garrymartin

That would be my first guess - the cable termination is passing power but not data. The other thing to be aware of is that there are different PoE standards and power levels, and they can be affected by cable length, but I would expect "half the house length" to pose any significant issue to any of them.

In years gone by... 😉 3 kW per house as peak load in a village might have been fine, given not everyone will use 3 kW at the same time, but there is no way that sort of capacity is going to support a move to more extensive use of electric vehicle chargers, renewables and low-carbon technologies such as ASHP/GSHP, and the supply company should certainly know that - i.e. at some point they will have to put network reinforcements in place. Stand your ground on your supply requirements if you have a robust case and remind them that it is their responsibility to reinforce the network to support those requirements.

I understand where you are going with your commentary, but that statement is just not true. In many rural areas, bus services have been stopped due to cuts. Is that an effective way to stop any further rural development? All of this is a planning balance judgement, and different groups are treated differently. For example, Traveller's Sites don't *have* to be in a sustainable location; it is accepted that they will primarily use a private motor vehicle because the locations where they are typically sited (and where people are typically happy for them to be sited) generally have poor access to services. It is allowed despite this because it is important for Traveller's children to be able to get to School etc. and the private motor vehicle provides one of the few ways of enabling that to happen.

You've got the right idea - run an excess of cables as it is inherently cheap compared to trying to run an extra one once all the finishing is done. You don't need to terminate them right away. I'd expect a requirement for more than one PoE camera externally to be honest, but I don't know your situation. As @SuperJohnG notes, run a couple to an external location at the front and back of the house for external WiFi access points you may want/need in the future. Don't install just one at each TV point though - I'd recommend at least two and probably four. You only really need one cable for decent access points - they can take their power and data over a single cable with PoE, so I'd run cables to ceiling locations in every major room where you might want great WiFi coverage. It's easy to connect multiple switches together and you are unlikely to need the high-speed switching backplane that would differentiate a single 48-port switch and connecting two 24-port switches, so I'd probably advise looking at a 24-port switch to start, with the requisite number of PoE ports in it to provide power to your PoE devices such as cameras and access points. I work in IT and have hard-wired TVs, cameras, a NAS that has 4 x 1Gb connections, and various other physical devices including my Mac Mini and a desktop PC that are also hardwired, and I don't have more than 24 active ports. I do have 3 PoE access points though that provide WiFi connectivity for a whole host of devices, including all the laptops, tablets, phones and home automation devices.

Dave, I can't tell you how frustrating it is to have the only reason that the proposal is refused to be on sustainability grounds when I almost exclusively work from home, have shopping delivered, rarely access public services in person, have only a very small number of friends that could currently walk, cycle or get public transport conveniently to where I live, plan to build to Passivhaus Plus standards, and build in some of the most environmentally friendly ways. My wife does not work, my son is at University in Manchester and my daughter works for a company based some distance away, so is either working at home, travelling to their HQ, or to their store in London. It drives me mad.

The catch-all is generally that it must be "safe" and therefore walking along an unlit A-road with no footpaths, although not illegal, would generally not be regarded as particularly "safe". There are more or less universally accepted distances for walking and cycling concerning access to local services and employment opportunities. For walking, 800m is generally considered the maximum, and for cycling it is 5km.

Agreed. There should be a choice of sustainable transport modes, so a non-sustainable location does not become a sustainable location just because you add an electric vehicle charge point. Otherwise everywhere would potentially be sustainable. However, in this case, it can be demonstrated that cycling is a viable option for sustainable transport, providing access to the whole of Droitwich Spa (a town, with excellent access to services and employment opportunities) at less than 5 km distance, and adding an electric vehicle charge point "encourages" the use of another form of sustainable transport - that of ultra low or zero emission vehicles. There's no point this being a valid form of sustainable transport according to the NPPF and then completely discounting it as a choice in location planning decisions. Words are also very important. Notice the use of the word "or" in the following from the Campaign for Better Transport guide - "Sustainable transport and the NPPF – a guide for local councils and communities"... "It will not be sufficient for sites to be located on the road network and accessible by car. They must also be accessible by walking, cycling or public transport."

Or an ultra low or zero emission car sharing scheme... 🤣

Just found this little nugget in the conditions of an outline application that has been approved by my LPA... 🤪🤣

If he responds... 😉 They were very carefully crafted questions that make it difficult to respond in a wooly way that would be open to further interpretation, and he'll know exactly why I'm asking them! I have the details of what will almost certainly be my MP, as well as the details for the Green Councillor that covers the area where I currently live in Worcester, and the Conservative Councillor (who also happens to be chair of the Planning Committee) for the area that covers the plot. I intend to write to all of them to a) explain how a very sustainable development has already been refused on grounds of sustainability (!!) and b) to ask for support for any subsequent application. As you rightly note though, they're likely very busy right now so it's on my list of things to do in the coming weeks/months and possibly after engaging a planning consultant (feelers out to one of the best ones in our area right now).

The Local Plan is the 2016 version currently, so considerably out of date. Although the formation of the new Local Plan is at the Regulation 19 Stage, the Inspectors have asked for so many clarifications and additional evidence that it's looking like it won't be in place until at least early 2025. I did provide some input but to be honest, unless you are a powerful group (i.e. large developers, housing associations, government functions, etc.) the commentary is pretty much brushed aside and changes aren't made. It is comforting that the Inspectors are giving the LPA a tough time though. 😉

Reminds me somewhat of a tweet that caught my eye yesterday. "If you aren't willing to look like a foolish beginner, you'll never become a graceful master."

I'm certain they will be when we get to the other reserved matters, but for the initial outline application with only access as a reserved matter, I don't think they can add anything to be honest.

Exactly this. *VERY* expensive approach and they'll look at the various Acts and Written Ministerial Statements, and not specifically the NPPF which simply advises on how policy should be applied. As mentioned previously, this is sort of the developing plan, albeit an outline application with some matters reserved and just covering access to keep the architect costs out of the equation until we have secured permission.

I work for a Global IT Service Provider so I've been using AI for some time, and even though I say it myself, I'm pretty good at working through questions and spotting the (sometimes) flawed responses. 😉 I have numerous references to the various documents in my Statement of Case. The problem is that they are often very much open to interpretation. For example, the 5km distance that seems to be acceptable in relation to cycling is almost universally agreed upon and can't really be argued with. However, as another example, the NPPF in Appendix 2: Glossary says the following; So *any* efficient, safe and accessible means of transport, *including* those mentioned. Paragraph 109 says the following; So the second sentence *should* ONLY be applicable to "Significant development" and yet is universally applied almost always to ALL development. Equally, if we just consider the five examples of sustainable transport modes from the Glossary, from an English language perspective, only providing one would not present a choice. But two (or more) presents a choice. So even if we accept the error of applying that to development that is not "Significant" I should only need to show I can meet at least two (which I do). Even so, the application and appeal were refused solely on the grounds of sustainable transport... 😞 The issue is always that it is a planning judgement, that the rules are not binary, and hence, unfortunately, it very much depends on the views of the individual. I am 100% certain that had my Inspector been someone else, the result may have been different too. If you @ToughButterCup or anyone else is interested in reviewing the various documents and offering any insight either here, or by personal message or email (if you think it is sensitive), I'm more than happy to send the links.

I'm with you 100%. Also part of my appeal Statement of Case; So my Local Authority themselves estimate that in less than six years, a third of the vehicles on their roads will be ultra low or zero emission. When you also consider the location, size of plot, potential value of house to be built etc., the odds of any future occupants driving an old, dirty, petrol or diesel car start to drop quite considerably from a demographic perspective. Whilst I'm frustrated that the Inspector seems to have disregarded much of the information I provided, it is nonetheless very heartening to have the support and bewilderment of the buildhub community to console me... 🤗❤️

I think it's slightly worse than that because they are also arguing about the lack of control of choices of "future occupiers" in the context of a market housing development when, as a self-build, I *am* the future occupier!! 🤪

Seems you're not allowed to include an EV as a sustainable transport choice (despite ultra low and zero emission vehicles being listed as one of the five sustainable transport modes in the NPPF) as you can't force people to use one, and if you accepted that they were a sustainable transport choice, that would make *any* site sustainable. Can't force someone to use a bike either but cycling is accepted... The whole point is that you do things to encourage use. Local policy says I *have* to include secure cycle storage in any development proposal to encourage the use of a bike. BRegs now require you to fit an electric car charger for the same reasons. My argument was that not only was I planning for two 22kW chargers, but that I'd also be generating more energy than the primary demand of the dwelling, and hence there were not only environmental incentives but also financial incentives to use an EV (and of course I'll owned and driven one for over 4 years). Deaf ears.

The appeal was filed on 28 July 2023, and decided on 24 June 2024, so 10 months and 27 days.

Agreed. It's a catch 22 though. Council removes funding for rural bus routes because the volume of users doesn't make them economically viable, in essence, then preventing development due to lack of sustainable transport choice. Ironically, this is the wording in our Local Plan...

Thank you. That's the plan, although I've also asked a few specific policy questions of the Head of Planning as a precursor so I am 100% clear on how the LPA would interpret some fundamental wording.

- 20A and 355 Bus Stops – 1.3km (0.8 miles) - Droitwich Spa Train Station – 2.6km (1.6 miles) Unfortunately, the Inspector commented "I am also not persuaded that occupiers would prefer cycle-bus and cycle-train travel options, over the convenience of vehicle related trips. In particular, for day to day requirements." As far as I can tell, what the LPA Officer and the Inspector appear to be implying is that unless you can walk to a bus stop or to local services, it's not sustainable because people will prefer using a car.

The BCO is correct. Building Regulations Approved Document B, specifically Appendix C.

No need Mike! I think I've already mentioned it somewhere but there's a bridleway that skirts the development and joins National Route 46 of the National Cycle Network. This route down to St Michael's Church leads onto the very same Copcut Lane. Despite an unaccompanied site visit by the Inspector, he commented "Even so, I have limited details of the quality of these cycle routes." It really makes very little sense to me I have to be honest... 😞 Bridleway in purple... Just for a laugh, let me note that there have been no recorded cycle accidents for at least the last 10 years on the A4133 from the exit of the development until a cycle lane begins on the Ombersley Way - a distance of less than 1 km. Considering the following graphic is also *only* people who record their journeys on Strava, you can also see it's pretty well used as a route into Droitwich (even more so than the bridleway or indeed the private access road which some scoundrels seem to also make use of) 😉 Isochrones map of 5 km journey reach - the whole of Droitwich Spa is accessible; Distances to various local services and facilities; - St Michaels Church – 1.0km (0.6 miles) - Droitwich Community Woods – 1.0km (0.6 miles) - 20A and 355 Bus Stops – 1.3km (0.8 miles) - National Route 46 of the National Cycle Network – 1.5km (0.9 miles) - Chawson Barn Community Centre – 1.5km (0.9 miles) - SPA Convenience Store – 2.0km (1.2 miles) - Droitwich Spa Leisure Centre – 2.0km (1.2 miles) - St Josephs Catholic Primary School – 2.0km (1.2 miles) - Droitwich Spa High School and Sixth Form – 2.0km (1.2 miles) - Westacre Middle School – 2.1km (1.3 miles) - Droitwich Spa Train Station – 2.6km (1.6 miles) - ALDI Supermarket – 2.7km (1.7 miles) - LIDL Supermarket – 2.7km (1.7 miles) - Spa Medical Practice – 2.9km (1.8 miles) - Morrisons Supermarket – 2.9km (1.8 miles) - Droitwich Spa Hospital – 3.4km (2.1 miles)

Did that. Previous similar appeals in less ideal situations that had been successful were included, as well as case law, and examples of where LPA Planning Officers had determined similar cases in a more positive way. The Inspector's response was "The appellant has also referred me to the assessment by Officers of other proposals. Even so, I am not bound by these decisions. Irrespective, each proposal is considered on its own merits as is the case here. It is for the decision maker in each case to undertake the planning balancing exercise." The landowners have tonight confirmed that they are happy for me to continue to seek planning approval, so let's see what happens this coming week in the election and then in the weeks after that as the new planning policy becomes clearer.