection zone 1? No chance, mate!" They were all wrong.

Following up to let any future forum-searchers know that the assigned officer at the Environment Agency was incredibly helpful. She spoke to me on the phone, queried anything that needed to clarification (I'd made a couple of mistakes that she'd corrected for me and wanted me to confirm), and made herself available to contact on the phone. I was worried that the whole thing would be geared up to be a bureaucratic assault course, looking for any excuse to reject your application so that they wouldn't have to deal with it. Turns out to be the exact opposite, once you get through to speaking to assigned officers. Whole thing has been 14 weeks and 4 days since initial application to get a final permit, and this included a week or two of revisions owing to errors on my part. 5*, A+++, would apply for a permit again, etcetera

Are there any regulations about how close to an electricity pole you're allowed to excavate? Are there any regulations about how close to an electricity pole you're allowed to put a drainage field, or non-BS6297 infiltration system? How do I find out if there's a wayleave between UK Power Networks and (I guess) us? There's an electricity pole (two, actually) on our plot. They had been there for years. In September 2021 UK Power Networks approached us about replacing them (after talking to the previous owners of the plot), and then one day turned up on site and phoned me asking to be let in to do the works - bit tricky as I wasn't expecting them and I live 25 miles away. They got replaced, and moved slightly to our benefit. Our planned sewage treatment plant will need to go quite near the pole. In fact, my other half had drawn up plans for the treatment plant to go slap-bang where the pole is, until I just noticed this! We have very few options where else the system can go (groundwater source protection zone one, root protection areas, rights-of-access, vehicular access, non-designated heritage asset...). We want to use Graf infiltration tunnels as they take up less space, and we've got a permit application open with the Environment Agency to this effect (non-standard infiltration solutions require one, and we're asking to discharge to ground in groundwater source protection zone one). I need to send plans back to the EA by the end of Friday with the location of the infiltration tunnels on. I don't know where I can put them, without knowing what's allowed regarding electricity poles. As an aside, I'm not aware of any wayleave existing. If it does, it's not with us. Any idea how I'd find out about such a thing?

Only tangentially related, but the Environment Agency's groundwater risk assessment team have requested a site plan showing the percolation test hole locations. This isn't actually required on Form B6.5, but might be being requested in my case because we're in groundwater source protection zone one. So, if you dig percolation test holes, make sure you keep a record of where exactly they were