The House that Sarah Beeny Built

[Ferdinand]

I'm taking a little look at the new Sarah Beeny mini-mansion in Zomerzet near (approximately) Bruton in (approximately) celeb-central, whilst locked down solo. There are some quite interesting little details.

 

I had a look at the first 3 episodes last night as background TV.

 

There's some obvious story generation happening - Sarah Beeny having kittens over planning process delays a mere 2 months after submitting PP is pretty transparent.

 

But can I ask a couple of questions on areas of self-build I do not know:

 

1 - There was a lot of stuff about NPPF Paragraph 79 (the "exceptional houses isolated in the countryside" one), also in the Officer Report. But NOT in Planning Decision Notice. I don't think I have seen a Decision Notice over 19 pages long previously. (Both Attached).

 

Does that mean that Paragraph 79 has been applied?

 

2  - The Environmental Assessment 

 

This is the environmental assessment (Full Doc Attached) wrt to the "Reference Building". Is this good?

 

 

 

3 - Good Piece over at Homebuildinng BTW. Though I do not think that they have all the planning detail correct.

https://www.homebuilding.co.uk/news/sarah-beenys-house

 

Ferdinand

 

 

decision-notice-document-9521597.pdf env-evauation-document-9019839.pdf Public reports pack 13112019 0900 Area East Committee.pdf

[jamieled]

I would say it's not overly impressive. We have a much greater difference between our TER and DER and that's without going to the lengths that many on here do.

 

It always grates on me a bit when houses like these are described as low carbon/low energy. Per m2 they may be better than a standard developer bought house, but in this case it looks about 5 times bigger. Total footprint needs considered as much as m2 values.

[DevilDamo]

@Ferdinand The first and third documents attached do not appear to relate. The first attachment is a Section 73 (Varying of Condition) application. The third attachment is the Committee Report of which Sarah’s application is referred to but not the actual S73 application. Or am I misunderstanding something?

[Ferdinand]

39 minutes ago, DevilDamo said:

@Ferdinand The first and third documents attached do not appear to relate. The first attachment is a Section 73 (Varying of Condition) application. The third attachment is the Committee Report of which Sarah’s application is referred to but not the actual S73 application. Or am I misunderstanding something?

 

I'll do a check after supper.

 

There were 2 planning apps involved.

 

Watch this space.

[Triassic]

I see that channel 4 got lots of stick for even airing the series about some celeb building a seven bed mansion when others are loosing jobs etc. The shell is finished but no second series looking at the inside fit out.

[daiking]

37 minutes ago, Triassic said:

I see that channel 4 got lots of stick for even airing the series about some celeb building a seven bed mansion when others are loosing jobs etc. The shell is finished but no second series looking at the inside fit out.

Come on, as shows go it’s not as stark raving bonkers as literally building a north east semi from scratch in the African Savannah/desert.

[Ferdinand]

2 hours ago, daiking said:

Come on, as shows go it’s not as stark raving bonkers as literally building a north east semi from scratch in the African Savannah/desert.

 

Agree with you there.

 

There's lots of story-for-TV, and normal feet-of-clay image-making ,and marital tensions etc. But it looks like a setup that has been years in the preparation, and a rapid swoop taking good advantage of lots of circumstances when it was found. They know exactly what they are doing, and there are not many opportunities like that around.

 

Of course, having just cashed in £3-4 million of capital gains helps a bit ?.

 

Getting away with planning for a private 6000sqft mansion in a secluded bit of a 200 acre estate in the countryside, and getting planning in around a year under the John Gummer clause in 2020 for considerably less than the £100k budget normally recommended? Not quite a blinder, but very very close.

 

(Interesting that there do not seem to be too many Para 79 homes in that area.)

 

And all within 5 miles of a direct London station, and George Osborne's private vineyard.

 

I'm mainly interested in how they did it.

 

My main criticism would probably be of the Council for being a little bit too keen - Celeb Tarts? I'm not yet convinced that it is outstanding.

 

F

 

[daiking]

5 minutes ago, Ferdinand said:

 

Agree with you there.

 

There's lots of story-for-TV, and normal feet-of-clay image-making ,and marital tensions etc. But it looks like a setup that has been years in the preparation, and a rapid swoop taking good advantage of lots of circumstances when it was found. They know exactly what they are doing, and there are not many opportunities like that around.

 

Of course, having just cashed in £3-4 million of (maybe entirely tax free) capital gains helps a bit ?.

 

Getting away with planning for a private 6000sqft mansion in a secluded bit of a 200 acre estate in the countryside, and getting planning in around a year under the John Gummer clause in 2020 for considerably less than the £100k budget normally recommended? Not quite a blinder, but very very close.

 

And all within 5 miles of a direct London station, and George Osborne's private vineyard.

 

I'm mainly interested in how they did it.

 

My main criticism would probably be of the Council for being a little bit too keen - slight Paragraph 79 and Celeb Tarts.

 

F

 

Beeny is a ‘property developer’. Of course the new plot/shell/house is always for sale at the right price.

[DevilDamo]

On 30/12/2020 at 22:39, Ferdinand said:

Watch this space.

*still waiting in anticipation*
 

?

[Ferdinand]

11 hours ago, DevilDamo said:

*still waiting in anticipation*
 

?

 

Been v busy - it's a bank holiday and I'm shielding.

Will look soon.

 

 

[Ferdinand]

17 hours ago, DevilDamo said:

*still waiting in anticipation*
 

?

OK. I'll try again.

 

The docs I attached were:

 

The first doc above is the Decision Notice for the Planning Application for the House (19/00133/FUL) -- for South Zomerzet Council.

The further Planning App to vary some bits (car port and and a new extension I think - not bad for a variation of condition!) is 20/00735/S37A.

The  third doc above is the full "briefing pack", which includes the Officer Report on  19/00133/FUL, and also Notice of Commencement etc.

 

I have here attached the full Environmental Report associated with the Planning Application 19/00133//FUL, which I excerpted above.

 

I think those are the relevant ones.

 

F

 

*sits down with Melba Toast and a Pot of Butter to await learned and well-informed replies, or forensic supplementary questions*

 

Update: 

*followed by kidney on toast and Madeira Sauce for lunch. still waiting ! *

 

 

env-evauation-document-9019839.pdf

[DevilDamo]

The first attachment you attached was the Decision Notice for the S73 application (Ref. 20/00735/S73A). The Decision Notice for the first application (Ref. 19/01133/FUL) is here...

 

https://www.southsomerset.gov.uk/civica/Resource/Civica/Handler.ashx/Doc/pagestream?cd=inline&pdf=true&docno=9232702

 

The only reason I mentioned it was in relation to your Paragraph 79 of the NPPF comment. Even though S73 applications are in their entirety full and replacement applications, in some instances, all or the majority of the conditions and informatives are only included on the original application. Having had a look at both approvals, they are more or less identical, which is what you’d expect for a VoC application.

 

Going back to the NPPF comment, this has been mentioned within the Officers’ Report for the original application along with the Committee Report (your third attachment), in particular Page 24. The reports state “there would be no unacceptable conflict with the aims and objectives of the NPPF in terms of the development of isolated new homes in the countryside...”. The Decision Notices then do make ‘some’ reference to that but only in the form of their standard condition responses “...and relevant guidance within the NPPF”.

 

So after all that and to summarise, yes... Paragraph 79 of the NPPF has been complied with ?

Edited January 2, 2021 by DevilDamo

[Ferdinand]

Thanks @DevilDamo. Appreciated.

 

Do you think that that indicates that Para 79 has become a little undemanding in recent years? Initially the famous "and" was replaced by "or" iirc, and there may have been other wordings since.

 

I am keen on having the exception as I think that the occasional example is excellent to see, but I don't really see this house as being "outstanding" - to me it is a neo-Georgian construction which is more 'good practice' rather than 'outstanding'. U-value of walls, for example, is 0.13.

 

I wonder if they would have got it without the Para 79 references.

 

F

[DevilDamo]

Like with all policies, they are open to interpretation and LPA’s use them to their advantage as and when it suits them. I don’t think the NPPF reference in this situation carried much (if any) weight in the overall determination of the application.

 

As you will be aware, LPA’s will always look to take a stricter view within the Green Belt, AGLV, AONB, etc...

[Ferdinand]

9 minutes ago, DevilDamo said:

Like with all policies, they are open to interpretation and LPA’s use them to their advantage as and when it suits them. I don’t think the NPPF reference in this situation carried much (if any) weight in the overall determination of the application.

 

As you will be aware, LPA’s will always look to take a stricter view within the Green Belt, AGLV, AONB, etc...

 

I think one of the things that SB did well is that there are no designations (ref in Officer Report), and no public footpaths either.

 

Meticulous.

[Ferdinand]

Piccies.

 

[Big Jimbo]

I prob just have bad taste......I think that looks shite.

[Gone West]

10 hours ago, Big Jimbo said:

I prob just have bad taste......I think that looks shite.

You're not the only one.

[Pocster]

11 hours ago, Big Jimbo said:

I prob just have bad taste......I think that looks shite.

(expletive deleted)ing amateurs !

[Onoff]

Is it meant to be all different colours? What an appalling mish-mash of "styles" though there's nothing stylish about it. Looks like they took the scaffolding down before it was rendered. 

[Ferdinand]

21 minutes ago, Onoff said:

Is it meant to be all different colours? What an appalling mish-mash of "styles" though there's nothing stylish about it. Looks like they took the scaffolding down before it was rendered. 

 

Not sure. I think it will end up white (or offwhite) render  and stone.

[ProDave]

The walls are a local sandstone.  But why is the upper stone work darker?  Has it not dried out from building yet?  Or is it prone to absorbing water and it's always going to look "wet" like that?

 

SWMBO said "what's the line of Sentry boxes at the right all about?"

[ZacP]

Just now, ProDave said:

 

SWMBO said "what's the line of Sentry boxes at the right all about?"

Is that the garage? Looks completely out of context in terms of exterior finish, position in relation to bathe house and position in relation to the view (think the main view is that way).
Also, what’s the random wooden clad box on the other side? Looks like a badly planned house that suddenly needed a bit extra that was slapped on last minute.

I’m glad they like it, but I think it’s clear that everyone has different ideas of what ‘tasteful’ is. I certainly wouldn’t have built anything like that!

[DevilDamo]

I think it’s setting really does spoilt it. Although I’m not massively against this style and design, it’s just cited in the wrong place. I’m sure once the landscaping has been completed along with any other elevational treatments, it will look better but not great. Completely agree with the bolt on timber clad extensions ?

 

I was trying to find examples of similar designs we were involved with at my previous company. Something ‘quite’ similar is attached but I suppose it does have a little more character.

[Ferdinand]

 

Having checked - I was wrong. The piccies above do seem to be the finished thing.

 

The extension on the RHS is a garage, and I expect that the stone does have to dry out.

 

It is built in ICF with the sandstone as a cladding.