Planning laws preventing my dream home.

[Waterworks]

My dream is to buy some woodland and build a simple off grid dwelling there, a log cabin, Yurt, straw bale or the like, I really enjoy solitude, peace and quiet and the simple life . I am retired early due to health problems and won't be running a business on site, I'm not allowed any stress. 

 

However as you may know this is practically illegal due to their being no way to get planning permission to change the use if the land, I am a responsible person and not a hippie or traveller and would look after the land and not cause any problems to anybody , my lifestyle would be environmentally friendly, sustainable and every other buzzword the government claim to want.  

 

Do you agree that there should be a new planning category that allows this within some basic rules to stop abuse of the land and causing shanty towns and camps to spring up ?

 

 

 

[Ferdinand]

RWelcome.

 

Once the laws have changed, you could grow a cannabis plantation and suggest you need to be on site to defend it ?. Feed the weed to the enforcer and they won’t be able to remember where it was.

 

We had a small listed manor, and they came once, then never came back for the next 30 years. When w3 asked them to come and advise when selling they could not even find it.

 

We could all come and visit.

 

(Serious people along in a minute)

Edited September 16, 2019 by Ferdinand

[Temp]

I wonder what percentage of the UK population would like to retire to a quiet place in the countryside?

[K78]

No I don’t agree. Nice idea, but woodland isn’t for living in.

[Jeremy Harris]

One or two people have been able to get PP to build a house in open countryside/woodland.  As already mentioned it may be easier in some parts of Wales to do something like this, based on demonstrating a certain level of sustainable living IIRC.  Ben Law managed to get PP to build a house in his woodland, subject to a planning condition that it's solely for use in association with his woodland-based business, I think: https://ben-law.co.uk/

 

Finally, there is always the (albeit slim) chance that planners might be convinced to grant PP by using the Paragraph 79 of the NPPF approach.  Far from easy, but it has been successfully argued by a few people.  You can have a look at the NPPF here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-framework--2 , but I would suggest that it would need the experience and knowledge of a good planning consultant to make the case for a Paragraph 79 dwelling.

[Jilly]

In Wales there is the One Planet Development policy, where you can self build without planning permission if you can meet certain ( strict) criteria, such as being self sufficient, carbon neutral and producing an income from the  land. Most of  the (few) people who are doing it are very green and alternative, which may or may not be what you had in mind. 

[Jeremy Harris]

20 minutes ago, Sensus said:

Para 79 is technically easier to achieve, though, and recent statistics suggest that it isn't as slim a chance as we previously thought.

 

That's interesting, as a friend managed to get PP under the old PPG7 then PPS7 "outstanding architectural merit" route.  Took him several years to get there, mind.  Looking at Paragraph 79 it does seem as if it looks a bit easier, although I suspect it's still a heck of an uphill struggle:

 

Quote

79.  Planning policies and decisions should avoid the development of isolated homes in the countryside unless one or more of the following circumstances apply:

 

 

a)  there is an essential need for a rural worker, including those taking majority control of a farm business, to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside;

b)  the development would represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset or would be appropriate enabling development to secure the future of heritage assets;

c)  the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and enhance its immediate setting;

d)  the development would involve the subdivision of an existing residential dwelling; or

e)  the design is of exceptional quality, in that it:

-  is truly outstanding or innovative, reflecting the highest standards in architecture, and would help to raise standards of design more generally in rural areas; and

-  would significantly enhance its immediate setting, and be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area.

 

[ProDave]

It depends where in the UK you are prepared to live.  Such places do come up from time to time.  There was one up here that I mentioned at the time it was for sale.  It was a wooden "shed" in a third of an acre of woodland.  It was on sale for £60K.  It had originally been built as a Forrestry commission office, and some time in the 1990's got planning for domestic habitation.  It was in a pretty poor state of repair but the new owner had a lot of work done to refurbish it (I rewired it) and is now living in her cosy cabin in the woods.

 

But to get something for that price you have to be prepared to be off the beaten track.

 

Alternatively as building plots are relatively cheap up here, you could do what someone has done.  He bought a plot with PP and is now living there in a Yurt.  He seems to have litte real ambition of actually building a proper house in any hurry and seems happy in his Yurt.  It will be interesting how long this goes on for before the planners start getting shirty about it.

[DreamHouseDreamer]

When plot hunting (which came to naught, we have PP now on our existing property) we came across an unexpected number of para 55/79 plots for sale with full planning.   None of the plans were for that outstanding or innovative a building which drew us to the conclusion that actually, getting PP was not that difficult in some areas using that route.   The reason we didn't buy any of those plots was because the designs were just unusual enough to make construction very expensive - too many curves or cantilevers.

 

There are several examples around where we are where somebody bought a piece of woodland or farmland with a view to making it a business, then subsequently sought planning permission to get a dwelling erected on the site with reasons given that included needing somebody on site at night for security reasons (for the so called stud farm sited on farmland) and for the eco charcoal business, sited in woodland where the charcoal needs monitoring through the night so it doesn't burn too fast or too slow (or something similar, can't remember the wording of the PP application docs).   The sole catch is that both such properties have agricultural ties so cannot be sold on for full open market value, but if this is a retirement/so called forever home, that may not matter too much.   Neither of these so called business seems to involve any work at all that I can see.  A few young girls keep their ponies on the stud, which rents space as DIY livery.

 

DHD

[Ralph]

We got planning for our 1 acre plot of woodland through the architectural merit route. The rules here used to be that as long as the plot had an existing and long established boundary on 4 sides and was less than 4,000 sqm it would be considered if it was of merit. This has now been restricted and there would be no chance of getting it now. 

[Ferdinand]

It may be your easier solution would be some woodland and an overnight shed “Smallspaces” style, or something caravanny.

 

 Or sure whether the 28 day exception operates for woodland? But potentially you could play the split-between-owners and use the 28 day exceptions in sequence for a van.

 

Or buy something and plant a woodland round it.

 

F

Edited September 16, 2019 by Ferdinand

[Jeremy Harris]

My initial idea, when I first started thinking about self-build, was to build an earth sheltered house, and try and use the old PPG7 paragraph 55 argument.  The hope was that I'd be able to find a plot suitable for an atrium style earth sheltered house, along the lines of Mole Manor ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/wiltshire/villages/nettleton_underground_house.shtml ).  I still have lots of stuff written by Arthur Quarmby that was distributed by the British Earth Sheltering Association (I used to be a member, back when it was still quite active).

[ToughButterCup]

There's a Kevin What's His Face program about someone who did exactly what you want to do ... if I can I'll look it up.  The builder built a stunning house - he'd lived (well, camped would be a better way of putting it) on site for several years.   

The Planning Conditions imposed on the owner were eye-wateringly restrictive. Among other things, he wasn't allowed sell the property.

 

Mind you , @Waterworks, come to Wyre Borough, buy yourself a field with some trees in it - and move in. The guy next door to me - 25meters away - has done exactly that.  Discharges human waste to ground. No treatment system - at all. 

Here it is (the waste) - you can see it from space: you can see my place being built just to the North. Unfortunately, Street View is not as up to date as the satellite view.

 

All he has to put up with is the occasional visit from the Council. And that gets sorted by a humungous gate and Rhodesian Ridgeback dog. Simples.

 

 

 

[Jeremy Harris]

14 minutes ago, AnonymousBosch said:

There's a Kevin What's His Face program about someone who did exactly what you want to do ... if I can I'll look it up.  The builder built a stunning house - he'd lived (well, camped would be a better way of putting it) on site for several years.   

The Planning Conditions imposed on the owner were eye-wateringly restrictive. Among other things, he wasn't allowed sell the property.

 

 

That's Ben Law's house that I mentioned and linked to earlier, I think.

[gc100]

2 hours ago, K78 said:

No I don’t agree. Nice idea, but woodland isn’t for living in.

 

Kind of agree with this, even though I'm being a hypocrite as my build is in open country side. It took a very long journey with planning (about 4 years), ultimately going to a committee decision. Whatever route you want to go down it has to be based squarely on planning law and not feeling/common sense  - most planning laws are there for pretty good sound reasons. I paid for a planning consultant/team

[iSelfBuild]

I'm just looking at a new development site in SW Scotland. 3 Acre Woodland with with permission passed for 5 log cabins. None primary residence use though. The sellers had a bit of trouble getting permission due to it being classed as ancient woodland initially, however it was deemed to not be ancient and following that it seems D&G Council have to support anything that boosts tourism and can't say no! I'm trying to find some land without permission granted but everyone seems to be selling land with 20 year 50% overage PP clauses these days.

[jamieled]

It depends where you are in the country. Our build is in one of the most wooded glens of Scotland and so inevitably any development affects woodland. 

 

But up here the authorities are keen to support rural development as the highlands are losing working age population, so they perhaps have a more relaxed attitude to woodland development in some circumstances.

[Randomiser]

On 16/09/2019 at 14:27, Sensus said:

 

Statistics available on the blog on our website, but a surprisingly high percentage of known Para 55/79 applications have been successful.

 

A friend of mine submitted one in Lincolnshire last year that went sailing through Planning (to my great astonishment, as it really wasn't terribly outstanding or innovative by any stretch of the imagination) more quickly and with a lot less resistance than several conventional and uncontentious applications I've dealt with in the same Authority area.

Does Para 55/79 give provide a solution to all the problems of building in the countryside?  The applications I have seen near us that are rejected (no mention of Para 55/79) usually upset the planners for a number of reasons including out of keeping, outside settlement boundaries.  But they also usually come with objections from highways on grounds of there being no pavements for people to walk on, roads being unlit so not good for cycling and no access to bus services, etc.  They then say this means there needs to be reliance on private cars and that is unsustainable.  From the quote of Para 55/79 it seems to be about design rather than other practical reasons for rejection, or am I reading it wrong?

Edited September 18, 2019 by Randomiser

[Jeremy Harris]

19 minutes ago, Randomiser said:

Does Para 55/79 give provide a solution to all the problems of building in the countryside?  The applications I have seen near us that are rejected (no mention of Para 55/79) usually upset the planners for a number of reasons including out of keeping, outside settlement boundaries.  But they also usually come with objections from highways on grounds of there being no pavements for people to walk on, roads being unlit so not good for cycling and no access to bus services, etc.  They then say this means there needs to be reliance on private cars and that is unsustainable.  From the quote of Para 55/79 it seems to be about design rather than other practical reasons for rejection, or am I reading it wrong?

 

 

Some of those points are interesting in themselves, as they raise questions as to how different local authorities view things. 

 

For example, here we have no pavements, or protected areas for pedestrians, we actively discourage external lighting, and have virtually no street lights (and are removing what few there were, as a part of the AONB drive to gain Dark Skies status).  Everyone in the village just carries a torch when they go out in the evening (need to, as it's literally pitch black outside here on a cloudy night).

 

There is an acceptance here that private cars are still pretty much essential, as although we have two bus services (one run by the county bus company, the other a community run minibus) neither are that frequent.  A recent application I looked at near here was for a single dwelling on a hilltop, at the end of an unmade byeway (a pretty rough chalk/gravel track that cars can just about get up) and a bit over a mile from the nearest tarmacked road.  I strongly suspect that it will get approval, as there has been temporary accommodation up there for years, albeit related to agricultural work.

 

Likewise there have been several barn conversions in the open countryside, or outside any defined development boundary around here.  One just outside our village looks very likely to get approval, as the existing listed barn is on the verge of collapse, so converting it will give it a new lease of life.  One of the nicest I've seen in recent years was the conversion of a small old chalk cob barn into a 2 bedroom cottage.  The roof had gone and the chalk cob was collapsing badly, but by allowing it to be converted to a cottage, albeit with a timber extension to allow for enough living space, it now looks much as it did 100 or so years ago, when it was still in use.

 

The flip side seems to be that gaining PP to squeeze in a house into a tight plot within the development boundary does seem to be getting more challenging.  Some of that may be because the street scene within a conservation area, and AONB, seems to carry significant weight as a planning consideration, and some relates to requirements for vehicle access, particularly enough parking, together with the turning space needed so that cars can always enter and leave in forward gear.  The latter policy seems to be one that is fairly strongly applied here, and caused me some challenges in making enough space on our tight and steeply sloping plot.

[Randomiser]

4 hours ago, Sensus said:

 

Planning attempts to reconcile an awful lot of complex and often conflicting issues.

 

I don't think that anyone would be foolish enough to claim that a single paragraph in the NPPF provides a solution in all cases, to everything, but I do think it offers a reasonable attempt at a balance.

 

Para 55/79 doesn't attempt to address other issues, such as highways safety, and just because a design is felt to be in compliance with para 79(e) doesn't and shouldn't preclude the refusal of a proposal on other grounds.

 

There is a basic conflict between para 79(all parts), and the general principals of sustainability that are currently being applied in Planning, however. I suppose that the justification is that for the very limited number of dwellings that are created under para 79, the benefits outweigh the sustainability impact.

 

Personally, I think that the current Planning  approach to sustainability is looking increasingly flawed and short-sighted, but that's another discussion entirely.

Being at a bit of a loose end this afternoon I have been bouncing around on the internet broadly looking at para 79 related items.  It does seem a fascinating topic and I wonder if there will be an increase in the number of applications trying to utilise it.  To answer one of my own earlier questions, it certainly seems that some local authorities and / or inspectors consider it sufficient to overcome issues of isolation, lack of public transport, etc.

[Ferdinand]

It is worth knowing that the whole number of approvals under the Para we are discussing is under 20 per across the whole country.

 

Do not be tooooooooo hoptimistic.

[ProDave]

9 hours ago, Randomiser said:

Does Para 55/79 give provide a solution to all the problems of building in the countryside?  The applications I have seen near us that are rejected (no mention of Para 55/79) usually upset the planners for a number of reasons including out of keeping, outside settlement boundaries.  But they also usually come with objections from highways on grounds of there being no pavements for people to walk on, roads being unlit so not good for cycling and no access to bus services, etc.  They then say this means there needs to be reliance on private cars and that is unsustainable.  From the quote of Para 55/79 it seems to be about design rather than other practical reasons for rejection, or am I reading it wrong?

This "sustainable" thing is interesting.

 

Up here about all you have to do to get PP in the countryside, is be in an established settlement.  If they denied PP up here because there were no pavements, streetlights or public busses, then there would be no houses built at all here.

 

We have no pavements, no street lights and a 3 mile walk to the nearest bus stop.  The cycle ride into town is okay, but it's uphill all the way back.

[Randomiser]

40 minutes ago, Ferdinand said:

It is worth knowing that the whole number of approvals under the Para we are discussing is under 20 per across the whole country.

 

Do not be tooooooooo hoptimistic.

According to these guys it is at least 66, so loads better ?

 

https://studiobark.co.uk/paragraph-79-paragraph-55/

Edited September 18, 2019 by Randomiser

[SteamyTea]

11 hours ago, JSHarris said:

There is an acceptance here that private cars are still pretty much essential

As they are down here, even if living in a town.

The sustainable aspect of personal transport is quite interesting.  We are heading for an all AV future quite rapidly.

So the pollution aspect is now rather moot.

The congestion aspect is a bit harder, but as I point out to people, Cornwall really does not have a traffic problem.  And we get 5 million visitors a year, that is 8.3 times the permanent population.

[Ferdinand]

2 hours ago, Randomiser said:

According to these guys it is at least 66, so loads better ?

 

https://studiobark.co.uk/paragraph-79-paragraph-55/

 

6 year period .. see 1st para.