garrymartin

My currently developing plan is to wait for the answers to my policy questions (which include incidentally whether the Head of Planning considers a single dwelling to be "significant development"), see what happens with the new government, and then go for pre-planning advice and an outline application with some matters reserved, including menas of access as the only reserved matter. In that way, I can offer various conditions to secure the environmental benefits I mentioned previously (electric vehicle charging, dedicated home office, Passivhaus Plus, etc.) I can't really see any more effective options but am open to suggestions.

And therein lies part of the problem to my approach. Coming from a background where I'm very well versed in contractual wording, I naively assumed that the NPPF, although guidance, is very selective in its choice of words. For example, and the one that drives me nuts... So this is the paragraph that keeps being quoted in relation to limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes, which is the reason for my refusal. Note it says "Significant development should be..."? It doesn't start with "Development should be..." Is a single dwelling "significant development"? I don't think so. Also, I'm technically rural, so that should have been taken into account when considering access to walking and public transport and really wasn't.

I've asked some specific policy questions of the Head of Planning (who is incidentally new in role this year so may shake things up), and I'll wait to see what changes to the NPPF come in with the new government and will then decide from there.

I do believe the Inspector has been particularly harsh, and his comments do not align with those of other Inspectors in previous appeals. Unfortunately, you can't select a particular Inspector or control their mindset and feelings at the point they consider your case. I provided details on two different cycle routes - one via the A4133 and one via a bridleway that joins National Route 46 of the National Cycle Network. I demonstrated that the whole of Droitwich Spa and all of its comprehensive services were available by cycle with an isochromes map, and listed specific key services and the distances to them. The response - "Even so, I have limited details of the quality of these cycle routes. Moreover, the most direct would be along the A4133, which is particularly busy and is a journey only likely to be undertaken by competent cyclists. Also cycling would not be suitable for those with mobility issues. 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." So lesson learned - you need to also provide details on the quality of a route not just its existence! Also, the statement regarding cycling and mobility is in serious error. Sustrans, CyclingUK and many others are clear that cycling is one of the most inclusive forms of sustainable travel and that it often acts as a mobility aid for people who find walking difficult, people who can't walk far, and even those who cannot walk at all. E-bike technology has only broadened that accessibility. The Inspector also mentions "visitors to the proposed dweling" and that they will also largely be reliant on private motor vehicles. I've never seen the needs of visitors mentioned before in anything other than non-residential applications such as shops etc. So I do think I got a particularly harsh Inspector on maybe a bad day. ☹️

Admittedly this was home improvement rather than as part of a build, but we cut all the door frames and slid the tiles under. Definitely the "cleaner" approach.

No, both applications and the appeal were DIY. To be honest, the *only* reason for refusal related to sustainable travel and in my naivety, I thought I could address those concerns. I've learnt a lot through the process, and as I mention above, knowing all that now, I know it probably wasn't the best move.

TLDR; we've been unsuccessful at appeal for a single self-build dwelling on a 0.25 acre rural plot in Droitwich, Worcestershire. The longer version, with some background. Like most people, our search for a plot has lasted years, beginning in earnest in 2017, although in reality, in our hearts, much earlier. The first real glimpse of anything remotely affordable came in 2020 following a conversation with one of our neighbours where we mentioned we were still looking for somewhere to build our own home and they mentioned their sister might be looking to sell a side-garden plot. We viewed it, and although not ideal (it backed onto a railway) we agreed a price to purchase the 0.2 acre plot with existing outline planning permission on the condition that we would subsequently be able to secure a dedicated electrical supply at our required supply characteristics before proceeding. Unfortunately, this wasn't possible due to convoluted land ownership for the route of any new cable, so we had to reluctantly back away from that particular opportunity. Nothing much came up for the next few years. My skills at finding potential plots and analysing them for potential costs (services, fencing, access, etc.) and the likelihood of being able to gain planning permission improved greatly. Sadly, this was tempered with frustration at the increasing asking prices of plots in our target search area, including completely unrealistic asking prices for land without any permission at all. Then, a chance conversation with some close friends came with the mention of their parent's large rear garden which started us on this current journey. After long discussions over several months (they had never even remotely previously considered selling part of their garden), we thought we'd been unable to get to a mutually agreeable position and had given up hope. Nevertheless, following a few more months of fruitless searches, we decided to make one last-ditch increased offer and, well, it must have just landed at the right time because it was accepted! The agreed purchase price for the bottom 0.25 acres of their garden came on the condition (from our perspective) that we were able to achieve planning permission and (from their perspective) that we did all the work to do so and took on any risk (and cost) associated with achieving that permission. We submitted our first planning application in May 2023 but this was refused. Following advice on "dual-tracking", we submitted a second application in July 2023 with additional information addressing the refusal, but we also started an appeal on the first application at the same time. Despite our efforts, the second application was also refused for the same reason as the first. Crucially though, by dual-tracking, we did not lose another couple of months as the appeal on the first application was already in progress. Had permission been granted for the second application, we could have withdrawn the appeal. This is a great strategy if you think you might end up in the same position. The appeal process is both long and lacking in any certainty regarding the expected duration or indeed the visibility of progress over time, and it took until late June 2024 for us to find out we had not been successful and that our appeal had been dismissed. Please, don't underestimate the emotional and mental toll an appeal can take. In retrospect, we should have engaged planning consultants after the first refusal, maybe even before. Although there would have been a cost, we've spent almost a year in limbo not knowing what the appeal outcome would be, and if I'd had a high degree of confidence that engaging a planning consultant after the first refusal could have avoided that lengthy delay, it would have been worth every penny. Caveat emptor - make sure it's an amazing planning consultant of course! After the first refusal on "sustainable travel" grounds, I included extensive information about the cycling options available from the plot. But the planners still said that although they accepted this was possible, it was still not particularly safe and they again refused permission. Only after submitting the appeal and getting the second refusal did I find a planning statement that contained detailed statistics from Strava showing how extensively a particular route was used by cyclists and how, combined with accident data, I could use that approach to evidence that it was a well-travelled and very safe route. A planning consultant might have known this prior to the second, even the first application, and might have included the detail accordingly, potentially removing the planner's position for argument. The moral of this particular part of the story is that as intelligent as you think you are, there are always experts in the field that have experience aligned to that intelligence that will trump you every time. With a significant delay, we now know that we do not have permission. I can't begin to tell you how disappointed I am, especially as I believe the Inspector has been particularly harsh, has erred in some assumptions and has not taken into account all of my evidence and statements. But what we did have in the Inspector's comments was an indication that things may have looked a little more rosey for us had the application been of a type where conditions could have been applied; as a Permission In Principle application, this wasn't possible. So the fact that we would be installing two 22kW car chargers, that we would be building to a Passivhaus PLUS specification, that there would be a home office, and that we would be installing Ultrafast Broadband could not be secured and hence there would be no certainty to them. As a result, the Inspector noted "this and any associated environmental benefits attract limited weight". So the moral of this particular part of the story is to be very careful about the application route you choose. So where do we go from here? Well, we're discussing the situation with the landowners and seeing whether they are up for one last go at planning. If they are, we'll hold out a little while to see how the new incoming government might shake up the planning laws and re-write the NPPF and then we'll look to submit an Outline Application with All Matters Reserved such that we can be clear that we are willing to accept conditions that would ensure the environmental benefits of the development. In the meantime, I've also requested clarification from the LPA about a number of areas of application of policy that I find difficult to agree with. For example, Paragraph 109 of the December 2023 NPPF states "Significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes." But LPAs and some Inspectors apply this particular paragraph and especiallly the "offering a genuine choice of transport modes" to all development. Is a single dwelling "Significant development"? If the remainder of the sentence should indeed be applied to all development, why does it start with the word "Significant"? There are others. Our dream has taken a significant hit, but hopefully, we're not down and out just yet. So, as an avid and competent DIY-er, with exposure to many planning areas that I never envisaged becoming knowledgeable in before, I've already been dipping into conversations as I've been building up my knowledge on the forum, so although not a newbie, now seems like the time for a proper introduction to both me, my family, and the plot. So, my name is Garry, I'm 54, I work in a senior position for a global IT services company, and I currently live in Worcester with my wife Nicki and my two adult children, Georgia and Alex (except when he's studying at Manchester Metropolitan University). Our proposed plot is the bottom 0.25 acres of the garden of an existing dwelling (so rural brownfield), but it has its own access (by prescriptive easement) along a private road to a field gate. We're fortunate to have a transformer for the electrical supply (which we hope to get upgraded to a three-phase supply) and a telegraph pole with 1Gbit fibre availability right next to the plot boundary, but there is a 3" PVC water main that runs right through the plot that will need to be moved due to the 6m easement required (3m either side of the main). Of course, on the other hand, the water supply is therefore also very close! There is a sewage treatment plant in the garden of the existing dwelling that is large enough to cope with the extra demands we will place on it. The existing dwelling and garden are on the outskirts of Droitwich and border a country estate and farmland with a couple of Grade II Listed properties (crucially we should not affect the "setting" of those properties) and a handful of cottages and barn conversions nearby. The planning applications and all documents (including the appeal) can be found online, so if you are interested in viewing them, drop me a PM and I'll send the links. If we ever do get permission, we'll be working with an award-winning architectural practice based in Herefordshire to create a Passivhaus dwelling with a design brief that currently envisages a home of approximately 220m2 with a 60m2 garage/workshop. I'm hopeful that I'll be able to bring you on the journey at some point, and that I'll continue to benefit from the combined wisdom of all forum members as we move forward with our design and, hopefully, build. In the meantime, I've attached some photos of the plot for your viewing pleasure. The first shows the bottom of the garden and most of the 0.25 acres of the plot. You can see the field gate in the bottom right corner. The second shows the plot from the bottom right corner, including the field gate that provides access. The third shows the view to the right (of the first photo) which is farmland (including a blurred-out landowner). The fourth shows the view across the plot to the farmland, taken from the access road (with the planning notification attached to the telegraph pole that has the 1Gbit fibre connection) The fifth and sixth show the view to the left (of the first photo) which is the access road. In the fifth photo, you can see the transformer bordering the plot, and the garage of the property that is visible in the first photo. The garage is at the end of the access road before it turns into the plot to the right, and round the corner to other properties to the left. In the sixth photo, the view is from almost the same location but looking in the opposite direction towards the main road.

You'll need to tape it prior to tanking so it should be fine. How are you creating the niche? There are some pre-formed ones you can buy that sometimes pop up for reasonable cost on ebay...

Similar situation and some good suggestions here

Exactly the right way to do it. See https://www.underfloorstore.co.uk/category/pipe-conduit for a good write-up that specifically mentions this use.

Can't answer that one! For everything else, start here https://www.pavingexpert.com/blocks

Just remember @Mike M that as I noted previously, you should only be paying for extension assets and not reinforcement assets. A new transformer would be a reinforcement asset so it shouldn't matter to you that they want to replace the existing one with a 50KVA one as that will be at their cost. You should only pay for the extension asset which is the cabling from the transformer to your property. When they come to site, if they mention costs, ask them whether those costs relate to extension assets or reinforcement assets

🤣 In my defence, you did say "insulated rafts/slabs" and I definitely have an insulated slab... 😉

It was primarily to show how I'd dealt with the bifolds, but fair point.

Never let me be accused of not bucking a trend... 😉 I put in an insulated slab without UFH, but there are no load-bearing structures on it. The superstructure sat on strip foundations / blocks / bricks and the bifolds sat on strip foundations / blocks. See the attached for info, but feel free to ask any further questions. This was 7 years ago, and I'm not saying I'd do it exactly the same again, but I've been very happy with it and even in the winter, the tiled floor remains a reasonable temperature. Zero issues.

Absolutely this. If we get planning permission on our plot, it is in the grounds of a country estate with a couple of Grade II listed properties and a handful of cottages and converted barns nearby. We'll almost certainly end up with a more traditional exterior look but it will have a very modern interior and will be a timber frame Passivhaus.

Not necessarily the standard, but it's acceptable. I initially went for OSB on my garden room build but I wasn't happy with the variances in thickness from board to board considering I would be putting a nice flat EPDM membrane over them. Switched to exterior grade plywood.

Nothing wrong with simple forms 😉 Extra points for simple forms and Passivhaus 🤣

There are "no nails" picture hanging thingies if you want to go there - search for "no nails picture hanging" on Google or Amazon; there are plenty - 3M do their Command stuff, Velcro have versions etc. As @Iceverge mentions, there should really be no issues with the curtain pole. The first rule of thumb with Passivhaus and airtightness is not to penetrate the airtightness layer. The second rule is if you do, don't remove whatever caused the penetration. So if you put a nail or screw through your airtightness layer, it's taking it out that causes the problems. With the curtain pole, you're not going to be taking the fixing out so you should be fine. Think about those service cavities in timber frame builds - the battens are nailed into the studs so those nails have penetrated the airtightness layer... We have to live in these homes we create and sometimes we get just a little *too* paranoid. 😉

Prior to this thread (and therefore prior to considering how I would make sure it wouldn't be stolen) I had the Belle Warrior 100L with 4-Ply Tyre (02204) @ £180ish incl VAT on my list of purchases if we ever get planning permission... It seems to be one of the most highly regarded.

I did say "it would be against electrical regulations unless (like the EV-Ultra cable) the power conductors and data cables are rated to the same nominal voltage". So long as your two SWA cables are rated to the same nominal voltage, then sure, it would be acceptable. See https://professional-electrician.com/features/ev-charging-installations-why-two-power-and-data-cables-has-now-become-one/ for further information. BS 7671 and BS 6701 are the guides.