Daniel H

I'm sorry, a what? 😉

It's a unilateral undertaking. As far as I understand it, a council can ask for a self-builder to sign a document saying they will live in the property after it's been built for a minimum amount of time. It's to prevent developers pretending to be self-builders and avoiding the obligations that would ordinarily fall to them. But it can mean issues with selling and mortgages. Sweeping all that away for BNG is a very positive step. I'm pleased because the LPA in our case recognised us as self-builders but we appealed their refusal and the Inspectorate have been pretty unforgiving on those without formal proof of self-build as they will dismiss on the basis that you're a developer and should do the BNG stuff. We in the end waived our self-build status (I didn't think the LPA would sort a UU out in time, given we were appealing their decision), to paid for the BNG calculations and were on the hook for £2500 in credits. Now we don't have to pay any of that, thankfully.

I think this gets adopted via secondary legislation, so no need for Acts or votes etc. Just the department deciding/ SoS signing off. It remains to be seen whether adopted Local Plans will retain their weight if there's a conflict - the NPPF should trump them if they're not aligned. It's pretty epic and marks a big shift. Like that it starts to introduce definitions of 'substantial weight' which will help developers (us!) to fight back against LPAs. And no stress @saveasteading - great minds! 🥰

A major revision to the NPPF landed this week and makes for very interesting reading. Many of the things that have had our project in tangles seem to be getting ironed out - from conservation areas, heritage assets and Non Designated Heritage Assets - (NDHA)s to sustainability and a new set of 'substantial' weights given to a raft of things including design. It's pretty amazing reading. And - in other news - the Biodiversity Net Gains (BNG) for small sites (up to 0.2ha) is being dropped altogether which means no more Unilateral Undertakings (UUs) for self-builders. Keen to hear the takes of the hive mind here. I feel like even if our (overdue!) appeal is dismissed, we have enough here to get planning next time.

We paid: Water: £5,200 - inc road closure £1,300 (Severn Trent) Electricity: £2,000 (Northern Powergrid) Even though it was the same hole in the ground, they didn't manage to organise bc the electricity folks didn't feel the need to close the road so it was all done in a few weeks, but the water company erred on the side of caution, closed the road and it took 13 weeks and an extra £1,300. So if you think they can get away with not closing the road, ask them to put in to the council a tape off permit and see what happens. Our hole was very very close to our property (1m). Tbf to the water people, they very carefully removed the cobbles, put them in their van overnight and then re-laid them to stop them being stolen. Nice but I'd have preferred £1,300 in my pocket still.

We had our start letter on 11 July and the Inspector is visiting this week (😬). I understand they have about a three week turnaround target for getting the decisions out, so assuming no issues, we're expecting ours to be about 3.5 months from start to finish. Full planning permission + National Park + Conservation Area, so pretty tricky. Message your Case Officer if you think they've forgotten you...

We used a TP-Link Tapo SolarCam C402 and paired it with a SECUEYE Solar 4G LTE Modem Router and it works great for us. Cheap and reliable so far. We just bought a Lebara SIM for it for £1/month. Has an app you can use to view.

Ah, that's frustrating. But all seems fixable for next time - no real showstopper, hopefully.

It's not clear to me. My understanding was that the "free go" (or free resubmission) for planning applications in England was removed for applications submitted after 6 December 2023. This change means you will generally have to pay a new fee if your application is refused, withdrawn, or approved. I think you pay both ways... The question is whether you get more information out of them by letting them refuse it - they have to give you very clear reasons and you can use those next time to build a stronger application. At the pre-app stage they don't have to be as detailed. Not sure as I don't have the details but you might want the refusal so you know what to do next time and b) you could appeal it if you think it's nonsense and c) it messes up their stats and d) they should do some work for the money you paid them.

Sorry to hear this. You could get in touch with them to ask if there is any negotiation to be done? In that case you could see if you could submit new drawings to respond to their concerns and therefore save yourself the expense of a new planning application fee (which went up in April). They might say no, however (ours did). In that case you'll need to put in a new application. Check the policy - if you're definitely contrary to it I'd suggest not appealing, but if you think they've overplayed their hand you might want to put in an appeal while you get on with a fresh application. Cramped and overbearing are quite subjective in the absence of specific guidance so an Inspector might take a different line if you can offer some evidence to support your case.

We're going around this block right now (Conservation Area, not a Listed Building though). You need to do two things. 1. Assess the significance of the heritage asset and then the impact of your proposal on that significance. Use Historic England Guidance (https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/statements-heritage-significance-advice-note-12/) This should probably be in the form of a Heritage Statement. We paid a Heritage Consultant to write ours. 2. That the Conservation Officer said it was less than significant means you need to supply a heritage balance by listing economic, social and environmental benefits and offering a weighting to each. We wrote this in our recent Appeal Statement but lifted from our Planning Statement (and agree a good Planning Consultant would be helpful). "Notwithstanding our view that a heritage balance is not necessary, should the Inspector agree with the LPA that there is harm, the following heritage benefits have been identified: Removing the derelict building Creating a new dwelling sited in reference to the adjacent houses and designed in contextual materials and forms Beneficial landscaping Works to the stone walls Benefits to the stone troughs to the front of the site, particularly important for the annual Well Dressing. In addition, the clear economic, social and environmental public benefits are as follows: Economic: Construction-related employment and indirect employment would be created, benefiting local contractors, suppliers and professionals. Paragraph 85 of the Framework states that significant weight should be placed on the need to support business needs and wider opportunities for development. Limited positive weight should be attached to this. Social: The proposal would provide a family home within an existing village in an accessible location. Even one house matters in the National Park. A new family home would contribute positively to the community and local services, helping to sustain the village. Furthermore, the improvement to the surroundings of the troughs would provide an enhanced setting for the village Well Dressing, an important community event. Moderate positive weight should be attached to these public benefits. Environmental: We wish to highlight the environmental benefits of the scheme in particular which should carry moderate if not significant positive weight as they go far beyond the requirements of local policy CC1, and address the concerns of both the LPA and the UK Government to build environmentally sensitive homes. As such, it would be our view that cumulatively the heritage and the public benefits are sufficient to outweigh the great weight attached to any less than substantial harm to the designated heritage asset. " Good look with it - I feel your pain!

Thanks @LnP - all I was flagging was that the LPA is often fine with a statement about being a self-builder in the Planning Statement or similar and therefore exempt from BNG. Ours was and put it in the Officer's Report. It would then only become a problem if you want to go to appeal, with the options you laid out then available. Not much of an exemption and I think there needs to be a simple process for self-builders to certify, rather then the restrictive UUs used at the moment.

Hi all We were just about to submit our appeal documents and my PIN friend told me something interesting on BNG which has already cropped up in the forum. They said we either had to have a legal document showing we were self-builders (the UU of others on this forum) or submit a BNG assessment. They said they'd dismissed three cases recently where self-builders didn't do this and there was another on their desk which was going the same way. So my advice is don't stress about it when you're making your initial planning application (planners are busy and won't care unless there's a policy or process locally as some have flagged), but if you're going to appeal you should do one or the other. We've asked our ecologist to do the assessment as I don't want to tie our hands when it comes to being able to get a mortgage for the build. It's not the end of the world if you don't do this - the inspector will still need to write their report before saying 'despite all of this, I'm dismissing it', and you can just resubmit the application (if they find in your favour obvs) with the BNG assessment. A pain but not the showstopper it could be. Hope this helps!

Sounds brilliant - if the officer is behind you, you should have no problems. You won't be asked questions, so the planning consultant won't be needed. But emotional support is also important! Let us know how you get on!

The report ought to be out ahead of the meeting - a week or two often - so check their portal for that. If there are no objections from the planning officer, you can focus on the human side of why you ought to get permission. Unlikely the committee will have read any of your stuff, so don't draw attention to the objections if you don't have to. If there are conditions, you could welcome them as practical etc in the hope you'll get waved through by the committee. I'd suggest it's a bit late to get a planning consultant involved especially if it's looking positive. If you're up for refusal, you could ask your architect and speak yourself. You could try a consultant but it'll take them a while to get up to speed and with three minutes there's not a lot of substance they can put up. If you're being refused for the proximity to the road and it's the same as the existing permission, you can point it out and the committee might agree - and if not, you have excellent grounds for appeal. Good luck! We were refused but it felt great defending a project we believe in so strongly.