Temp Posted September 20, 2019 Share Posted September 20, 2019 (edited) Council definition of sustainable has very little or nothing to do with green issues. They are mainly concerned with the availability of services like... is there space at the nearest school? bus to the GP? shops? That's all in addition to the issue of "using up green space". Edited September 20, 2019 by Temp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteamyTea Posted September 20, 2019 Share Posted September 20, 2019 3 hours ago, Temp said: Council definition of sustainable has very little or nothing to do with green issues Isn't it more financial sustainability as far as councils are concerned. Oh I wish they would bring the community charge back in, would make life so much easier. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteamyTea Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 3 hours ago, Sensus said: You're confusing 'sustainable' with 'viable' in terms of the financial thing. That is the difference between how an accountant and an economist looks at things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferdinand Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 (edited) 49 minutes ago, SteamyTea said: That is the difference between how an accountant and an economist looks at things. Economists spend their lives making assumption; accountants spend their lives trying to count them. Edited October 1, 2019 by Ferdinand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToughButterCup Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 5 hours ago, Sensus said: No, it's as Temp suggested: the Planning definition of 'sustainable' is concerned with local infrastructure. Basically: can you access local shops, employment, healthcare and education without excessive car use? It used to be about whether the proposed development was 'green' as well (hence LPA's used to be able to stipulate a certain level of compliance with Ecohomes or Code for Sustainable Homes standards, or a minimum level of on-site renewables), but the Government specifically excluded that, as they felt that it was a technical issue that was more appropriately, consistently and thoroughly dealt with under the Building Regulations. [...] Thanks for the explanation. When did those regulations change? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randomiser Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 2 hours ago, Ferdinand said: Economists spend their lives making assumption; accountants spend their lives trying to count them. As an economics graduate I feel I can get away with the only economist joke I know... An economist, a physicist and an engineer shipwrecked on an island with just tinned food and no tin opener. "Heat the tin up on the fire" says the physicist, "the contents will expand and force their way out." "You mean explode" says the engineer, "winch that rock up in to that palm tree and drop it on to the tin to break it open." "You mean crush it" says the economist, "the answer is simple, first, assume we have a tin opener..." 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randomiser Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 6 hours ago, Sensus said: No, it's as Temp suggested: the Planning definition of 'sustainable' is concerned with local infrastructure. Basically: can you access local shops, employment, healthcare and education without excessive car use? It used to be about whether the proposed development was 'green' as well (hence LPA's used to be able to stipulate a certain level of compliance with Ecohomes or Code for Sustainable Homes standards, or a minimum level of on-site renewables), but the Government specifically excluded that, as they felt that it was a technical issue that was more appropriately, consistently and thoroughly dealt with under the Building Regulations. You're confusing 'sustainable' with 'viable' in terms of the financial thing. Certainly around where I am the only thing that sustainability based rejections focus on is increased car journeys. They never take it beyond that, but I presume it is because the underlying assumption (sorry!) is that those car journeys will be in petrol or electric cars. It makes me wonder whether it would be possible to enter in to some sort of voluntary obligation that those living in the house will only ever own electric vehicles. Has anybody seen such an attempt anywhere? If so, what was the response from the planning authority? It would potentially open up potential plots that have previously not secured consent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carrerahill Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 On 16/09/2019 at 13:30, Waterworks said: 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 ? Move to Alaska! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteamyTea Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 38 minutes ago, Randomiser said: It makes me wonder whether it would be possible to enter in to some sort of voluntary obligation that those living in the house will only ever own electric vehicles I think we already have legislation that, in effect, is going to make EVs the only choice in a decade. 33 minutes ago, Sensus said: And then there's all the embodied energy/CO2 that's involved in manufacturing the EV Reducing every day and won't be long before it is at parity with an ICE vehicle. 34 minutes ago, Sensus said: it's never going to be as green as walking or using public transport. Have you ever been to St. Just or Sennen by foot or public transport. I dropped someone off in St. Just to get the bus back to Penzance, it was a Sunday in October 2007. No one has seen her since. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Harris Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 10 minutes ago, Sensus said: Even if the embodied energy is reduced to parity with an ICE vehicle, it remains a very substantial 'evil' in sustainability terms. And you haven't addressed the issue that the energy we're using to run EV's is still a long way from having no carbon footprint. To some degree you're preaching to the converted: It's not unreasonable to expect that people will want to own personal transport in all but the most urban situations, so the embodied energy is a bit of a red herring. But whilst I think that the Planning system should be looking to a future where the environmental impact of reliance on cars in operation is lower, even I wouldn't argue that we're there yet, to a sufficient degree that could be used to overcome current policy at appeal. The embodied energy of cars is coming down all the time, plus the recyclable content is increasing, and EVs are not really much different in this respect to any other form of motive power used to move a vehicle. There's also a fair bit less through life resource expenditure with EVs, no oil to change, brakes that wear at a very much reduced rate, servicing intervals that are much longer (once every 2 years for mine), etc. An EV charged solely from the grid will have a significantly lower carbon footprint than an ICE vehicle. Much of the time the grid is pretty low carbon, and even when we are using a lot of gas generation the efficiency of this is massively better than the very best internal combustion engine. For those who have PV installations on their homes, owning an EV also opens up the possibility of zero carbon charging. Last night was the first time I've charged my car from the grid is several months, since around May it's been charged pretty much exclusively from self-generated electricity. I suspect there will be a few more "free" charges before the year is out, all it takes is a clear day when the car needs a charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferdinand Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 1 hour ago, Randomiser said: As an economics graduate I feel I can get away with the only economist joke I know... An economist, a physicist and an engineer shipwrecked on an island with just tinned food and no tin opener. "Heat the tin up on the fire" says the physicist, "the contents will expand and force their way out." "You mean explode" says the engineer, "winch that rock up in to that palm tree and drop it on to the tin to break it open." "You mean crush it" says the economist, "the answer is simple, first, assume we have a tin opener..." When I first heard that in 1988 it had a mathematician not an engineer, who would calculate the trajectory of each baked bean and splatter of tomato sauce. There was another one about the oldest profession involving a bishop, an actress, and an architect. The punchline was about ‘but who created the primordial chaos?’, which may also have involved a Planner in the version at a self-build conference. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferdinand Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 (edited) On 20/09/2019 at 18:37, Temp said: Council definition of sustainable has very little or nothing to do with green issues. They are mainly concerned with the availability of services like... is there space at the nearest school? bus to the GP? shops? That's all in addition to the issue of "using up green space". I think there is a strong argument that the ‘close to services’ Idea does relate to carbon footprint etc in terms of eg making the Dr and the school walkable not driveable etc, and so reduces the green impact of the whole comunity. Edited October 1, 2019 by Ferdinand 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferdinand Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 13 minutes ago, Ferdinand said: When I first heard that in 1988 it had a mathematician not an engineer, who would calculate the trajectory of each baked bean and splatter of tomato sauce. There was another one about the oldest profession involving a bishop, an actress, and an architect. The punchline was about ‘but who created the primordial chaos?’, which may also have involved a Planner in the version at a self-build conference. The first one may also have involved an engineer who would provide a practical solution involving a supper of cold baked beans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epsilonGreedy Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 1 hour ago, JSHarris said: For those who have PV installations on their homes, owning an EV also opens up the possibility of zero carbon charging. Last night was the first time I've charged my car from the grid is several months, since around May it's been charged pretty much exclusively from self-generated electricity. Just curious, what is your anticipated annual mileage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Harris Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 8 minutes ago, epsilonGreedy said: Just curious, what is your anticipated annual mileage? No that great, around 6,000 miles per year, mostly local trips that are around 20 to 40 miles round trip distance. Energy consumption is currently running at about 245 Wh/mile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epsilonGreedy Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 1 hour ago, Sensus said: To some degree you're preaching to the converted: It's not unreasonable to expect that people will want to own personal transport in all but the most urban situations Elon Musk would challenge that assumption even though he is in the business of selling cars. Having working with urban based millennials in recent years I noticed a distinct lack of interest in cars because they have an Uber app instead. As autonomous vehicles take over the whole hire on demand equation is more compelling and shifts focus strongly away from private ownership. All Tesla owners are already contractually handcuffed to this future vision through an obscure clause in their ownership contract which mandates that should their private Tesla ever be loaned (at the discretion of the owner) to an autonomous driving taxi fleet for a few hours, it can only be to Tesla's own version of Uber. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epsilonGreedy Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 1 minute ago, JSHarris said: No that great, around 6,000 miles per year, mostly local trips that are around 20 to 40 miles round trip distance. Still an impressive result, so probably a little over half of your annual motoring is home PV powered given a likely inclination to drive less in the winter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Harris Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 3 minutes ago, epsilonGreedy said: Still an impressive result, so probably a little over half of your annual motoring is home PV powered given a likely inclination to drive less in the winter. I'd guess it'll be around that, yes. We're paying just over £48/month for electricity, for a house that's all-electric (electric heating, water heating, cooling, water pump, etc) and that includes charging my car. Much of that is having designed the house to need very little energy, but a significant part of it comes from the excess electricity we generate from the PV installation, over and above the household usage. By reducing the household energy requirement to a pretty low level, the amount of excess generation from PV, that can be used to charge the car when needed, is a fair bit greater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Harris Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 I'm not convinced that this is a practical proposition, either. At the moment even Tesla's are a fair way away from a full autonomous driving capability, and realistically I doubt that this will be implemented anytime soon, as it seems that the challenges are still pretty substantial. Whether full autonomous mode could even be rolled out to the existing Tesla fleet is debatable. It might be that newer cars might have the capability within their autopilot hardware to implement this, but it seems pretty certain that earlier cars won't be capable of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteamyTea Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 There was a town planner and an architect arguing about their beer glasses being half full or half empty. An electrical engineer pointed out that the glass was twice the size it needed to be. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteamyTea Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 2 minutes ago, JSHarris said: full autonomous mode could even be rolled out to the existing Tesla fleet is debatable I had a well driven Model S pass me in the A30 a few days back. It was a safe distance from the car I front. As it passed, noticed that the driver was looking at the passenger seat with his left arm outstretched. Texting he was. Next time I shall hit the horn to scare the living daylights out of them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferdinand Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 1 hour ago, JSHarris said: I'm not convinced that this is a practical proposition, either. At the moment even Tesla's are a fair way away from a full autonomous driving capability, and realistically I doubt that this will be implemented anytime soon, as it seems that the challenges are still pretty substantial. Whether full autonomous mode could even be rolled out to the existing Tesla fleet is debatable. It might be that newer cars might have the capability within their autopilot hardware to implement this, but it seems pretty certain that earlier cars won't be capable of this. If it is not practically possible, that sounds like an excellent reason why the Pillocks of Parliament will make it compulsory. /evidence based cynicism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eileen Posted November 3, 2019 Share Posted November 3, 2019 Re para 55/79 - we went through this process. We did a pre-application advice request (definitely recommended) and the planners came back with "no, unless you are minded to go the para 55 route, but that is VERY hard". We then did a second pre-app on their advice, which included a request to go to the Design Review Panel. Planning authorities are obliged to use an independent body to do design review for para 55/79 and our panel was typical in having 5 architects and a landscape designer. I put together the design and access statement in cahoots with the architects and at the actual meeting I did the introduction and the architect did the main pitch. We were very quickly given a unanimous thumbs up by the panel. Then, although para 55 (and now 79) say exceptional design OR innovation, our planners said they require innovation and recommended refusal. We didn't claim innovation because although we were using all sorts of new techniques (advanced SIPS, solar, electrical battery, thermal battery, etc. etc.) which have led to our energy positive certified Passivhaus, none of it was innovative in the sense of being used for the first time. Our local councillor was keen though and required it to go to the design committee, where planning duly recommended refusal. In my pitch I said "what's the point of using a professional DRP and then picking and choosing whether you like what they say" and, much to my surprise, the committee agreed by 11-1. So now we are living in it. The Design Review Panel now offer a more informal service, much like the pre-application advice process offered by Planning, so that a potential applicant can test out their proposal and receive feedback. We'd certainly have done that if it had been available when we were going through the process. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeeVanCleef Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 Thought I’d resurrect this thread as I have a vaguely related query and there is some good info here already! We currently have our eye on a woodland plot in the NE of Scotland. The woodland is commercial in nature having being planted in 1965. The surrounding area is similarly wooded, with houses occasionally dotted in the landscape. To my eye another house would be in keeping with the area. Has anyone gained planning permission on a similar plot? Is this a “no go”, or a “maybe” and very PA dependant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Temp Posted April 5 Share Posted April 5 @LeeVanCleef Find out if the local authority has a guide or a Local plan. Google it. Its likely to be on their website. Here is one example.. https://www.dumgal.gov.uk/media/22633/Housing-in-the-Countryside/pdf/Housing_in_the_Countryside_February_SG_LDP2_Adopted.pdf You also need to think about access to services like water and electricity. Can be prohibitivly expensive to run these to a remote site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now